Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89630 Case Number: LCR12634 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - THE FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by 4 Ward Attendants for compensation for loss of night duty earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the claimants in this case were
contracted to work permanent night duties which attracted a 25%
premium. The change in their conditions differs fundamentally
from other cases where changes affect additional earnings, whether
occasional or structured, over and above contracted terms.
The Court therefore recommends that each of the claimants be
compensated by payment of 6 months value of the agreed annual
loss.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89630 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12634
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
THE FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by 4 Ward Attendants for compensation for loss of night
duty earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimants were employed by the Health Board for night duty
purposes. Three of them have nine years service with the Board
while the fourth claimant has four years service. In 1987,
following a shortfall of #6 million the Board, in order to achieve
the level of savings required, took various economy measures.
These included hospital closures, early retirements and the
disengagement of some workers. The four claimants were redeployed
to day duty. This resulted in a loss of their night duty premia.
The Union lodged a claim for compensation for the four workers.
The claim was discussed at local level and was the subject of a
Labour Court conciliation conference on 22nd February, 1989. No
agreement was reached but the Board agreed to seek sanction to
make a compensation payment to the four workers. In July 1989 the
Board advised that it could not make any payment offer and that a
full Court hearing would be necessary. The Union agreed to a
hearing on 5th September, 1989 (Annual leave delays). The Court
investigated the dispute in Wexford on 24th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The four workers signed a contract of employment which
stated that they had an obligation to work night duty.
2. Night duty carries a premium of 25% and is also included
for the calculation of annual leave pay. The imposed change
to day duty has altered the contract and reduced the earnings
of the four workers (details supplied to the Court) who had
enjoyed the premia payments over many years.
3. The claimants have a substantial length of service and
their conditions of employment have been altered without prior
negotiations.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for loss of earnings cannot be conceded
because of the Board's critical financial difficulties. All
grades of workers in the Health Board have been affected by
the cutbacks. Overtime, weekend and shift working have been
reduced or discontinued in a number of areas. Priority in the
application of resources must be given to preserving
employment levels and to the avoidance of further reductions
in the level of services available to patients.
2. The Board made every effort to accommodate the four
claimants. They still enjoy a level of premium earnings on
day duty which varies between 1 out of 2 weekends to 2 out of
3 weekends.
3. One of the four workers concerned with the dispute opted
to job/share on night duty from September, 1987. The loss of
earnings in this case is self imposed.
4. Nursing staff affected by ward closures have not pursued
a claim against the Board for loss of earnings. Concession of
this claim would result in similar claims being made by the
nurisng unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the claimants in this case were
contracted to work permanent night duties which attracted a 25%
premium. The change in their conditions differs fundamentally
from other cases where changes affect additional earnings, whether
occasional or structured, over and above contracted terms.
The Court therefore recommends that each of the claimants be
compensated by payment of 6 months value of the agreed annual
loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
10th November, 1989 ---------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman