Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88927 Case Number: LCR12304 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MERCY HOSPITAL CORK/NORTH INFIRMARY/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of earnings as a result of a transfer from the North Infirmary to the Mercy Hospital Cork.
Recommendation:
7. It appears to the Court, having regard to the circumstances
which led to the closure of the North Infirmary and the opting by
the claimant for re-deployment to the Mercy Hospital, that it was
inevitable that there would be a substantial reduction in premium
earnings. The circumstances were in fact of a nature upon which
the Court would in the normal course of events find it difficult
to find grounds upon which it could base any compensatory measures
in relation to reduced earnings.
In this instance however, it appears that there is some evidence
to the effect that the claimant was given some indication that the
question of her reduction in earnings would be reviewed in the
event of her opting for re-deployment and that this statement in
itself had an influence on her eventual decision. On the evidence
submitted to the Court however it is now evident that such
indication was not supported by the appropriate authority and it
is questionable as to whether it would have been.
In all the circumstances and having regard in particular to the
initial comments above, and to the claimants expectations as a
result of the indication given, the Court recommends that she be
paid a sum of #2,500 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88927 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12304
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MERCY HOSPITAL CORK/NORTH INFIRMARY/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of
earnings as a result of a transfer from the North Infirmary to the
Mercy Hospital Cork.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was one of two people employed as
radiographers in the North Infirmary. She was employed there for
fifteen years. The North Infirmary was a general hospital with a
casualty unit. As there were only 2 radiographers employed one
had to be either on duty, on-call or on stand-by as 7 day cover
was required. Consequently the two radiographers were in receipt
of stand-by and on-call payments.
3. When the North Infirmary closed the workers were given an
option of either transferring to the Mercy Hospital or accepting
voluntary redundancy under the public service early
retirement/voluntary redundancy scheme. The worker here concerned
opted for the transfer whilst the other worker accepted voluntary
redundancy. The North Infirmary closed on 30th November, 1987.
4. As there were more radiographers employed in the Mercy
Hospital the worker concerned was not required to be on stand-by
or on-call as often as she was when employed in North Infirmary
which resulted in a loss of earnings of approximately #6,000 per
annum. The Union on behalf of the worker lodged a claim for a
once off payment of twice the annual loss i.e. #12,000. The
Department of Health rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 19th
October, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on 17th
November, 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 Cork on 10th January,
1989.
UNION's ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The situation in the North Infirmary was unique whereby
there were only two radiographers to provide cover at all
times for the whole hospital. There was or is no similar
arrangement in any other hospital in the country. As a result
there would be no consequential claims from any other
radiographer.
2. During the fifteen years that the worker was employed at
the North Infirmary her stand-by on-call allowances amounted
to approximately 100% of her basic earnings. She had thus
become accustomed to these earnings in determining her
lifestyle.
3. The worker concerned earned approximately #6,000 in premia
earnings in the immediate year since her transfer to the Mercy
Hospital. However these earnings will further decrease as
extra staff have been engaged.
4. To be faced with a forced movement from a position held
after 15 years is difficult enough. However to be also faced
with a loss of over one-third of previous earnings is
appalling. The Court is asked to recommend concession of the
Union's claim of 2 years loss of earnings for the worker
concerned.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Management rejects the principle that it should have to
pay compensation where premium earnings have either been
reduced or eliminated in order that hospitals can function
within their financial allocation.
2. Concession of the claim would give rise to an expectation
of compensation to all other employees whose premium earnings
have been reduced or eliminated because of re-deployment. The
health service is presently engaged in an extremely difficult
cost containment exercise in an effort to remain within its
allocation for the current year and concession of the Union's
claim can only be done at the expense of further cutbacks in
services and or manpower. No other alternative is available.
3. At the time of the closure of the North Infirmary, the
staff were offered the choice of re-deployment or redundancy.
The worker here concerned opted for re-deployment. No
guarantee was given on earnings other than basic pay.
Hospitals appointing staff on re-deployment could not give
such a guarantee.
4. It is important to note that all grades of staff in all
hospitals have been affected by the cutbacks. Premium
payments have been reduced/eliminated in almost all hospitals.
It should be pointed out also that the staff member covered by
this claim still has an opportunity to achieve premium
payments on the same basis as her present colleagues in the
Mercy Hospital. In fact, she earned in excess of #5,891 in
premium payments in the year ended 30/11/88.
5. The management side wish to draw the attention of the
Court to the general economic and financial difficulties
prevailing in the country and particularly in the health
services. These difficulties point to the continuing need to
control the level of public expenditure of which public sector
pay forms such a significant part. The current non-capital
allocation for health services in 1988 represented almost 20%
of total Exchequer spending. The management side would expect
that the determination of the appropriate level of
remuneration for a public service grade would reflect an
awareness of financial realities and a sensitivity to the
economic and social environment at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. It appears to the Court, having regard to the circumstances
which led to the closure of the North Infirmary and the opting by
the claimant for re-deployment to the Mercy Hospital, that it was
inevitable that there would be a substantial reduction in premium
earnings. The circumstances were in fact of a nature upon which
the Court would in the normal course of events find it difficult
to find grounds upon which it could base any compensatory measures
in relation to reduced earnings.
In this instance however, it appears that there is some evidence
to the effect that the claimant was given some indication that the
question of her reduction in earnings would be reviewed in the
event of her opting for re-deployment and that this statement in
itself had an influence on her eventual decision. On the evidence
submitted to the Court however it is now evident that such
indication was not supported by the appropriate authority and it
is questionable as to whether it would have been.
In all the circumstances and having regard in particular to the
initial comments above, and to the claimants expectations as a
result of the indication given, the Court recommends that she be
paid a sum of #2,500 in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
2nd March, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.