Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88386 Case Number: AD8854 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL FOR DEAF BOYS - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (No. CW170/87) concerning a change in the conditions of employment of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case as
set out above considers that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair and decides that the appeal be dismissed.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88386 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5488
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL FOR DEAF BOYS
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation (No. CW170/87) concerning a change in the
conditions of employment of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The pupils in the School vary from slightly deaf to profoundly
deaf over a range of ages. Care staff are employed to work a
forty hour week but in fact work less. Prior to September, 1987
the worker here concerned was among a number of staff who worked
twenty eight hours per week with no Sunday duty. Others worked
approximately thirty hours per week and worked one Sunday in every
nine. In September, 1987 management informed staff that it would
be necessary to make certain changes in hours of work and groups
of pupils to which the care staff would be allocated. This
resulted in all staff working a thirty three hour week with a
requirement to work one Sunday in six. The worker sought to
revert to the old method of working and claimed that his
conditions of employment had been unilaterally changed. He
refused to work Sunday duty as per the new roster and had 1/7 of a
week's wages deducted. The worker referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner who recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts the changes to his
roster including the extra train and Sunday duty on an
interim basis and that the School undertakes to advise
and to discuss with the worker (and his colleagues) any
further proposed changes in the rosters prior to
implementation. If this recommendation is accepted I
urge the school to make good any deductions from the
worker due to this dispute."
The School accepted the Recommendation and paid the worker the
money which had been deducted. Subsequently the worker appealed
this recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal on 18th August, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been employed in the School since March,
1978. Originally the hours were 40 per week but this was
changed to 27½ hours in 1979 by mutual agreement with no
requirement to do any weekend duties. The following year
other care staff had their conditions changed on the same
basis.
2. The worker is seeking compensation for the increase in
hours from September, 1987 to June 1988 including Sunday
allowance. He has had to work 5½ hours extra per week. The
change in hours took place without discussions between
management and staff. All workers did not accept the new
hours but did work them under protest.
3. The worker did not say he was accepting the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation but rather said he would be
contacting his Union on the matter.
4. In April, 1988 nine care staff took a case for parity of
salary scales with the Eastern Health Board to the Labour
Court. The Court recommended concession of that claim
(LCR11914 refers).
SCHOOL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All care staff in the School are contracted to work
forty hours per week and can be rostered anytime over seven
days. All staff are paid on the same salary scale. In
September, 1987 the changes were accepted by all other care
staff three of whom worked on exactly the same roster as the
worker here concerned. There was consultation before the
changes were implemented and the proposals were altered as a
result.
2. When management accepted the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and repaid the money which had been deducted
the worker gave no indication that he disagreed with the
recommendation.
3. Concession of this claim would have consequences for
other members of staff who have accepted the conditions
without dispute.
4. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing the worker accepted
that management had the right to transfer him but felt that
the decision was unwise.
5. Management is currently engaged in discussions with the
Union concerning a transfer to new premises and also a major
renegotiation of salary scales for all care staff on foot of
LCR11914.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case as
set out above considers that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair and decides that the appeal be dismissed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
12th September, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman