Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8822 Case Number: LCR11780 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MATER HOSPITAL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 7 workers for:- (a) Compensation for loss of earnings resulting from a reduction in regular rostered overtime for 3 kitchen porters and 4 chefs; and (b) the inclusion of regular rostered overtime in holiday pay for 4 chefs.
Recommendation:
CLAIM A: Compensation for loss of earnings resulting from a
reduction in regular rostered overtime.
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and accepts the Hospital's contention that the loss of earnings of
the workers concerned is directly attributable to the cutbacks
demanded as a result of the financial conditions under which the
Hospital is presently operating and which has resulted in losses
for many other categories of staff. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
CLAIM B: Inclusion of regular rostered overtime in holiday
payments.
8. The Court is of the view that insofar as such payments are
made to other groups of staff the chefs concerned have a
sustainable case and therefore recommends concession of this
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8822 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11780
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MATER HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 7 workers for:-
(a) Compensation for loss of earnings resulting from a
reduction in regular rostered overtime for 3 kitchen porters
and 4 chefs; and
(b) the inclusion of regular rostered overtime in holiday pay
for 4 chefs.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the cut-backs to the Hospital's budget by the
Department of Health, a range of cost cutting measures were
introduced by the Hospital. These measures included a reduction
in the overtime worked by staff. The Union claims that the 7
workers concerned have suffered a higher level of losses due to
the cut-backs than other categories of workers. The Union also
argues that other casual overtime has also been reduced therefore
the possibility of minimising the loss is not there. The Union
also claims that holiday pay for the 4 chefs should include
regular rostered overtime. The Hospital maintained that
compensation would be unjustified, as all groups suffered without
the payment of compensation. Local level discussions failed to
resolve the dispute and on 21st October, 1987, it was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. As agreement could
not be reached at a conciliation conference held on 6th January,
1988, the matter was referred on 8th January, 1988, to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 25th February, 1988.
CLAIM A
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Chefs are rostered to work 5 days spread over 6 days equal
to Monday to Sunday with 1 day off each week plus every second
Sunday. The other Sunday is covered by overtime. Each chef's
loss of rostered overtime is based as follows:-
Sunday loss
Each chef covering every second Sunday on an overtime basis
should be paid 8 hours at double time for Sunday working as
per agreement and as a condition of employment. Each chef is
now only being paid 7 hours at double time. A loss of 4 hours
per month.
Weekday loss
Each chef had previously worked 1 day per fortnight regular
rostered overtime of 8 hours at time and a half. They are now
no longer required to work this duty as it is being covered by
the supervisor.
2. Kitchen porters annual loss is as follows:-
Sunday loss
One Sunday of 8 hours at double time in the 1st month.
Two Sundays of 8 hours at double time in the 2nd month.
Weekday loss
Three Saturdays of 8 hours at time and a half in the
1st month.
Two Saturdays of 8 hours at time and a half in the 2nd month.
3. The loss of regular rostered overtime is a severe
financial burden on the workers concerned. In some cases
workers mortgages and standard of living were based on their
total income, which included regular rostered overtime. As a
result an unfair loss has been imposed on these workers in
comparison to the reduction in income of other Hospital
workers. The Union is of the view that in this instance
compensation is warranted.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It would be imprudent to pay compensation in this case,
when it has not been paid to other groups within the Hospital.
The repercussive effects would be considerable. The payment
of compensation would require payroll savings to fund the
amount involved.
2. The Hospital maintains that the actual losses incurred by
the workers concerned are less than the amounts cited by the
Union. In the case of kitchen porters the actual loss
incurred amounts to #600-#700 per annum. The chefs will also
be in a position to earn some additional overtime when a new
menu arrangement is introduced. This will reduce the losses
involved.
3. It has not been the practice throughout the Dublin
Voluntary Hospitals to pay compensation on foot of cost
cutting measures introduced as a direct result of the
financial difficulties in 1987. Concession by the Hospital of
this claim would have significant implication's throughout
both the Voluntary Hospitals and the Health Service.
CLAIM B
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As part of their conditions of employment the chefs are
obliged to cover overtime and were advised of this when they
commenced employment with the Hospital. The 4 chefs are the
only workers in the Kitchen Department who are not paid
rostered overtime in their holiday pay.
2. The Labour Court has in the past conceded a number of
similar claims for the inclusion of rostered overtime in
holiday pay.
HOSPITAL's ARGUMENTS:
6. The Hospital has rejected this claim on cost grounds and feels
that concession of same is inconsistent with attempts to introduce
cost saving measures throughout the Hospital.