Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88333 Case Number: LCR11937 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one worker, for application of the maintenance craftsman rate.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and noting the background as to how the rate applicable to
painter/porter in the Hospital evolved, does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88333 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11937
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker, for application of the
maintenance craftsman rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Hospital as a painter/porter in
1974. Up to 1983 there were two painter/porters employed. At
that time the other painter/porter retired and was replaced by a
normal porter. On 9th April, 1987, the Union sought application
of the maintenance craftsmans rate to this worker on the basis of
extra work since the second painter/porter left and the contention
that most of his time is now being spent on painting duties. The
current weekly basic rates are:-
maintenance craftsman £196.15
painter/porter £165.35
The painter/porter's rate is made up of the maximum point of
the porter's scale (£157.43) plus a painting allowance
(£7.92).
3. In 1976, the Labour Court considered a claim concerning the
remuneration of the two painter/porters and recommended:-
" that the two men concerned be paid the appropriate
maintenance craftsman's rate for each day or part of a
day during which they are engaged on maintenance painting
work. "
A disagreement subsequently arose between management and the
Union. The Union contended that the workers were entitled to the
same rate as other craftsmen employed by Dublin Voluntary
Hospitals while management stated that the national craftsmen's
rate should apply. The Court upheld management's position. In
February, 1977 management indicated its willingness to apply the
national craft rate with retrospection to August, national
agreements to be applied as they fell due. This was accepted by
the Union. Subsequent local negotiations resulted in an agreement
whereby the painter/porters received a painting allowance in
addition to the porter's rate (currently £157.43 plus £7.92).
4. The current claim was referred, on 10th July, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 17th September, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. In May, 1988 the parties agreed to refer the matter to a
full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 30th
May, 1988. The Court subsequently requested from the hospital,
and received, further details regarding the background to the
current rate of pay of the claimant.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. An Agreement was reached in 1977 to pay the national
craftsman's rate to this worker. However, his rate has fallen
behind the national craftsman's rate which is £196.15 as
compared to his rate of £165.35 per week.
2. Up until 1983, there were two painters/porters employed.
Currently, the claimant is the only painter employed and is
fully occupied on painting and related duties. In addition to
painting, he is responsible for measuring and the purchase of
materials. He has no helper while painting.
3. The claimant has done a number of difficult redecorating
jobs in the Hospital e.g. painting over tiles, wall papering
over tiles, stripping wall paper and paint and staining and
varnishing work.
4. In 1977, management cited the worker's conditions of
employment as a reason for paying the national craftsman's
rate rather than the maintenance craftsman's rate for Dublin
Voluntary Hospitals. Management wanted portering duties to be
included in his conditions of employment. The fact that he
facilitates the Hospital by doing portering work some weekends
does not justify the current position. The Union is seeking
application of the maintenance craftsman's rate (now identical
to the National craftsman's rate) with appropriate
retrospection.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was employed as a painter/porter. His duties
have not changed since his appointment.
2. The position of painter/porter was established some years
ago with the agreement of the Union. A special payment was
introduced for this position. This still applies and has been
increased over the years in accordance with the terms of the
wage round agreements.
3. If the claim were to be conceded this would mean that the
worker would not be able to work in the capacity of a porter
(as he would be classified as a craftsman). This would result
in the loss of approximately £60 per week on portering
overtime duties to him. From the Hospital's point of view
this would restrict flexibility and cause difficult problems
with the porters' roster, which defeats the purpose of the
establishment of the painter/porter post.
4. The Hospital is experiencing a difficult financial period.
There was a carry-over in 1988 of a deficit of £327,000 from
previous years. This means that the Hospital is over its
overdraft limit. The allocation for 1988 is £700,000 (10%
less than the 1987 level). No further assistance can be
expected from the Government or the banks.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and noting the background as to how the rate applicable to
painter/porter in the Hospital evolved, does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
8th July, 1988.
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.