Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89588 Case Number: LCR12598 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BAGGOT STREET COMMUNITY HOSP. - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of four workers for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the views of the parties in their
written and oral submissions is of the view that as a consequence
of the decision to close the hospital it was imperative that any
options being made available to the staff concerned should have
been fully discussed and the implications of each option
particularly in respect of job security and remuneration fully
detailed and explained.
The Court can understand in the absence of such clarification the
views as expressed by the representatives of the workers.
The Court notes that options are still available to the staff.
The Court recommends the parties fully discuss the developments
proposed for the hospital for the future and the likely
implications of such developments for the security of employment
and remuneration of the workers concerned together with the other
options that are available.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
loss of overtime earnings.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89588 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12598
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES BAGGOT STREET COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of four workers for compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Baggot Street Hospital closed as an acute hospital on the 31st
December, 1987 as part of the overall rationalisation of hospital
services in the Dublin area. The hospital remained open as a
Community/Geriatric Hospital. Prior to the 31st December, 1987
the staff of the hospital were offered the following options:
(a) redeployment to similar positions in other Dublin
Voluntary Hospitals;
(b) remain in employment at Baggot Street Hospital;
(c) Voluntary Redundancy/Early Retirement;
(d) redeployment to the Eastern Health Board.
3. The majority of the staff at that time opted for re-deployment
or voluntary redundancy. Of the total staff employed at the
hospital approximately 23 chose to stay.
4. The Union, on behalf of four of its members, a night porter, a
day porter, a member of the household staff and a supervisor,
submitted a claim for compensation in respect of loss of overtime
earnings. The Hospital rejected the claim and the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
10th May, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 4th
September, 1989. As no agreement was reached the claim was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 2nd October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned have suffered heavy losses (details
supplied to the Court) and their losses continue to build up.
These have serious implications on them and on their families.
In June, 1974 an Agreement was reached whereby the Union was
required to provide 24 hour cover all year round for all
hospitals in the Dublin Voluntary Group. As a result of this
commitment the workers concerned had to adjust their domestic
and social lives accordingly. The workers also entered into
financial commitments based on their enhanced earnings e.g.
mortgages, health insurance, education etc. As a result they
are not in a position to sustain this continuous loss.
2. It is unreasonable to expect the workers to suffer these
continuous losses. Former staff who were re-deployed have
enhanced their earnings in their new locations. Nursing staff
who remained at Baggot Street have also been in receipt of a
geriatric allowance and other staff who remained have not
suffered losses.
3. In October, 1987 James Connolly Memorial Hospital was
transferred to the Eastern Health Board. Staff employed there
retained their conditions of employment on a personal basis
without affecting the conditions of employment of other E.H.B.
staff (details supplied to the Court).
4. The concept of paying compensation is not new and the
Court has issued numerous recommendations to that effect.
Accordingly the Union's claim for (a) restoration of the
earnings of the workers concerned and, (b) compensation in
respect of their losses is fair and reasonable and the Court
is requested to recommend accordingly.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. At no time was any guarantee given that conditions such as
premia pay could be maintained. This line has been
consistently adopted and maintained by management during the
current hospital rationalisation process. Management rejects
the principle that it should have to pay compensation where
overtime working has either been reduced or eliminated.
2. All grades of staff in all hospitals have been affected by
the cutbacks. Overtime working has been reduced/eliminated in
almost all hospitals and, had Baggot Street Hospital continued
to provide acute services, it is reasonable to assume that
there would have been a reduction or elimination of overtime
there.
3. Concession of the claim would give rise to an expectation
of compensation to all other employees throughout the health
service whose overtime earnings have been reduced or
eliminated due to rationalisation. The health service is at
present engaged in an extremely difficult cost-cutting
exercise in an effort to remain within its allocation for the
current year and the Union's claim can only be conceded at the
expense of further cutbacks in services and/or manpower.
4. Any award of compensation to these employees would be
unjustified given that other groups of workers and similar
staff groups in other hospitals are faced with reductions in
overtime and premia earnings. Any concession here would
inevitably lead to claims from these groups for compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the views of the parties in their
written and oral submissions is of the view that as a consequence
of the decision to close the hospital it was imperative that any
options being made available to the staff concerned should have
been fully discussed and the implications of each option
particularly in respect of job security and remuneration fully
detailed and explained.
The Court can understand in the absence of such clarification the
views as expressed by the representatives of the workers.
The Court notes that options are still available to the staff.
The Court recommends the parties fully discuss the developments
proposed for the hospital for the future and the likely
implications of such developments for the security of employment
and remuneration of the workers concerned together with the other
options that are available.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
loss of overtime earnings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
23rd October, 1989
M.D./J.C. Deputy Chairman.