Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87522 Case Number: LCR11415 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JAMES CONNOLLY MEMORIAL HOSP. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the re-employment of a shop assistant.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, accepts that there is some validity in the claimant's
view that she had been given a specific expectation of being
employed until age 66. In the circumstances the Court considers
that she should be paid a sum of #1,500 in full and final
settlement of her claim. This is in addition to her existing
entitlements as detailed to the Court.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87522 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11415
CC87801 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11415
PARTIES: JAMES CONNOLLY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the re-employment of a shop assistant.
Background:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by a "shop committee"
to run the hospital shop for patients and staff since 1967. On
the 1st April, 1979, the hospital shop was leased to a local
retailer who ran the shop for approximately a year. During this
time the claimant was employed by the retailer. On the 19th May,
1980, the Hospital Management took over the running of the shop
and the claimant became a direct employee of the hospital. In
1983, due to recurring financial losses, Management leased the
shop. A condition of the lease was that the claimant would
continue to work in the shop and that the leasee would recoup her
wages to the hospital (claimant's terms of employment submitted to
Court). She was retired by Management on the 28th May, 1987, on
her 65th birthday. The Union contested this decision and claimed
that she should be kept on until her 66th birthday. No progress
was made at local level discussions nor at a Labour Court
conciliation conference held on the 25th June, 1987, and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 31st August,
1987 the earliest date suitable to all parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The claimant's projected pension entitlement at 66
years is clearly defined in the document relating to
the review of the operation of the hospital shop
(details supplied to the Court).
(b) A House Agreement was concluded in 1978 covering among
other things, retirement. The relevant paragraph
reads as follows -
"Retirement age will be that which qualifies for
Social Welfare Pension. Employees (including those
who have already reached that age), will be given
six month's notice of retirement. In exceptional
circumstances employees may be permitted to have
their employment extended for a period not
exceeding twelve months".
In view of this the Union requests the Court to uphold
agreements and commitments entered into and recommend
in its favour.
Hospital's arguments:
4. (a) Management maintained a subsidy to the hospital shop
in order to retain the claimant in employment up to
her retirement at 65 years of age. To continue her in
employment beyond this would necessitate a
continuation of the subsidy which cannot be justified
in the light of the severe curtailment of services
that have resulted from the hospital's reduced
financial allocation for 1987.
(b) Management rejects any suggestion that the claimant
has been treated unfairly by being obliged to retire
at 65. The majority of the Board's employees are
compulsorily retired at 65 years of age in common with
other employments generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, accepts that there is some validity in the claimant's
view that she had been given a specific expectation of being
employed until age 66. In the circumstances the Court considers
that she should be paid a sum of #1,500 in full and final
settlement of her claim. This is in addition to her existing
entitlements as detailed to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman