Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88634 Case Number: LCR12119 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - A WORKER |
Claim, by one worker, for compensation for alleged loss of earnings and increased annual leave entitlement.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that Management has undertaken to re-examine with
the claimant his annual leave entitlements and to agree the number
of days outstanding.
The Court also notes that Management has offered a position to the
claimant which would place him at the top of the craftsman's rate.
Should he accept this offer, the Court recommends that, in final
settlement of the remaining claims, he be paid at this rate
retrospectively to 1st January, 1988, and that he also be paid the
#500 which was earlier offered to him.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88634 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12119
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(ST BRIGID'S HOSPITAL, BALLINASLOE)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by one worker, for compensation for alleged loss of
earnings and increased annual leave entitlement.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant, who has been employed at the hospital since
1964, referred his claims for compensation for loss of earnings
and increased annual leave entitlement as detailed below, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 22nd March, 1988. The
issues were the subject of two conciliation conferences held on
27th April, 1988 and on 9th August, 1988. No agreement was
reached however and the matters were referred, on 11th August,
1988, to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took
place on 18th October, 1988, in Ballinasloe.
CLAIM (A) - ALLEGED LOSS OF EARNINGS
BACKGROUND:
3. The claimant took up the position of Senior Farm Assistant in
1964, working four ten hour days per week, including Sunday. This
grade is classified as a servant grade. His duties included
looking after the dairy herd attached to the hospital and his
wages were based on those set by the Agricultural Wages Board. In
1970 the Department of Health, in response to a query from the
Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, clarified that the
worker's wage rate should be that of a tractor driver plus #1 per
week. In 1974 Sunday premium payment was introduced and the
claimant received such payment until 1978. At that time the dairy
herd was sold and the claimant was assigned, in May 1978, to
duties in the grounds/maintenance area, working a five day week,
Monday to Friday. The claimant sought compensation for loss of
the Sunday premium. The Board offered him #500 in compensation
but this offer was refused. In January, 1979, the post of
Assistant Land Steward, an officer grade, became vacant. The
claimant was offered and accepted this post in a temporary acting
capacity, and received an increase in pay of approximately #11 per
week as a result, bringing him to a rate which was higher than his
original rate even including Sunday premium. In 1981 some
difficulties arose in relation to staff supervision and the
claimant did not function as acting Assistant Land Steward from
then on in that he did not supervise staff. He did, however,
retain his rate of pay on a personal basis. In 1982, a sum of
#500 compensation for loss of Sunday premium was again offered and
refused as being insufficient. In 1984 the post of Assistant Land
Steward was suppressed and in September 1986, the claimant was
transferred to the garden area, retaining his personal rate. In
January, 1988, he was assigned to rural training, i.e.
rehabilitation of patients in the market gardening area. His
personal rate of pay is now #184.15 per week. The worker claims
that he should have been made permanent in the position of
Assistant Land Steward and should have progressed through the
incremental scale. Currently he is on its minimum point. The
maximum point is #219. He is seeking to have the ongoing losses
made good to him. The Board rejects this claim as unjustified.
However, the Board is prepared to pay the claimant the maximum of
the craftsman's scale, i.e. #196.15 in return for taking on
certain duties (details supplied) in connection with the rural
training programme. The claimant rejected this offer.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker originally took up duty on the basis of a four day
week, working Sundays. In February, 1978, his conditions of
employment were changed. As a result he had to work a five
day week, Monday to Friday and lost the Sunday premium. The
offer of #500 was rejected as the worker felt it was not
sufficient compensation for his loss.
4.2 The worker was offered voluntary redundancy in October, 1987.
The terms offered were on the basis of his being a servant
grade. He considers that the terms offered should have been
on the basis of his being an officer grade, since he acted in
this capacity for ten years. If these terms had been
proposed the worker would have considered the offer.
4.3 The worker is seeking application of the maximum point of the
Assistant Land Steward's rate retrospective to 1st January,
1979, in addition to compensation for the loss of Sunday
premium from April 1978 to January 1979. He claims that he
should have been made permanent in the officer grade position
and should have progressed through the incremental salary
scale.
4.4 The worker considers that other employees have been more
favourably treated than he has been. Two temporary
maintenance staff have been placed on an incremental scale
and boilermen not required during the summer months are
accommodated in other areas without loss of Sunday pay or
shift allowance.
4.5 The worker's original rate of pay was one and a half times
the farm labourers' rate or one and one eighth times the
tractor drivers' rate. On this basis, the worker's rate of
pay would now be in excess of #220 per week if he had
remained in his original position.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5.1 The Board rejects the worker's claim as unfounded. He was
twice offered the sum of #500 in compensation for the loss of
Sunday premium. The claimant took up the position of acting
Assistant Land Steward in January, 1979, eight months after
he lost the Sunday premium. He received an increase in pay
of approximately #11 per week which compensated him for the
loss of Sunday pay. The Board understood that he was
satisfied with this arrangement.
5.2 The claimant did not function in the capacity of acting
Assistant Land Steward from 1981 onwards yet he retained this
rate of pay on a personal basis, increased in line with wage
agreements.
5.3 The worker's current rate of pay is #184.15 per week. The
rate for a tractor driver, the grade to which he was aligned
in 1970, is #176.53. He has therefore more than maintained
pace with this group.
5.4 The Board would like to develop the rural training function
at a much faster pace than has been achieved to date. If the
worker takes on the proposed duties in this area the Board
will pay him a revised rate equal to the maximum point of the
craftsman's scale, i.e. #196.15. This is an increase of #12
per week and an established alignment to the craft grades.
5.5 The worker has stated that he would consider the option of
voluntary redundancy in line with the terms applying to
officer grades. The worker is of servant grade status and
such an offer could not be made to him. He did act in an
officer grade post for a period but this does not entitle him
to take on officer grade status.
CLAIM (B) - ANNUAL LEAVE ENTITLEMENT
BACKGROUND:
6. The worker is in receipt of eighteen days annual leave, six
Church holidays and three concession days. The worker contends
that a previous hospital administrator verbally granted him twenty
one days annual leave in 1978. He says that these days were
granted in some years. By his records he contends that he is owed
forty days annual leave. The Board rejects this claim.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. The worker was granted twenty one days' annual leave plus
Church and Bank holidays in 1978. For a number of years this was
applied. It was then queried and withdrawn. The worker has a
record of all the annual leave he took over the past seven years
and, according to this record, he is owed forty days leave.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
8. The Board did not authorise twenty one days annual leave for
the worker and, having examined the records, does not consider
that he is owed any leave. The standard leave entitlement for
servant grades is twenty days. This worker is in receipt of
twenty seven days in total. The Board is, however, prepared to
re-examine the records of the worker's annual leave, with him, to
establish the factual situation in relation to any outstanding
leave entitlement.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that Management has undertaken to re-examine with
the claimant his annual leave entitlements and to agree the number
of days outstanding.
The Court also notes that Management has offered a position to the
claimant which would place him at the top of the craftsman's rate.
Should he accept this offer, the Court recommends that, in final
settlement of the remaining claims, he be paid at this rate
retrospectively to 1st January, 1988, and that he also be paid the
#500 which was earlier offered to him.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th November, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
AK/PG Deputy Chairman