Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88288 Case Number: LCR11858 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of regular rostered overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the original agreement on rosters
envisaged that when sufficient staff had been recruited the
overtime element would be eliminated. The Board made a number of
attempts to implement that agreement but was unsuccessful.
The Court, having regard to this background and the current
financial position does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88288 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11858
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of regular
rostered overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim involved in this case relates to attendants,
chargehands and head attendants at the Central Mental Hospital,
Dundrum. Since 1974, the workers involved in the claim have
worked 13½ hours rostered overtime every 28 days. In May, 1987,
the rosters were changed to eliminate the overtime. The Union is
claiming compensation of two times the annual loss. The Board
rejected the claim on the grounds that the elimination of overtime
was forced upon it by financial constraints and indeed was
necessary in order to safeguard employment. Agreement could not
be reached on the matter at local level, and on 11th November,
1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 29th March,
1988. No agreement was reached, and on 18th April, 1988, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 9th May,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since February, 1974, the Board has made no serious effort
to introduce new rosters except in 1977 when they proposed to
operate a 40 hour roster for new staff entrants. The Union
rejected this and the Board referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. They did not
however, pursue the matter beyond this point. The board has
stated in previous disputes that they had tried to change the
rosters and had failed because of Union opposition. However,
the Union and its members in the Central Mental Hospital were
never given the opportunity to negotiate changes in the
rosters.
2. The workers involved in this dispute have been obliged to
work the overtime since the revised rosters were introduced in
1974. Overtime earnings have become an integral part of their
earnings. Many of the workers involved have made financial
commitments, (e.g. mortgages etc) because they had genuine
expectations that their level of earnings would be maintained
and are now finding it difficult to meet these commitments.
The losses incurred will have a detrimental affect on their
standard of living.
3. As a result of the elimination of rostered overtime,
considerable savings will accrue to the Board which will far
outbalance the payment of a once off lump sum compensation.
The concept of compensation for loss of overtime has been well
established by the Labour Court in a number of recommendations
(details supplied to the Court).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 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 on 22nd January, 1988 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, elimination of
overtime, reduction in premium payments, closure of units,
increasing hospital canteen charges, reduction in grants to
voluntary organisations, and the introduction of charges for
certain services to patients. 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 has already dealt with two issues
identical to this one namely loss of earnings claims by nurses
in St. Brendan's and St. Ita's Hospitals (L.C.R.'s 11404 and
11304) following the elimination of rostered overtime. In the
case of both of the above claims the rostered overtime
originated from the introduction of the 40 hour week and was
continued because of the Union's refusal to accept the revised
roster proposed by the Board. The Court did not recommend
concession of these claims because it was of the opinion that
the losses involved in large measure derived from a failure of
the parties to agree on changes in working hours which should
have been introduced some time ago. Negotiations on the 40
hour week for the workers were concluded in 1973 and a revised
roster was introduced. Even though this roster provided for a
173 hours 35 minutes per 28 day cycle of day duty commitment,
it was agreed that the Attendants would work 160 hours only
and that a free period of 13 hours 30 minutes per month would
be granted.
In order to implement this roster a need to recruit 10 extra
Attendants was identified. The Board was experiencing
difficulties in recruiting staff at that time and the 10
additional staff were not recruited until late 1975. In the
interim period, the attendants concerned were paid overtime in
lieu of time off. The Union was advised on 14th May, 1976
that the Board was now in a position to implement the 160 hour
week with the free period, and so discontinue the overtime.
The Union at this stage refused to co-operate with the change
proposed by the Board even though the Board felt it had an
agreement with it to do so. In 1977 the Board again attempted
to discontinue the overtime by rostering newly appointed staff
onto a 160 hour commitment per cycle of day duty. The Union
objected and despite a Labour Court conciliation conference on
the matter all staff continued to receive the rostered
overtime. The Board again attempted to eliminate the overtime
in 1978 by refusing to include the newly appointed Head
Attendant in the rostered overtime. The Union resisted and
threatened industrial action. The Board then included the
Head Attendant in the rostered overtime pending Labour Court
assistance with the dispute. Another conciliation conference
took place which failed to resolve the matter to the Board's
satisfaction and all staff continued to enjoy the rostered
overtime. The Board therefore maintains that this claim is
identical to the ones which led to LCR's 11403 and 11404 in
that the overtime originated and was perpetuated because of
the Union's non-co-operation with the Board's introduction of
the 40 hour week.
3. The Union contends that the rostered overtime has become
part of the Attendants' expected earnings and that they are
entitled to compensation in respect of its loss. The Board
disputes this contention because apart from the discussions
detailed in argument 2, the Board has on numerous occasions
expressed its dissatisfaction with the rostered overtime
arrangement and advised the Union that its elimination was
imminent. The present average weekly pay for staff at the
Central Mental Hospital is still well in excess of the average
industrial wage (details supplied to the Court).
4. The Labour Court in dealing with previous claims for
compensation for loss of earnings has recognised the special
financial positions of the Health Services. In numerous cases
the Court recommended against payment of compensation for loss
of earnings because the losses arose directly from the
necessity for the Health Agencies to reduce their budget
deficit (details supplied to the Court).
5. 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
last year. It should be noted that all jobs in the Central
Mental Hospital have been preserved to date.
6. 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 because 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 redundancies of staff and
curtail even further the services provided to patients.
7. 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
reduced. The current situation is that the Board has no funds
from which the cost of this claim can be met.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the original agreement on rosters
envisaged that when sufficient staff had been recruited the
overtime element would be eliminated. The Board made a number of
attempts to implement that agreement but was unsuccessful.
The Court, having regard to this background and the current
financial position does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_______________________
26th May, 1988. Chairman
P.F./J.C.