Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87514 Case Number: LCR11627 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 750 attendants, in all hospitals in the region, for a footwear allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the provision of footwear to the claimant
grade is not in operation throughout the Health Boards. The
payment of such an allowance to certain persons within the
Mid-Western Health Board arose for particular reasons and
continued to be paid despite the provisions of the 1981 Agreement.
6. In the present financial circumstances of the Health Board the
Court considers it would not be justified in recommending
concession of the claim and accordingly rejects the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87514 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11627
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 approximately 750 attendants,
in all hospitals in the region, for a footwear allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union initially lodged a claim on 13th November, 1984, for
the provision of footwear for the female attendant grade. On 26th
April, 1985, the Union claimed a shoe allowance for females in the
porter/attendant grade, arguing that the Board was discriminating
by granting a shoe allowance to porters and refusing the same to
female attendants. The Board indicated that traditionally the
porter grade received a shoe allowance and that any female
appointed to that grade would also receive the allowance. The
Board also pointed out that the cost of extending the allowance to
all attendant staff would be prohibitive. On 14th July, 1986, the
Union indicated that its claim was on behalf of all workers
employed in the porter/attendant grade. On 26th November, 1986,
the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. At a conciliation conference held on 19th May, 1987, (the
earliest date suitable to the parties), the Union pointed out that
attendants are frequently involved with work in kitchens,
basements and other areas where their shoes are likely to be
soiled or wet and that for historical reasons some attendants
receive a footwear allowance. The College rejected the claim and
on 25th June, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
in Limerick on 9th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The attendants have a high level of wear and tear on
their shoes as a result of the amount of constant walking
they must do, splashes and spillages that occur during the
normal course of their duties and having, on occasions, to
walk in wet areas.
2. The fact that staff have been instructed to wear shoes
that will protect them from spillage, dangerous substances
and sharp implements with which they may come in contact,
indicate that the Board should recognise the necessity of an
allowance.
3. Until recent years the Board did not as a rule employ men
as porter/attendants in its hospitals in the Limerick/Clare
region. There were, however, a few exceptions to this eg.
St. Ita's Hospital in Newcastle West. In the case of these
staff a shoe allowance has been given, on the same lines as
porters, up to the period following the Union's expressed
intention to pursue the matter in relation to female
attendants. Male attendants in Tipperary North have also
been given a shoe allowance.
4. The Union contends that the Board has attempted to
undermine the Union's case by withdrawing agreed shoe and
clothing allowances from porters and male attendants
previously issued with them, on the basis that for financial
reasons it could no longer continue to honour the agreement.
This has not happened to any other staff who previously
received clothing and footwear allowances.
5. The Union believes that the long established and agreed
issue of clothing and shoe allowances should be restored to
those to whom it has applied and that it be extended to the
remaining employees in the same grade regardless of their
sex.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Originally the provision of shoes applied exclusively to
the grade of porter, but over a period of time it was
extended in certain hospitals to a number of staff whose
duties included what could traditionally be regarded as
portering duties.
2. 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 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 that the shoe allowance would be
continued in view of the small number of staff receiving the
allowance. It was not envisaged that this concession could
be extended to other staff, in any circumstances. Shoes are
not issued to non-nursing staff in other Health Boards.
3. The cost of conceding this claim is prohibitive. Based
on current numbers employed in the non-nursing area it would
cost approximately #17.300 per annum. In view of the Board's
current financial difficulties, (details provided to the
Court), this could not be sustained.
4. The Government has directed Health Boards to take
measures to ensure than unapproved expenditure is not
incurred and that overall pay costs are reduced by a
combination of non-filling of vacancies and a reduction in
premium payments, such as shoe allowances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the provision of footwear to the claimant
grade is not in operation throughout the Health Boards. The
payment of such an allowance to certain persons within the
Mid-Western Health Board arose for particular reasons and
continued to be paid despite the provisions of the 1981 Agreement.
6. In the present financial circumstances of the Health Board the
Court considers it would not be justified in recommending
concession of the claim and accordingly rejects the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
7th January, 1988
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman