Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88784 Case Number: LCR12157 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 105 porters and attendants for the reinstatement of protective clothing and footwear allowances.
Recommendation:
5. While acknowledging the extremely difficult financial
circumstances in which the Board must operate, the Court does not
consider it good industrial relations practice that it should have
amended a condition of the porters employment without prior notice
and consultation and the use of proper procedures.
For this reason the Court recommends the restoration of the
appropriate issue or allowance in respect of 1987 and 1988.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88784 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12157
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 105 porters and attendants for
the reinstatement of protective clothing and footwear allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Mid-Western Health
Board in hospitals in various locations. The Board has ceased the
standard issue of free protective clothing footwear or allowances
for same since 1986. At meetings held at local level in
August/September, 1987 the Board informed the Unions that it could
no longer afford to continue to issue uniforms on an annual basis
to staff in the porter grade. It would however continue to supply
white coats which it considered to be adequate protective
clothing. The Union, on behalf of the workers objected to this
development and claims that it is a unilateral breach both of long
standing custom and practice and also its formal agreement with
the Board. The Board does not deny this, but contends that it
cannot continue the practice because of its severe financial
difficulties. The Union is claiming that the protective clothing
and footwear allowances should be restored and that compensation
be paid for the two years where it was withdrawn. Agreement could
not be reached at local level, and in November, 1987, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. It
was again the subject of local discussions until April, 1988. On
13th April, 1988, and 23rd June, 1988 conciliation conferences
were held, but the matter was not resolved by the parties. On
18th October, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
in Limerick on 23rd November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board in unilaterally ceasing to provide what was
previously agreed is breaking both a long standing agreement
of custom and practice and also the formal agreement between
the Board and the Union. If the Board is allowed to break an
agreement in this way there can be little respect for
agreements between the two sides from the Union's viewpoint in
the future.
2. The employees here concerned are the lowest paid grade in
the Board, and the withdrawal of the uniforms/allowances
amounts to a very real financial loss to them.
3. The categories concerned have already endured drastic
reductions in earnings due to loss of overtime etc. and are
already at rock bottom.
4. The need for clothing allocation for these members is just
as pressing as for Ambulance Drivers, Craftsmen, General
Operatives etc. The other categories continue to receive
their issue.
5. If the Court endorses this action of the Board
retrospectively then the Union's members will cease to have
any faith in or commitment to established procedures and
agreements. For all of the reasons outlined, the Union asks
the Court to uphold its claim.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1981 a rationalised agreement on pay rates for
non-nursing staff in health boards was concluded which
standardised pay rates on a national basis. The agreement
stated that the revised pay rates subsumed all allowances
other than travelling and subsistence allowances and dirty
money paid in exceptional circumstances. In the Mid-Western
Health Board it was decided to continue to pay these clothing
and shoe allowances because at that time it could afford to do
so.
2. The Mid-Western Health Board was the only Board providing
such allowances. In other Board areas where a uniform is
provided the staff are required to repay the cost of the
uniform by means of a weekly deduction from salary. The Board
offered this facility to its staff during negotiations on the
issue, but it was rejected.
3. The supply of a uniform is not a condition of employment
of any porter in the Board. The Board does not require any
porter to wear a particular uniform and does not consider it
has any obligation to supply one. The Board supplies a white
coat at no cost to the employee and launders it free of
charge. The Board considers the white coat to be the most
appropriate clothing from an operational and hygienic point of
view and to be suitable protective clothing. In many
instances where the Board provided these uniforms in the past,
the porter wore a white coat supplied by the Board over the
uniform. The Board considers this white coat to be the
appropriate easily recognisable apparel for the hospital
porter staff.
4. In exceptional circumstances where accidents have taken
place to employees clothing or shoes, the Board has in the
past replaced them and will continue to deal with each case on
its merits.
5. The cost of conceding this claim is prohibitive in view of
the Board's critical financial difficulties : A shortfall of
#3.5 million in 1988 on top of accumulated overruns of #4
million in 1986 and #1.2 million in 1987 together with a
current bank overdraft of #3.2 million. The cost of conceding
this claim on an annual basis amounts to approximately
#14,000. In order to comply with Government directives on
staffing and to contain expenditure as far as possible within
approved limits, the Board has had to reduce the workforce by
over 530 in the last 6 years and also introduce a ban on
overtime and the employment of substitutes except in the most
exceptional circumstances. In the last two years the Board
closed a total of six institutions losing 180 beds and 95
staff. Concession of the claim will lead to further cutbacks
in service with a further possible reduction in employment
numbers.
6. In the letter of allocation for Non-Capital Health
Expenditure 1988, the Government directed Health Boards to
take measures to ensure that unapproved expenditure was not
incurred and that overall pay costs were to be reduced by a
combination of non-filling of vacancies and a reduction in
premium payments. It also stated that the allocation made no
provision for pay increase arising from the plan for national
recovery. In the circumstances the Board requests the Court
to reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. While acknowledging the extremely difficult financial
circumstances in which the Board must operate, the Court does not
consider it good industrial relations practice that it should have
amended a condition of the porters employment without prior notice
and consultation and the use of proper procedures.
For this reason the Court recommends the restoration of the
appropriate issue or allowance in respect of 1987 and 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
9th December, 1988. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.