Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89468 Case Number: LCR12721 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 3 boilermen employed at St. Ita's Hospital and a dispute over the filling of a vacancy.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions of both parties
and having regard to the extent of the possible loss to the
claimants recommends they should be compensated for loss of
earnings to the extent of once the annual loss.
The amount should be calculated by reference to the first 12
months of operation of the new situation.
The Court does not concede the Union claim for replacement of the
general operative.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89468 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12721
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 3
boilermen employed at St. Ita's Hospital and a dispute over the
filling of a vacancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of the overall review of Health Board expenditure, the
operation of all boilerhouses in the Health Board area was
examined. As a result it was decided to convert the boilers at
St. Ita's, Geriatric Hospital, Newcastle West, from solid fuel to
oil.
3. Prior to the change the workers concerned were in receipt of a
week-end allowance and rostered overtime. They are now working a
straight forty-hour week Monday to Friday. Since the change they
have been designated as general workmen with boiler attendant
duties, with the vast majority of their time allocated to the
grounds/maintenance area. The Union lodged a claim for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings of five times the
annual loss. This claim was rejected by the Board.
4. The Union is also seeking a replacement for a general
operative who resigned. He performed general operative duties
plus van driving and craftsman's assistant duties. These duties
are now divided among the three former boilermen. The Board has
refused to hire a replacement on the basis that since the
re-organisation of the boilerhouse these duties can be adequately
performed by the three boilermen.
5. The issues were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court in early 1988. A number of conciliation conferences
were held, the last on 19th April, 1989. As no agreement was
possible the issues were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Limerick on 16th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The allocation to the three workers of duties normally
performed by general operatives does not relieve them of the
obligation to continue to perform duties in the boilerhouse.
In addition management requires these workers to take on
additional, work including the operation of a swill disposal
machine.
2. The obligation to attend work at weekends and make
themselves available for overtime was a requirement of the job
for the workers concerned. The change did not arise out of
financial restrictions placed on the Board but from a desire
to achieve greater productivity.
3. The workers have suffered losses averaging 25% of their
weekly wage (details supplied to the Court). Management, in
bringing in these changes did not take into account the
magnitude of these losses. The workers and their families had
become dependent on the higher earnings.
4. The duties of the workers have increased enormously since
conversion to oil (details supplied to the Court). Hence, in
addition to savings on overtime payments, management is also
in receipt of greater productivity for which no payment has
been made.
5. The Union maintains that the general operative who
resigned should be replaced. He did not leave under the
voluntary redundancy/early retirement scheme. His work is now
being done by the workers concerned which is in addition to
work still remaining in the boiler house and other duties
taken on as a result of people leaving under the voluntary
redundancy/early retirement schemes.
6. The Court will be aware that where a loss is proven it is
the practice to pay compensation and the Court itself has on
many occasions recommended that compensation be paid. The
Court will also be aware that it is unreasonable to expect
workers to perform an unreasonable amount of duties. To do so
would leave these workers open to a claim of negligence for
work left undone due to lack of time.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The claim for loss of earnings cannot be sustained in view
of the Board's critical financial difficulties (details
supplied to the Court). The conversion to an oil fired system
in the boilerhouses was just one of a wide range of economy
measures aimed at minimising the impact on services and
employment.
2. The workers concerned were allowed to remain on a personal
basis on the pay scales applicable to boilerman rather than
that which is applicable to general operatives with boiler
attendant duties. In addition the Board has agreed that two
of the claimants be allowed to continue up the incremental
scale until they reach the maximum point rather than
personalising the salary at the point in the scale which
applied on the date of automation.
3. Since automation the commitment of the men to the
boilerhouse is one man for approximately one hour a day. It
is obvious that this reduced commitment means that the
claimants have time available to spend on duties outside of
the boilerhouse. What is involved therefore is not increased
productivity but a transfer of manpower resources to an
increased commitment of work outside of the boilerhouse. The
duties which have been allocated to the workers concerned are
in accordance with the Productivity Agreement for boilermen
(details supplied to the Court).
4. It would not have been possible to retain the workers in
employment when automation occurred had it not been for the
fact that two general operatives left under the voluntary
redundancy/early retirement scheme and a third resigned.
5. The Court has rejected similar claims in the past and in
doing so has taken into account the financial difficulties of
the organisations concerned (details supplied to the Court).
6. The Board is engaged in an extremely difficult cost
cutting exercise in order to remain within its allocation for
the current year. Concession of the Union's claim can only be
done at the expense of further cutbacks in services or
manpower. This would negate the Board's approach in the
present difficulties and give rise to an expectation of
compensation to other employees whose earnings have been
similarly affected on account of the cutbacks.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions of both parties
and having regard to the extent of the possible loss to the
claimants recommends they should be compensated for loss of
earnings to the extent of once the annual loss.
The amount should be calculated by reference to the first 12
months of operation of the new situation.
The Court does not concede the Union claim for replacement of the
general operative.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
29th January, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.