Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89548 Case Number: LCR12656 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEATH HOSPITAL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a private security firm and the consequential changes in portering rosters.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes the progress made by the parties since this
case was adjourned in August. In relation to the issues now
referred to it, the Court recommends that the new rosters as
proposed by the hospital be introduced without further delay. The
Court is of the view that the weekend manning levels as proposed
by the hospital should be given a reasonable trial period and
reviewed at the end of next June.
There is a difference of opinion regarding the commitment given to
the porter on gate duties - the Union claiming that he was
guaranteed night work at the gate and the hospital affirming that
the guarantee extended only to night work. In the absence of
documented confirmation of either position and having regard to
the agreed conditions regarding porters, the Court recommends that
he should now take up duties within the hospital building as
provided for in the new rosters. In arriving at this view, the
Court has taken into consideration that the change does not
involve a loss of income and honours the commitment to retain the
porter on night duties.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89548 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12656
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEATH HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a private security firm
and the consequential changes in portering rosters.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July of this year, hospital management informed the Union
that it proposed to introduce new rosters for portering staff and
to extend the work of the security firm it employed to now provide
night security at the hospital's front gate. This was disputed by
the Union and following local discussions was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following an
unsuccessful conciliation conference in August the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing for 15th August was adjourned to allow further
direct discussions to take place. The parties subsequently sought
a further hearing in an attempt to resolve two outstanding issues,
namely front gate security and staffing levels for weekend day
cover. A re-convened Court hearing was held on the 6th November,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has rostered seven porters at weekends from 8
a.m. to 2 p.m. One is on the grounds, the other six are in
the following areas:
Switchboard (one)
Main Hall (one)
West wing (one)
Accident and Emergency (one)
Main house (two)
There is a requirement for another porter as the six porters
require relief for their breaks. Furthermore, the Accident
and Emergency Department requires an extra man.
2. Despite the introduction of the outside security Company,
serious incidents continued to occur (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The introduction of the security company was to protect
the property and staff of the hospital. It is obvious that
Management made an error in contracting out the gate duties
and it should now reconsider its position.
4. The porter who mans the front gate at night time was
re-deployed to the hospital when Sir Patrick Duns closed. As
part of the re-deployment, he was given a commitment regarding
gate duties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The question of staffing levels for weekend day cover was
only raised at a meeting on the 2nd November and Management is
not in a position to deal with this at such short notice.
Management would like the Court to recommend that the new
roster be implemented and that any problems that arise be
ironed out later.
2. The Union has advised Management that the deployment of
the porter presently assigned to the front gate to the main
hall is unacceptable. This position is totally untenable.
Portering staff may be deployed to any area within the
hospital and there is no reason to exclude one porter from
this arrangement. Contrary to what the Union is claiming, no
commitment to permanent gate duties was given to the porter in
question when he transferred from Sir Patrick Duns.
3. There will be no loss of earnings involved in this
re-deployment and the same hours of work will be available.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes the progress made by the parties since this
case was adjourned in August. In relation to the issues now
referred to it, the Court recommends that the new rosters as
proposed by the hospital be introduced without further delay. The
Court is of the view that the weekend manning levels as proposed
by the hospital should be given a reasonable trial period and
reviewed at the end of next June.
There is a difference of opinion regarding the commitment given to
the porter on gate duties - the Union claiming that he was
guaranteed night work at the gate and the hospital affirming that
the guarantee extended only to night work. In the absence of
documented confirmation of either position and having regard to
the agreed conditions regarding porters, the Court recommends that
he should now take up duties within the hospital building as
provided for in the new rosters. In arriving at this view, the
Court has taken into consideration that the change does not
involve a loss of income and honours the commitment to retain the
porter on night duties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
24th November, 1989 Chairman.
D.H./J.C.