Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89509 Case Number: AD8964 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
ppeal by the Board against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 386/88 concerning subsistence allowance for ambulance personnel in Wicklow.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation that
the I.P.C. be employed to establish the facts of the claim is not
appropriate in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the Boards appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89509 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD6489
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Board against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 386/88 concerning subsistence allowance
for ambulance personnel in Wicklow.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987 there was a shortfall of #9.29m. in the Board's
allocation from the Department of Health. The Board adopted
asurvival plan part of which was that subsistence allowances
would no longer be paid to staff working within the Board's area.
The existing subsistence allowances at that time were #13.56 for
absences of ten hours or more and #5.54 for absences of five
hours to ten hours. The Union was advised of the budgetary
measures to be taken at a meeting in May, 1987 and the Board
identified the need to make savings of #20,000 in 1987 in this
area. Following discussions it was decided that the lower rate
of subsistence allowance would be paid for all absences over five
hours. The Union referred the matter to the Rights Commissioners
Service and hearings took place on 6th and 29th July, 1987. The
Rights Commissioner's recommendation stated that the Union should
accept the Board's proposals and also provided for a review of
savings made in 1987 to be carried out. In July, 1988 the Union
requested the Rights Commissioner to review the matter. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 13th October,
1988 and made the following recommendation-
"...The Union has supplied the P.60s for the group for the
years ending 5th April, 1986, 1987 and 1988. However, these are
not compatible with the period under review, which is to the
31/12/1987. In these circumstances I am unable to come to a
positive conclusion. It herefore recommend that the parties
should engage the services of the I.P.C. which will quickly
establish whether or not the #20,000 target was achieved by the
claimants at the 31/12/1988. If it was not reached then the
claim fails. If it has been reached or surpassed the parties
should revert to me for a final recommendation."
On 17th July, 1989 the Board appealed the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on 1st
September,1989.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. Payment of subsistence allowances should never have been
made for absences within the Board's area according to the
circular from the Department of Health on subsistence allowances,
as canteen facilities are available in all of the Board's
hospitals. The Board's decision to regularise the subsistence
payments together with its other budgetary measures affected all
workers. It was never intended that, if the savings in one
location were greater than estimated,workers in that area would
be rewarded. The expected saving (which was not reached) for the
Wicklow ambulance base for 1987 was #20,000. This did not mean
that the Board was prepared to compensate the ambulance staff if
a saving in excess of this had been achieved. The ambulance
staff in Wicklow is the only group who continue to receive
subsistence payments for absences within the Board's area.
3.2. The Board's 1988 allocation contained a reduction of
#6.112m. on the 1987 allocation and the 1989 allocation contains
yet another reduction of #5.119m. on 1988 levels. The 1989 budget
strategy requires payroll savings of #1m, this reduction must be
made from a payroll budget which does not include subsistence
payments. Therefore, the Board does not have the funds to either
restore the higher rate of subsistence allowance or to pay
compensation in respect of its loss. The Labour Court in dealing
previously with loss of earnings claims against the Board and the
Health Services in general has recommended against payment of
compensation (details supplied to the Court). Concession of this
claim would have serious repercussive effects by way of claims
from other staff within the Board's area who have lost
subsistence payments. The Board cannot accept the principle of
an outside agency being engaged to assess the effects of its
overall budget strategy on one specific location.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Board had no moral or indeed legal basis for altering
agreed working practices and payments. The agreed two-tier
system of subsistence payments has been in operation for twenty
seven years. In the context of the Programme for National
Recovery where workers may not serve claims which exceed the wage
increase provisions, it must be manifestly contrary to the
Programme for an employer to reduce already agreed payments. No
other Health Board has implemented a similar measure and even
within this Board's Ambulance Service itself, the workers in
Wicklow are treated less favourably than their colleagues in
Dublin on matters of wage payments and related matters. It is
clear that the workers are being treated unfairly.
4.2. The Wicklow ambulance personnel have had enormous reductions
in their salaries over the last number of years. In considering a
number of workers' incomes (details supplied to the Court) it is
clear that the workers' incomes have decreased by as much as
twelve hundred pounds in the three year period to 5th April,
1988, although the workers should have enjoyed the benefits of
nearly five wage increases. In this period the workers suffered
the effects of a reduced purchasing power of their income through
inflation and even though they received five pay increases their
income in real and actual terms was reduced by as much as #1,200.
The original twenty seven year old two-tier subsistence agreement
should be restored.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation that
the I.P.C. be employed to establish the facts of the claim is not
appropriate in the circumstances. The Court accordingly upholds
the Board's appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__20th__September,__1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman