Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8814 Case Number: LCR11912 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
(A) Compensation for loss of earnings due to roster changes for operative in the boilerhouse at Croom Hospital. (B) Compensation for loss of earnings for four attendants at Limerick Regional Maternity Hospital due to transfer from night work to day work.
Recommendation:
9. Considering all the circumstances pertaining in the Hospital
Services at this time, the Court does not find grounds to concede
these claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8814 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11912
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (A) Compensation for loss of earnings due to roster changes
for operative in the boilerhouse at Croom Hospital.
(B) Compensation for loss of earnings for four attendants at
Limerick Regional Maternity Hospital due to transfer from
night work to day work.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Following the failure of local level discussions the Union
referred the above mentioned claims to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 8th October, 1987. No progress was made
at a conciliation conference held on the 25th November, and on the
7th January, 1988, the matters were referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Limerick on the 24th May, 1988 (earliest suitable date).
Claim (a) compensation for loss of earnings resulting from
changes in roster for operative in the boilerhouse
of Croom Hospital.
BACKGROUND:
3. Up to mid-August, 1987, the boilerhouse at the Regional
Orthopaedic Hospital in Croom was staffed by three operatives with
boiler attendant duties involving two shifts each week (6 a.m. - 2
p.m. and 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.) seven days each week. The men
qualified for the payment of shift allowance (1/6th of basic pay)
plus Saturday and Sunday premium payments. Their presence in the
boilerhouse over the full seven days spread was required to ensure
an adequate hot water supply for the entire hospital and steam for
cooking operations in the kitchen area. During the summer of
1987, the Board's Technical Services staff twinned two automatic
gas fired boilers by means of a new calorifier. This ensured an
adequate supply of hot water throughout the hospital. Patient
menus were also changed at the weekend period so that steam was
not needed for cooking operations at that time. Consequently it
was no longer necessary to staff the boilerhouse before 6 a.m. and
after 5 p.m. The need for boilerhouse staff at the weekend was
also abolished. In addition, the staffing levels in the
boilerhouse were reduced with two men being redeployed to work on
the grounds and a revised roster being introduced for the
remaining worker (the claimant) of working 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday to Friday. The Union estimated that his earnings would be
cut by up to #2,500 per year and lodged a claim for twice the
yearly loss. This was rejected by the Board.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant has worked in the boilerhouse at Croom
Hospital for 16 years. The week-end and overtime working
which he did was compulsory and permanent and there was no
element of choice on his part as to when or whether it would
be done.
2. His annual gross pay is less than #8,000 which puts him
amongst the lower paid groups in the Labour force and he has
now lost up to #2,500 of this (approximately 25%) due to the
change in roster. It is worth noting that average industrial
earnings as of March, 1987, is #11,610 per annum.
3. Despite the drastic cut-back in earnings, the claimant has
co-operated fully with the introduction of the new roster and
this should be taken into account. In addition, the Court has
recognised other similar cases, including some within the
Mid-Western Health Board in the past (details supplied to the
Court).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The claim cannot be sustained in view of the Board's
current critical financial difficulties: a shortfall of #3.5m
in 1988 on top of accumulated overruns of #4m in 1986 and
#1.2m in 1987 together with a current overdraft of #3.2m. The
estimated shortfall for the Regional Orthopaedic Hospital in
Croom at the time the change in the boilerhouse roster was
made was #157,000 in the pay side and #139,000 in the non-pay
side. Every area of expenditure had to be critically analysed
and any unnecessary waste abolished.
2. 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 six years and to also introduce a ban on overtime
and the employment of substitutes except in the most
exceptional circumstances. In the last two years, the Board
has closed a total of six institutions losing 180 beds and 95
staff (details supplied to the Court). The alternative to not
making economy measures like those undertaken in the
boilerhouse area would have meant further job losses.
3. The Court has rejected similar claims for loss of earnings
in the past (details supplied). In making these
recommendations, the Court took into account the hard pressed
financial difficulties under which the organisations operated.
