Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89569 Case Number: AD8968 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the Hospital against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 75/89 concerning the payment of a supervisory allowance to a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the appeal should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89569 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6889
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Hospital against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 75/89 concerning the payment of a
supervisory allowance to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is one of 3 general operatives employed
on general maintenance duties at the Hospital. In February, 1989
the Union lodged a claim for the payment of an 8% differential on
the basis that this allowance had been traditionally paid to the
supervisor in that Department. The claim was rejected by the
Hospital who argued that the previous incumbent had received the
allowance on a personal to holder basis.
3. The claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. An investigation was held on
13th July, 1989 and the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation dated 27th July, 1989;
"Unfortunately there is no documentation available to verify
that the original post holder held the position on a personal
basis only. The union claims that he was succeeded by
another man. Clearly the position has been reached in
relation to reductions in staff and budgets where such posts
cannot continue indefinitely. The union partly accepts this
when it indicated a willingness to compromise on the
differential of 8%.
I therefore recommend that the claim is settled on the basis
that the claimant receives a 5% differential for the duties
concerned, it clearly being understood by the parties, that
the post is suppressed when the claimant vacates it, for
whatever reason. Furthermore, no claims can be made or
entertained for "standing up" during any absences of the
claimant."
4. The Hospital appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 28th September, 1989.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In 1979 the Hospital negotiated a comprehensive
productivity agreement covering non-nursing personnel. In the
course of negotiations a number of employees were regraded,
positions formalised and individual arrangements were agreed
for a small number of employees. One such arrangement
concerned a particular worker who in addition to being paid
the general operative rate was paid an 8% differential in
respect of supervisory duties for five general operatives.
This arrangement was agreed on a personal to holder basis.
The worker concerned retired in October, 1984. He was not
replaced and of the four remaining employees one was being
paid less than the general operative rate. It was agreed
that, in view of the anomaly that existed and the fact that he
was retiring in 8 months time, he be paid the differential of
8%.
2. The position since he retired in 1985 is that there are
now 3 general operatives employed mainly on painting duties
and they report directly to the maintenance supervisor.
3. There are no additional duties applying to a second level
supervisory position being sought and such a level is
unjustified. No additional payments have been made since
1985.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The allowance has been paid in the past to previous
incumbents in the post. One worker supervised five men while
his replacement supervised three.
2. The Union, having taken on board some of the points made
by the hospital, indicated its willingness to accept a smaller
differential in order to settle the issue. The recommendation
fairly reflected the case made by both sides. It recommended
a just and fair settlement to the claim which has been
outstanding for some time. Accordingly the Union requests the
Court to uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the appeal should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
10th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.