Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8885 Case Number: LCR11781 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. PATRICKS HOSPITAL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of six workers, for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. It does
recommend that the parties commence negotiations without further
delay on the implementation of the alternative arrangements
proposed by the employer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8885 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11781
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ST. PATRICKS HOSPITAL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of six workers, for compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The six workers concerned are four full-time and two part-time
canteen assistants at the hospital. They work an 80 hour
fortnight, ten days in fourteen. An allowance of £3.43 per day is
paid for Saturdays while an allowance of £3.43 per hour is paid
for Sundays, in addition to normal rates. The service of the
workers concerned ranges from three years to twenty. Prior to
February, 1988, the workers were required to work one weekend in
two. At that time it was decided to close the canteen at
weekends. Discussions took place at local level before the change
regarding the loss of earnings to be incurred. No agreement being
reached, the matter was referred on 19th August, 1987 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference held on 16th September, 1987, management put forward
the following proposal:
(a) Two workers to work alternative weekends on the same
hours as previously at "Gullivers" Restaurant, at the
Hospital.
(b) The remaining workers to work alternative week-ends in
the wards from 8 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. (They previously
worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.).
This offer was not acceptable to the Union and the matter was
referred, on 2nd February, 1988, to a full hearing of the Labour
Court. The hearing took place on 14th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. For the entirety of their service with the Hospital
(details supplied to the Court) the workers concerned have
been expected by management to work week-ends and the earings
accrued from this work have become a central portion of their
normal weekly wage. The annual loss is estimated at £1,064.53
for part-time staff and £1,420.53 for full-time staff (details
supplied). The Union is seeking compensation of three times
the annual loss.
2. The loss incurred will have a severe effect on the living
standards of the workers concerned. Many of these workers are
the only income earners in their homes. They have been
deprived of a very considerable amount of potential income.
3. The current rates of pay are such that these workers may
be classified as lower paid workers.
4. The claim is not out of line with settlements elsewhere in
the health service in such cases.
5. The alternative proposal made by management is
unacceptable to the workers as it still represents a
considerable disimprovement in the workers' conditions. Under
the proposed system, a single worker would be expected to take
on work previously carried out by a number of workers.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital has been affected by the financial cut-backs
which have been implemented in the health service and are
likely to continue. This has resulted in ward closure, V.H.I.
reducing the length of patients' stay, a reduction in patient
numbers, non replacement of staff and general cut-backs such
as the closure of the staff canteen at weekends.
2. To keep the canteen open at weekends is not justified
given that there are facilities at Gulliver's restaurant.
3. The workers concerned have been offered an alternative
means of retaining their existing level of income. This has
been rejected and any loss incurred must therefore be the
workers' own responsibility.
4. The Labour Court, on a number of occasions, has rejected
claims for compensation where a loss arose from a cost-cutting
exercise. Management considers that no compensation is
warranted in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. It does
recommend that the parties commence negotiations without further
delay on the implementation of the alternative arrangements
proposed by the employer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___7th___April,__1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.