4. The Board is doing everything in its power to protect
permanent employment levels. It considers that priority in
the application of its limited resources must be given to this
task rather than paying compensation to those who have lost
premium earnings.
5. The Board, while accepting that there has been a loss in
earnings, also wish to point out that the worker now enjoys
the benefit of a much more socialably acceptable roster,
working a straight week with every week-end off.
6. Concession of this claim will lead to repercussive claims
from the other two men redeployed from the boilerhouse area to
the grounds. It will also lead to repercussive claims from
other staff whose premium earnings will no doubt be affected
by economy measures which the Board has to implement in order
to survive.
Claim (b) - compensation for loss of earnings in respect of
four attendants transferred from night to day work
at Limerick Regional Maternity Hospital.
BACKGROUND:
6. The four attendants at the Regional Maternity Hospital were
transferred from night work to day work to replace temporary
attendants who were let go. These four consequently lost their
night duty allowance and their Sunday premium which was paid at
T+2. The Union lodged a claim seeking compensation at twice the
annual loss. This too was rejected by the Board.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The original group of attendants (six in all) worked one
week on, one week off, on 12 hour shifts, three per shift.
While this was in many ways an anti-social shift, the women
concerned organised their home lives around it. The basic
rate of pay for this grade is the lowest scale in the service
and because the roster was a permanent and unchanging one over
the years, there was no expectation whatever on the claimants'
part that it was liable to alter.
2. Four of the six attendants have been transferred to day
work so that instead of having three attendants on night duty
there is now only one per night. This has meant considerable
savings for the Board in that it is paying less in terms of
night allowance and week-end working.
3. The individuals concerned, with the exception of one,
stand to lose up to #2,000 per annum on a salary of less than
#10,000. One of the four is now back on nights but has lost
approximately 1/5th of her expected earnings since last June
and should be compensated accordingly.
4. The Court has recommended compensation in similar cases in
the past (details supplied).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Board does not employ the grade of night attendant.
All attendants are obliged to work either day or night duty as
required.
2. When implementing the change in the night duty cover, the
Board offered to rotate the six attendants through night duty
roster thereby reducing any loss that would have occurred.
The Union rejected this offer and insisted on two particular
people remaining on night duty.
3. The Board was agreeable to the staff who transferred to
days covering any annual leave or sick leave of the two staff
who remained on nights. Since the introduction of the revised
night duty cover, one of these two workers has been on
continuous sick leave and has in fact recently resigned. At
the Union's request, one of the claimants was put back on
continuous night duty to replace her. There is therefore no
potential loss of earnings for this worker.
4. Subsequently, the Government's proposals relating to
Voluntary Redundancy/Early Retirement were published and the
second of the workers who remained on night duty expressed an
interest in the terms and subsequently recently resigned from
her post. The Board agreed to her being replaced on night
duty by another of the claimants so therefore her potential
loss of earnings has also been abolished. Another of the
claimants has also taken the terms of the scheme and resigned
at the end of May. Again a potential loss of earnings for her
does not arise.
5. If one examines the actual earnings of the remaining
claimant in the six months immediately prior to the change in
rostering arrangements and compares it to her actual earnings
in the last six months, it is obvious that no loss arose:
1/1/87 - 30/6/87 = #5,396.12
14/11/87 - 13/5/88 = #5,417.86.
6. The financial arguments used in Claim A can be equally
used here. At the time the change was made in early June,
1987, the forecasted shortfall in the Regional Maternity
Hospital was #258,000 on the pay side and #183,000 on the
non-pay side. Like the Regional Orthopaedic Hospital in
Croom, a number of staff had been disemployed at the Regional
Maternity also (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Considering all the circumstances pertaining in the Hospital
Services at this time, the Court does not find grounds to concede
these claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________
20th June, 1988
D.H./J.C. Deputy Chairman