Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8866 Case Number: AD889 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the Union, against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation (S.T. 12/87) concerning a change of duties in the case of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8866 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD988
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union, against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation (S.T. 12/87) concerning a change of duties in the
case of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1977, the worker commenced employment with the Board
as an attendant. Following a competition and interview she was
appointed to a position as laboratory attendant at the General
Hospital, Tullamore, in 1981. In April, 1982, she was regraded to
group 4 attendant retrospective to 27th August, 1981. Her hours
of work from her commencement in the laboratory were 9 a.m. to 6
p.m., Monday to Friday. On 29th December, 1987 she was informed
by the Domestic Supervisor that it had been decided to alter her
hours of work to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and that from 8 a.m. to 9.30
a.m. she would be required to work in the Out-Patients Department.
The change was to take effect from Monday, 11th January, 1988.
The worker was not prepared to accept this change. No agreement
could be reached at local level and the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner who held an investigation on 15th January,
1988. On 18th January, 1988 the Rights Commissioner, in
Recommendation S.T. 12/87 recommended as follows:
"I have examined the contract of employment freely entered
into by the claimant under her signature dated 23rd June,
1977. Paragraph 5 states; "Your normal working week will
average not more than 40 hours and starting times and duty
days are as notified to you by the head of your
Section/Department". This document was countersigned for the
Board by (name). On this basis and having regard to the fact
that Laboratory Attendants are but a part of the general
Attendant Grade the Board is perfectly justified in varying
her hours of work and work content at its absolute
discretion. Such changes from time to time should be
effected in accordance with good Industrial Relations
practice. In this case I find the Boards actions in accord
with this principle. Accordingly, I recommend that the
claimant accepts her new duties immediately. Discussions
could then take place between the parties on a revised job
specification which will reflect developments in her work
assignments since she commenced on secondment in 1981 and her
new cleaning duties in the Out Patients' Department."
The Union, on behalf of the worker appealed this recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The worker, in the meantime agreed to work a revised
roster, under protest. The Court heard the appeal on 17th
February, 1988, in Tullamore.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union claimant has been unfairly pressurised to accept
a transfer to duties other than those applicable to her job in
the laboratory to which she was appointed in a permanent
capacity. She has carried out her various duties to the
satisfaction of the laboratory manager at all times (details
of the worker's duties were supplied to the Court). In
carrying out this work she has to be familiar with the hazards
of chemicals and the risk of infection from specimens.
2. There is a high degree of trust and confidentiality
attached to this post. Only 30% of the work could be carried
out by an attendant without special training. The claimant
received basic training from the senior laboratory technician
on all aspects of her work.
3. No other personnel in the Health Boards have been moved
out of the laboratory area to do other work. The claimant has
been a member of the Union for eleven years and is currently
the chief shop steward in the hospital and a member of the
central area branch committee. As she is the only member of
the Union in the hospital who has been singled out for
transfer to other duties not applicable to her appointed post,
many Union members believe that she is being victimised for
her trade union activities.
4. The Union believes that the claimant has the
qualifications, experience and track record in her appointed
post to warrant her retention in that post in a full time
capacity and that the Board is acting unfairly in attempting
to force her into a working arrangement to which she has never
been properly appointed. The Union contests the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board reserves the right to deploy/assign staff as it
considers appropriate to meet service needs. The duties which
the claimant has been asked to undertake are within her area
of competence. They are not dissimilar to the duties which
she is presently carrying out in the laboratory and are in
line with duties assigned to the grade of attendant within the
hospital and throughout the Health Board area.
4. 2. Whilst the claimant is assigned to the laboratory area,
the post continues to form part of the Matron's
catering/housekeeping staff allocation for these hospital
services. Staff in the same grade have been re-rostered to
meet service needs throughout the hospital. The situation in
relation to the claimant is not unique in that attendants,
irrespective of their grouping within the grading structure,
are expected to perform duties, as and when required, across
the wide spectrum of work appropriate to the attendant grade.
3. Arising from the reduction in the Board's financial
allocation for 1988, a reduction of non capital expenditure of
#1.5m is required. It was in this context that the Matron of
Tullamore General Hospital found it necessary to examine
existing rostering arrangements and to redeploy the claimant
for part of the working day.
4. The Board considers that it has acted reasonably and in
accordance with good procedures. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation endorses the Board's handling of the case.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
10th March, 1988. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.