Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88791 Case Number: LCR12226 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims on behalf of 3 ambulance drivers and one ambulance attendant in Mayo and 3 ambulance attendants in Galway for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the nature of the overtime which was
abolished, and taking into account the severe financial
constraints under which the Board must presently operate the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88791 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12226
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of 3 ambulance drivers and one ambulance
attendant in Mayo and 3 ambulance attendants in Galway for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned have worked a six day week roster for a
minimum of 10 years each. The sixth day was paid at normal hourly
rate and did not attract the normal overtime premia. The Board
notified the workers that it intended to discontinue this practice
and place them on a five day week which it did with effect from
1st October, 1988.
3. The Union lodged a claim with the Board for compensation
equivalent to 2.50 times the annual loss of overtime earnings. The
Board rejected the claim and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 23rd September, 1988.
A conciliation conference was held on 13th October, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Galway on 14th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sixth day was paid for at the normal hourly rate and
did not attract overtime premia. As such it was an integral
part of the workers' weekly pay insofar as it never varied.
The workers have worked the guaranteed six day week, and were
always rostered for 6 days since they first joined the
service. The men have service ranging from 10 to 38 years.
4. 2. The Board has stated that they regard the sixth day as
overtime. It is the Union's strong contention that in the
case of these men, it is not overtime but an integral part of
their working week since the day they commenced employment.
Consequently there must be adequate compensation for the loss
of the sixth day. The Union have quantified this compensation
as a once off payment of 2.50 times the annual loss.
3. The Union's claim is in line with another settlement which
the Board has conceded to workers employed in Ballina Hospital
when the boiler was changed over to oil thus eliminating night
duty and as such night duty allowance.
4. The Court in Labour Court Recommendation Numbers LCR10558,
LCR12033 and LCR11929 recommended various amounts of
compensation to the workers in similar cases (details supplied
to the Court).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The claim for loss of earnings cannot be sustained in view
of the Board's critical financial difficulties (details
supplied to the Court).
2. There is no service requirement for the continuation of
this non essential overtime and the Board could not
contemplate such an arrangement in a climate of ward closures
and redundancies. (Details supplied to the Court).
3. While the Union has claimed compensation for loss of
earnings, it should be stressed that the claimants now benefit
from a roster which is based on a five day week and is more
socially acceptable. Prior to the change the claimants worked
a six day week every week.
4. 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.
5. Similar claims have been rejected by the Board and its
position has recently been upheld by the Labour Court e.g.
LCR No. 11815. The Court has also rejected similar claims for
loss of earnings. (Details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the nature of the overtime which was
abolished, and taking into account the severe financial
constraints under which the Board must presently operate the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___19th___January,__1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman