Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8830 Case Number: LCR11758 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of approximately 32 ambulance personnel based in Loughlinstown Hospital, following the elimination of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the fact that the changes in working
arrangements which brought about the loss of earnings are directly
as a result of the stringent financial restrictions under which
the Board is now operating the Court does not recommend concession
of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8830 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11758
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of
approximately 32 ambulance personnel based in Loughlinstown
Hospital, following the elimination of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1987 the Board met with the Union and advised them
that due to the state of its finances it had no alternative but to
eliminate overtime and in keeping with this policy it decided to
dicontinue the services of one minibus and employ an additional
relief ambulance driver and attendant.
3. The overtime was stopped. The Union claimed compensation of
approximately #2,500 per worker for loss of the overtime. The
Board estimate the loss to be #550 per worker. The claim was
rejected by the Board.
4. The matter was referred to at a Court hearing held on 8th
October to hear a similar claim on behalf of ambulance staff
employed at St. James's Hospital. Following additional
information received from the parties subsequent to the hearing,
the Court decided to hold another hearing. This was held on the
5th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Management over the years have been aware that loss of
earnings is an issue which would involve compensation. This
was acknowledged many times at previous negotiations.
Compensation is warranted due to the unique historical factors
involved and the particular nature of service.
2. Over the years the Board has supplemented the ambulance
service by the use of outside agencies (i.e. private
ambulances and taxis) at a far greater cost than employing
direct labour. Extra workers were taken on over the years but
no attempt was made to reduce the need for overtime on a
structural basis.
3. In addition to normal ambulance duties the base at
Loughlinstown provides full emergency '999' service. Both
duties could not be carried out without the use of overtime.
5. 4. Overtime was a necessity for the service, became a regular
demand on the staff, and became a normal factor of
remuneration levels.
5. Cutbacks in the Board are not new, and overtime remained
within the service as an essential part. The effects of the
recent cuts have reduced benefits to both the service users
and the ambulance workers (details supplied to the Court).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The 1988 allocation from the Department of Health falls
short of the Board's estimated requirements by #6.112m. The
Board met the Unions to outline its financial position and to
inform them of the measures to be taken in order to keep
within the budget allocation. These measures include
non-filling of vacancies, dis-employing of temporary staff,
elimination of overtime and staff training programmes,
reduction in premium payments, travel and subsistence
allowances. At a time when all funds must be directed towards
maintaining services to patients and preserving employment,
payment of compensation for loss of earnings cannot be
considered. This claim, if conceded cannot be financed
without even further cuts in employment and services to
patients.
2. The Labour Court in dealing with previous claims for
compensation for loss of earnings has recognised the special
financial position of the health services. The Court
recommended against payment of compensation for loss of
earnings because the losses arose directly from the necessity
of the health agencies to reduce their budget deficit.
(Labour Court Recommendation Nos. 11403, 11404, 10632, 10695,
11303 and 11264 refer.
3. The Union's claim that the overtime was worked at the
insistence of the Board is not entirely true. In May, 1986
the Board offered to eliminate the rostered overtime and
employ four additional staff but this offer was rejected by
the Union.
4. Despite its shortfall the Board has endeavoured at all
times to preserve employment as far as possible by
concentrating mainly on the reduction of "on cost" payments.
However, the Board still found it necessary, due to its
budgetary shortfall, to let go a number of temporary staff
this year. It should be noted that all jobs in the ambulance
service have been preserved to date.
5. Reduction in the Board's 1988 allocation necessitated that
premium earnings be reduced by #250,000 this year. It is also
necessary that all but a small amount of absolutely essential
overtime be eliminated, thus hopefully saving a further
#85,000. These savings are necessary in that the Board does
not have the finances to continue the payments. All staff
previously in receipt of premium or overtime payments have
been affected by the cutbacks. The continuation of these
payments, or the payment of compensation in respect of their
loss, would no doubt lead to further dis-employment of staff
and curtail even further the services provided to patients.
6. Concession of this claim would have serious repercussive
effects for the Board by way of similar claims from other
groups within the Board whose overtime working has also been
terminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the fact that the changes in working
arrangements which brought about the loss of earnings are directly
as a result of the stringent financial restrictions under which
the Board is now operating the Court does not recommend concession
of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
18th March, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.