Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89881 Case Number: LCR12732 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the posting of an attendant/domestic at the University College Hospital, Galway.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that the Board acted reasonably in the
circumstances and accordingly recommends that the claimant accept
re-deployment in one of the areas offered.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89881 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12732
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the posting of an attendant/domestic at the
University College Hospital, Galway.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned had been employed as an
attendant/domestic in the catering area at University College
Hospital (formerly the Regional) since 1981, until a
reorganisation in 1988. The two kitchen areas were amalgamated
and several people were redeployed including the worker here
concerned.
3. The worker was initially assigned to the Laundry area on 11th
November, 1988, but did not take up duty there due to illness and
annual leave which she had to take prior to going on maternity
leave. She was on maternity leave from 23rd November, 1988 to
30th March, 1989. On her return to work she was assigned to ward
duties and then to the laundry. For various reasons she found
these postings unsuitable and sought a return to the kitchen area.
4. On the 8th May, 1989 she was suspended from duty for failure
to carry out duties in the Laundry. The Union contacted the Board
about the matter. The Board subsequently offered her a job in the
Laundry or ward duties. This offer was turned down as the worker
had already found the Laundry unsuitable and as the ward duties
entailed shift and night work she would have difficulties with
child minders. The Union has sought her return to the kitchen
area.
5. The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 18th September, 1989. A conciliation conference
was held on 22nd November, 1989. As no agreement was reached the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Galway on 17th
January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union believes that the worker was treated unfairly.
She returned from maternity leave expecting to go back to her
old job or a similar position in the kitchen area. She was,
instead sent to the Laundry. She found this work totally
unsuitable. She had never done any work like this before as
she had always worked in the catering area which is a
completely different environment. The other positions offered
to the worker were unsuitable as they involved split shifts
and night working and the worker had difficulty in getting a
child minder.
2. A woman returning from maternity leave should be given
every help and assistance to settle into her job. It is
clearly not in the interests of the woman to be transferred to
work that she has never done before.
3. The paragraph dealing with the right to return to work
under the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981 could be
interpretated to mean that the worker is entitled to return to
the same grade and place of work and that her job should be
unaltered or identical to the work she was doing prior to her
going on maternity leave.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker concerned is employed as an attendant/domestic
and like all people in that grade can be assigned duties in
any non-nursing area within the Hospital. Due to an
amalgamation of the catering areas surplus staff were
re-deployed to other areas. In fact the worker here concerned
was transferred to the Laundry prior to her going on maternity
leave although due to illness she did not actually take up
this assignment.
2. The Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981 obliges an
employer to make employment available to an employee after
maternity leave in the general area she worked previously, or
in an equivalent area with similar conditions. The worker
here concerned, on return from maternity leave was given her
former job of attendant domestic on the same rate of pay and
conditions. She does not have a right to employment in the
catering area exclusively no more than any other employee has
a right to employment in any specific area.
3. During the course of negotiations the Board has put
forward a number of options (details supplied to the Court)
which are fair and reasonable. These options are still opened
to the worker concerned. Flexibility of movement is essential
to the provision of services and any restriction in this area
will make it impossible to run the Hospital. All staff and
their representatives acknowledge this fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that the Board acted reasonably in the
circumstances and accordingly recommends that the claimant accept
re-deployment in one of the areas offered.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
2nd February, 1990
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.