Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89904 Case Number: AD908 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CEREBRAL PALSY IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION |
Appeal by the Irish Nurses Organisation against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Number B.C. 242/89.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the general conditions applying in the clinic
and the additional increments paid to the worker concerned in
respect of the additional qualifications she possessed the Court
is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation
should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89904 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD890
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CEREBRAL PALSY IRELAND LIMITED
(MARINO CLINIC)
and
IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Irish Nurses Organisation against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation Number B.C. 242/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned who is a Registered General Nurse was
employed by the Association as a child care assistant at the
Marino Clinic, Bray, from the 5th September, 1987 to February,
1989. Her responsibilities and duties (details supplied to the
Court) included the requirement to do night duty for a minimum of
five weeks per annum, and to relieve night duty staff nurses if
required. The Organisation claimed that the worker should have
received premium payments in respect of night duty worked during
her term of employment at the clinic. Management rejected the
claim on the grounds that her salary incorporated an allowance for
night duty and weekend working. The dispute was referred to a
Rights Commissioner on the 24th October, 1989. On the 7th
November, 1989 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"In the light of the above I must hold that management of the
clinic should pay the worker the sum of #50 in respect of the
additional responsibilities which she undertook on occasions.
I also recommend that the claim on behalf of the worker for
premium payments in respect of periods of night duty must
fail since it has not been the practice within the clinic to
make such premium payments.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The Organisation rejected the recommendation and on the 5th
December, 1989 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held
on the 26th January, 1990.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker concerned was employed on periods of night
duty she was acting in a higher capacity than that of a child
care assistant; she was actually substituting for nursing
staff who would be in receipt of a premium payment. Her
duties were actually on the floor duties not "sleeping in."
Additional payments are made to child care assistants in
respect of unsocial hours; these provide for payment of a
"sleeping in" allowance (details supplied to the Court).
Management did not pay this "sleeping in" allowance to the
worker concerned thereby acknowledging that she was performing
duties at a level removed from that normally undertaken by a
child care assistant.
2. As with any staff member required to work unsocial hours,
great social inconvenience was caused to the worker concerned
without any compensatory pay being forthcoming. It is now
traditional in both public and private hospitals that staff
required to be rostered for night duty receive a premium of
time and one quarter. This applies to both nursing and
ancillary grades such as porters, attendants, domestic staff
etc. The loss accruing to the worker concerned is
approximately #650.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker concerned was appointed she was placed on
Point 5 of the child care assistant scale in view of her
nursing qualifications. This scale incorporates an allowance
for weekend and night duty working. The letter of appointment
of the worker stated that she would be required to work a
minimum of five weeks night duty per year. She was requested
to do night duty on numerous occasions but was never available
to do so. She only completed twenty nights night duty during
December, January and February, 1989.
2. At a meeting between the parties in November, 1988 the
Organisation accepted that night duty was part of the worker's
duties in accordance with her contract. The Association
already has an agreement with another Union representing child
care assistants at the clinic, (details supplied to the Court)
that the salary scale being paid to child care staff is an all
inclusive scale which makes allowance for night duty and
weekend working.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the general conditions applying in the clinic
and the additional increments paid to the worker concerned in
respect of the additional qualifications she possessed the Court
is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation
should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
6th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.