Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88343 Case Number: LCR11929 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, DROGHEDA - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 1 cleaner and 2 domestic attendants for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that the claimants' conditions of employment have
been substantially altered. The Court has also noted the
financial constraints on the Hospital at the present time.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that
each of the claimants be paid an amount equivalent to six months
of the losses incurred.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88343 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11929
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, DROGHEDA
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 1 cleaner and 2 domestic
attendants for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned have been employed in the Hospital for 6
years in 2 cases and 12 years in the 3rd case. During this period
they were all employed on permanent night duty with a 25% premium.
In April/May, 1987, the Hospital removed the workers concerned
from night shift and placed the cleaner on standard shift with a
12½% premium and the 2 attendants were placed on day duty with a
total loss of premium. The Union claims that the workers
concerned have suffered a substantial drop in income and should be
compensated on a formula of 6 times the weekly loss for each year
on shift. The Hospital rejected the Union's claim and on 21st
January, 1988, the issue was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. As no agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 3rd May, 1988, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on 8th June, 1988, in Drogheda.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 2 domestic attendants who work on a week on/week off
basis, were arbitrarily and without Union agreement taken off
night duty and transferred to day duty without compensation.
This has caused tremendous hardship both in monetary and
change of lifestyle terms. The worker with 12 years service
suffers a weekly loss of £79.81 whilst the other worker with 6
years service loses £77.15 per week. (Full details provided
to the Court). The Union is claiming £5,746.32 and £2,777.40
compensation respectively. (Based on weekly loss x 6 x years
on shift).
2. The cleaner concerned has been on permanent night duty for
6 years, a situation on which he based his lifestyle, mortgage
repayments etc.... He never worked day or shift work without
prior notice. He was moved off night work on 13th April,
1987. After talks with the Hospital he was placed on
permanent evening roster with a mitigated loss of £17.95 per
week. The Hospital's reason for moving him off night work was
that builders were demolishing part of the building to build a
new maternity wing. Representations by the Union have failed
to have him placed back on night duty or compensate him for
his loss. The Union is claiming £646.20 in compensation
(£17.95 x 6 x 6).
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the financial cutbacks in the Health
Services, the Hospital has found it necessary and was indeed
instructed to reduce its payroll costs. The Hospital's
allocation from the Department of Health in 1987, was 6% less
than that required to run the Hospital. This resulted in the
closure of some wards with a temporary reduction in bed
numbers. Many other grades in the Hospital have suffered as a
result of the cutbacks (details provided to the Court).
2. Because of considerable reduction of the workload in the
Maternity Section where the 2 attendants concerned worked, it
was no longer necessary to employ night staff. The Maternity
Section had 2 attendants on night duty whilst the General
Hospital had none, even though it has 4 times the number of
patients. Similarly in the case of the cleaner the night
cleaning work was halved due to construction work in the
Hospital. In view of this and in relation to the cutbacks the
Hospital could not justify paying these premiums.
3. Additional funding to cover compensation will not be
forthcoming from the Department of Health as a result it would
have to be funded by further staff cuts, especially as staff
costs represents 78% of non-capital allocation.
4. It has not been the practice throughout the Dublin
Voluntary Hospitals to pay compensation on foot of cost
cutting measures introduced as a result of financial
difficulties. The Labour Court has in the past recognised the
particular problems in the Health Sector by rejecting claims
for compensation. Concession of the claim would have
repercussive effects both on other grades in the Hospital and
on other Voluntary Hospitals.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that the claimants' conditions of employment have
been substantially altered. The Court has also noted the
financial constraints on the Hospital at the present time.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that
each of the claimants be paid an amount equivalent to six months
of the losses incurred.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
4th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.