Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88393 Case Number: LCR12069 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings for two workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has also noted the financial constraints on the Board.
However, having regard to the circumstances which gave rise to the
loss of earnings in this case, the Court recommends that each of
the claimants should be paid the sum of £2,500 in full and final
settlement of their claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88393 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12069
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings for two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The two employees worked as cleaners for the Mid-Western
Health Board at head office one worker for twelve and a half years
and the other for seven years. Their normal work roster included
overtime from 5.30 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Monday to Friday and also
8.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays. Following an examination of
portering, printing and cleaning services at head office the Board
introduced contract cleaning services with the agreement of the
Union. One of the cleaners was redeployed to portering duties on
the same rate of basic pay and the other cleaner was reassigned to
his former post of general operative, without a loss in basic pay.
There was no overtime available at these new posts, however and as
a result of the redeployment the workers sustained a net loss of
earnings amounting to £4,666 and £4,453.00 p.a., respectively.
The Union subsequently claimed compensation in respect of loss of
earnings amounting to £10,000 for each member. The Board stated
that while they sympathised with the employees, they were not in a
position to offer any compensation. As no agreement could be
reached in discussions at local level the dispute was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 3rd May 1988, but
no agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 26th May, 1988.
A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 28th
September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were advised by management in March of 1988
that they were being redeployed as porters, that their duties
would be changed as appropriate, and that their cleaning
duties would be done by commercial cleaners. Their loss of
earnings as a result of the change was substantial. The
workers agreed to these proposals on the understanding that
they would be compensated for loss of earnings otherwise they
would not have agreed to a drop in earnings of £4,666 and
£4,453 p.a. The earnings of the men concerned prior to the
change in their employment status were constant and
consistent, and they had worked a set overtime pattern for
many years. The overtime pattern was continuous and rostered,
and the employees had a clear expectation that this situation
would continue.
3. 2. They had undertaken certifiable family commitments e.g.
third level education of their children, based on those
earnings. They co-operated fully with the Board in relation
to the introduction of a commercial cleaning company on the
clear understanding that compensation for loss of earnings
would be forthcoming. The purpose of the Board's action was
to save money and at a subsequent meeting with the Union they
admitted to a saving of £12,000, on the abolition of the two
permanent cleaning posts. The net loss to each of the
employees is £45 per week ongoing, and the Union requests that
a once off compensation payment of £10,000 each should be
awarded to each worker. The Court in previous recommendations
has taken account of similar situations and awarded
compensation for loss of earnings in the public sector.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Faced with a shortfall of £3.5 million in its 1988
allocation on top of accumulated overruns of £5.2 million in
the previous two years, the Board found it necessary to
implement a range of economy measures, including the closure
of six institutions with the loss of 180 beds and 95 posts,
the non-filling of certain vacancies, the
reduction/elimination of overtime, and premium payments. The
Board has also been forced to abolish locum cover/temporary
replacements except in emergency cases, curtail the
maintenance programme, defer the purchase of medical
equipment, economise in the use of drugs, and also in the use
of heating and lighting facilities. The economy measures
undertaken to date have insofar as possible been aimed at
minimising the impact on services and employment.
2. While the Board introduced contract cleaners to head
office, the two former cleaners were retained in employment.
It is important to note that all grades of staff in the Health
Board have been affected by cutbacks. Overtime working has
been reduced/discontinued in a number of areas. 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 or overtime
earnings. While the Union has claimed compensation for loss
of earnings, it should be pointed out that the claimants now
enjoy a shorter week. The Board has rejected the Union's
claim for compensation for loss of earnings arising from the
discontinuation of overtime. Similar claims have been
rejected by the Board and its position has been upheld by the
Court in previous recommendations.
4. 3. The Board is engaged in an extremely difficult cost
cutting exercise in an effort to remain within its allocation
for the current year. It must be emphasised that concession
of the Union's claim can only be done at the expense of
further cutbacks in services and/or manpower. No alternative
course of action is available. Concession of the claim will
almost certainly lead to repercussive claims from other staff
whose premium/overtime earnings have been or may be affected
by economy measures which the Board has to implement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has also noted the financial constraints on the Board.
However, having regard to the circumstances which gave rise to the
loss of earnings in this case, the Court recommends that each of
the claimants should be paid the sum of £2,500 in full and final
settlement of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
17th October, 1988 ----------------------
T O'D/U.S. Deputy Chairman