Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88568 Case Number: AD8853 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC106/88, concerning compensation for loss of earnings for 2 ambulance men.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner has correctly
assessed the degree of responsibility of the parties concerned for
the incident in question. The Court therefore decides that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88568 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5388
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC106/88, concerning compensation for loss of
earnings for 2 ambulance men.
BACKGROUND:
2. Because of a short-fall in the Board's financial allocation
from the Department of Health, the Board adopted a survival plan.
It included the abolition of all but a minimum amount of overtime
and the discontinuation of the minibus service based at the
Loughlinstown Ambulance base. On Saturday, 18th April, 1987, the
Chief Ambulance Officer arrived at the base and advised the 6
staff present of the decision to discontinue the service from
Monday, 20th April, 1987. This would require the staff to change
their roster patterns. The two men involved in this dispute
insisted on maintaining the minibus roster on the weeks they had
previously been assigned to minibus work and in maintaining this
insistence they attended for duty on Sundays, when they should not
be present. They refused to attend on days when they should have
been present and as a result the Board suspended them without pay.
Following a number of meetings between the Board and the Union the
problem regarding the discontinuation of the minibus service was
resolved. However, the Board was not prepared to compensate the
two men for their lost earnings.
3. The Union maintained that the earnings lost during suspension
should be reimbursed to the men since adequate consultation had
not taken place. The Board maintained that reasonable
consultation had taken place and that the practice within the
ambulance service is that instructions are carried out under
protest whilst the issue is being 'ironed out' between the
parties. The parties agreed to refer the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. In June, 1988, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following findings and Recommendation:
"Findings:
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties, I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. I believe that the level of prior consultation left
something to be desired.
2. On the other hand the well-established procedures within
the Eastern Health Board regulating arrangements between
the employees, their union, and the Board, are clearly
designed to eliminate the need for any introduction of
unofficial industrial action.
3. I see my recommendation (BC 98/86) as being highly
relevant here.
4. I note that both parties agree that there would be no loss
of income to the two men involved in maintaining the new
roster.
5. In allocating liability for this unfortunate incident, I
would assess the proportions as follows:-
- 80% to the men involved;
- 20% to the Eastern Health Board.
Recommendations:
In the light of the above I hold that it was wrong and
insupportable on the part of the two men involved to have
refused to follow a legitimate instruction. However, in the
light of the defect that I have ascertained in the quality
and degree of prior consultation between the parties, I
recommend as follows:-
- The Eastern Health Board to reimburse to the two
workers 20% of the earnings lost by each on account of
their being suspended without pay in May, 1987."
(The workers were mentioned by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
The parties rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The appeal was heard by the Court
on 15th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Chief Ambulance Officer advised only 6 staff, out of a
compliment of 22 drivers, of the plan to remove the minibus
service. On 20th April, 1987, the shop stewards advised local
management that the overall staff were not in agreement with
the proposed change. Management refused to have the issue
processed through the negotiating machinery.
2. Management stated it needed to introduce the proposed
changes as part of the Board's financial plan for 1987.
However, it was not till 3 days later (23rd April) that the
Board met to decide on it's 1987, budget measures.
3. The Board's handling of the issue provided the impetus for
a dispute (details supplied to the Court) and only a minority
of staff were advised of the change. The shop stewards
request to have the issue dealt with in the normal way was
refused and contrary to the Board's own procedures, the
proposals were neither approved by the Board of the Eastern
Health Board, or processed through the Board's consultation
procedure.
4. Following negotiations the Board confirmed that all
consultation procedures would be respected and observed.
Within this framework, the Board placed proposals to the Union
and following consultation with members, changes were agreed
which were acceptable to all parties. The only issue
unresolved concerned the lost earnings of the 2 workers
suspended during the dispute.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The discontinuation of the minibus service was necessary
because the Board did not have the funds to run it. The Board
in asking the workers to switch to the ambulance roster was in
no way affecting their conditions of employment since the two
men are employed as ambulance drivers and have a liability to
drive both ambulances and minibuses. Ambulance drivers
continue to receive the shift allowance for the week they are
rostered on minibus duties.
2. The Board does not feel that the two workers should be
paid for the periods they were off duty, since they received
at least 10 days notice of the change and the actions taken by
them were unreasonable and uncalled for. They were in clear
breach of the grievance procedures which provides for the
carrying out of duties under protest. The unofficial action
taken by the two workers meant that one of the emergency
ambulances was unmanned for the weekend of 23rd April, 1987.
It is unacceptable that a critical service should be disrupted
before procedures are exhausted.
3. The Board feels that in a situation where staff are being
retained in their own area and working within normal working
hours, there should be no need for any great level of
consultation where the change requires only a re-organisation
of services and carrying out appropriate assignments. Local
management did consult with staff before the change.
4. The 2 workers, by refusing to carry out the duties
assigned to them, effectively involved themselves in
unofficial industrial action and so removed themselves from
the payroll. The issue of industrial action at the
Loughlinstown base has already been the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation (BC 98/86).
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner has correctly
assessed the degree of responsibility of the parties concerned for
the incident in question. The Court therefore decides that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
2nd September, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.