Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89273 Case Number: LCR12427 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of night duty premium.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
noting the financial constraints on the Board, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89273 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12427
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
(CHERRY ORCHARD HOSPITAL)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of night duty
premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. In Summer 1988, rostered night duty was eliminated in Cherry
Orchard Hospital for 8 workers. Up to then the workers concerned
had been doing an average of 13 weeks' night duty per year, and
their annual loss as a result of the change is approximately #400
each. The Union, on behalf of the workers, served a claim on the
Board for compensation to the amount of twice the annual loss.
The Board was not prepared to concede the claim. It contends that
it eliminated the night duty because of budgetary constrictions
and that it does not have the resources to concede the claim.
Agreement could not be reached on the issue at local level, and on
13th March, 1989, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
in Dublin on 17th April, 1989. No agreement was reached, and on
21st April, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 11th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned in this dispute had a contractual
obligation to carry out night duty. Night duty carries a
premium of 25%, and is included in the calculation of annual
leave pay. In mid 1988 the night duty element was
unilaterally withdrawn from the workers. This was done
without any consultation, negotiation or discussions with the
Union side. The hospital's action was clearly in breach of
the procedural agreement made between the Union and the
Eastern Health Board and is totally unacceptable (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The hospital management have stated that the reason for
the decision was a budgetary shortfall. This is incorrect.
The monies allocated to the hospital had provision for both
basic and premia payments. Furthermore, the decision to
terminate the night element of the roster was made in the
middle of the financial year.
3. The workers concerned have long service with the hospital.
The loss of #400 per year is serious in any circumstances, but
particularly so in the current economic climate. In similar
cases in the past the Court has recommended in favour of the
Union (details supplied to the Court). In all the
circumstances, the Court is asked to support the Union's
position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issue of night duty was discussed between the Board
and the local shop steward in March, 1986. At that time the
Attendants gave an indication that the tasks performed by
Attendants on night duty were not sufficient to merit working
at night and suggested the phasing out of the night duty for
the Attendants. Although the night duty was not eliminated at
that time by the Hospital management, it was identified in
1988 as one area where savings could be made, taking into
consideration the serious financial situation of the Board and
that there had been a request by the staff to phase out this
night duty in 1986.
2. The Board has had to sustain a shortfall in its financial
allocation over the last number of years and this continues to
be the case (details supplied to the Court). The difficult
financial position has been presented to the Labour Court in
relation to previous claims for compensation for loss of
earnings. The Court in its appreciation of this difficult
financial position has rejected a number of similar claims.
Indeed the difficulties faced by other health agencies and by
the public sector in general have been recognised by the Court
in a large number of recommendations concerning claims for
compensation (details supplied to the Court).
3. The reduction in the Board's allocation for the last 3
years necessitated that overtime and premium earnings be
reduced. In 1987 and 1988 measures were taken by the Board to
reduce premium payments by #600,000. The Board has also made
further reductions in premium payments as a result of the
shortfall in its allocation for 1989. These savings are
necessary as finances have not been made available to make
these payments. All staff who had previously been in receipt
of overtime or premium payments have been affected by
cutbacks. The continuation of these payments or the payment
of compensation in respect of their loss would no doubt lead
to the further curtailment of services provided to patients
and to further dis-employment of staff.
4. Despite the shortfall in its allocation over the last 3
years the Board has endeavoured at all times to preserve
employment as far as possible by concentrating mainly on the
reduction of "on cost" payments. However the Board still
found it necessary to terminate the employment of a number of
temporary staff in 1987. Since then, although the Board has
not been forced to dis-employ temporary staff because of its
financial position, the staff numbers employed by the Board
have been reduced as over 160 people opted to leave the
services under the terms of the Voluntary Redundancy/Early
Retirement Scheme and a number of other vacancies have been
left unfilled. At a time when the Board has had to dis-employ
staff, make offers in respect of voluntary redundancy and
early retirement, and leave vacancies unfilled because of a
shortfall in its financial allocation, it cannot afford to pay
compensation to existing staff for any loss of earnings.
5. The Board has been given a current overdraft limit of #5
million by the Department of Health and in no circumstances
can this peak overdraft limit be exceeded. To date the Board
has kept within the weekly cash limits set out by the
Department of Health and the overdraft limit, which is very
strictly monitored, has not been breached. However, the
Board's bank accounts are being operated to a level which is
close to the maximum limits and there is no room for any
flexibility whatsoever within the cash-flow management
procedures. The Board has no funds from which this claim for
loss of earnings can be met.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
noting the financial constraints on the Board, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________
1st June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.