Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD905 Case Number: LCR12811 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARA CHESHIRE HOME - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning:- 1 An increase in the calculation of pay for night duty 2 Travel Allowance 2(A) Saturday Allowance. 3 Payment of a lump sum in lieu of deferral of a pay increase.
Recommendation:
15. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties makes the following recommendations:-
1. That the parties accept that an established parity in
respect of terms and conditions of employment exists
with workers in the Eastern Health Board.
2. That the Eastern Health Board rates for travel, night
duty allowance (calculated on the basis of 112 hours),
and Saturday allowance be applied with effect from 1st
January, 1989.
3. That the parties recognising the financial constraints
on the home agree a basis for a phased implementation
of the amounts due by way of retrospection subject to
all outstanding monies being paid on or before 31st
July, 1991.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD905 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12811
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CARA CHESHIRE HOME
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning:-
1 An increase in the calculation of pay for night duty
2 Travel Allowance
2(A) Saturday Allowance.
3 Payment of a lump sum in lieu of deferral of a pay
increase.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Cara Cheshire Home is one of seven Cheshire Homes
throughout the country. It provides residential care for
the physically disabled and chronically ill. The Home,
which is a charitable organisation, is subvented by the
Eastern Health Board.
2. The claims listed at 1, 2 and 3 above were the subject of a
Labour Court investigation in December, 1986. In
Recommendation No. 10921 dated 29th January, 1987 the Court
recommended as follows:-
"The Court, having considered the submissions made
by the parties is of the view that the claimants
have an established pay parity with similar
workers in the Eastern Health Board. The Court
recommends, however, that, because of the present
difficult financial position of the Home,
consideration of the Union's claims should be
deferred until April, 1987 and then considered in
the context of the financial situation obtaining
at that time. In the meantime, management should
allow the present arrangements concerning the
travel allowance to stand."
The claims including claim listed at 2(A) (Saturday Allowance)
were again referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court in May, 1989. They were the subject of conciliation
conferences in June, July and September, 1989. Agreement was not
reached and the Union requested a full Court hearing in November,
1989. The Home agreed but as the Conciliation Service required
clarification on details of a final settlement proposal (from the
Home) the dispute was not referred to the Court until January,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 26th January, 1990.
BACKGROUND CLAIM 1 - AN INCREASE IN THE CALCULATION OF PAY FOR
NIGHT DUTY:
3. 1. The Union contends that payment for night duty should be
calculated on the basis of a 112 hour fortnight and not 102
hours as applied at present. It is also claiming that the
hours of work for care staff have increased to 117 hours with
effect from 1st January, 1989. Management of the Home claim
that new rosters effective from 1st January, 1989, brings
actual working time for its workforce into line with that for
Eastern Health Board night duty workers (similar workers).
They are prepared to calculate pay for night duty on the basis
of a 112 hour fortnight provided workers accept the new
contracts of employment (conditions and terms of employment
similar to Eastern Health Board Workers).
Management will make a retrospective payment of 5 months arrears
with effect from the date of agreement by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Night duty workers attend at the Home for seven
consecutive nights, working an 11.50 hour night. They have the
following week off. The twenty five per cent night premium
paid to the workers is applied to only 51 hours per week (102
hours per fortnight). The night premium should be applied to
a 56 hours week (112 hour fortnight). Workers are losing 10
hours premium pay every fortnight. To date they are due an
approximate #489 per worker.
2. Since 1st January, 1989, staff work a 12 hour night.
The increased working time has also increased the loss of pay
to the workers, leaving an additional #100 approximately due
in arrears.
HOME'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Prior to January, 1989, night duty staff worked an 11.50
hour shift. This included paid breaks. They were paid on the
basis of a 102 hour fortnight. Following an Eastern Health
Board investigation into the Home, it was discovered that
staff were working an average 35 hour week instead of 40
hours. Staff were then requested to make out rosters on the
basis of a 40 hour week. Management found it necessary to
design the revised rosters as none were proposed by staff.
The revised rosters resulted in a 12 hour night shift with an
unpaid half hour break. Resulting from the adjustment to the
roster the Union are claiming payment for a 117 hour
fortnight.
2. If the Union claim parity with Eastern Health Board
workers for all payment aspects, it must accept other terms
and conditions applicable, such as unpaid breaks as exists in
the Eastern Health Board. If Eastern Health Board terms and
conditions are applied, then workers owe the Home for paid
breaks which they have received over the years.
3. Subject to the new contracts (Eastern Health Board
conditions) being accepted and to all other claims being
settled, the Home will pay 112 hours as compared to 102 hours,
for the new roster. Five months retrospection will be paid
from the date of acceptance.
Background Claim 2 - Travel Allowance:
6. 1. Workers in the Home were paid the same rate of travel
allowance as that which applied to workers in the Eastern
Health Board, up to 1986. The Union is claiming
restoration of Eastern Health Board rates, with full
retrospection for all workers. The Home is agreeable to
pay the rate of travel allowance applicable in the Eastern
Health Board, with a five months retrospection payment
(offer dated 16th October, 1989), provided the Union drop
its claim for full retrospective payment of arrears due.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The travel allowance in dispute has been the subject of
a number of increases since 1986. The increases which were
applied by the Eastern Health Board were not applied to the
allowance paid to workers in the Home. Details of rates
applicable and of rates paid by the Home (supplied to the
Court) since 1986, show the actual loss of income to the
workers concerned with the claim.
2. Workers in the Home should not be treated as second
class citizens within the Eastern Health Board wage structure.
They must be paid the appropriate travel allowance with full
retrospection of arrears due since 1986.
HOME'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. At the time of Labour Court Recommendation No. 10921,
management contended that the Home introduced the travel
allowance in error, in 1982. This is still management's
position. However, management are prepared to implement the
rate of travel allowance at the rate paid by the Eastern
Health Board, provided the claim for full retrospection is
dropped.
2. The financial situation in the Home makes difficult the
payment of any retrospection but the Home will pay five months
arrears with effect from the date of agreement.
Background Claim 2(A) - Saturday Allowance.
9. 1. Eastern Health Board employees who are required to work
on Saturdays receive a standard 'Saturday Allowance' payment.
The Saturday premium was introduced to compensate workers who
operate a five over six day roster. A similar allowance is
paid to the Home workers. The allowance paid to the Home
workers had not been increased since 1986. The Union contends
that since the Home workers have parity of pay and working
conditions with Eastern Health Board workers, their 'Saturday
Allowance' should have increased in line with that which
applies in the Eastern Health Board. It is claiming that the
appropriate allowance, with full retrospection, should be paid
to all workers concerned with the claim. Management of the
Home are prepared to pay the 'Saturday Allowance' at the
Eastern Health Board rate (with five months retrospection)
provided the Union drop its claim for a full retrospective
payment.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
10. 1. The 'Saturday Allowance' paid to workers in the Home has
not been increased since 1986, despite the fact that the
allowance paid to comparable workers in the Eastern Health
Board has had various increases applied. The allowance must
be brought into line with the Eastern Health Board rate and
arrears totalling #163 approximately paid to each worker.
HOME'S ARGUMENT:
11. 1. The current rate of 'Saturday Allowance' paid by the
Eastern Health Board is #3.79 per Saturday. The rate
applicable in the Home at present is #2.10. The Home is
willing to implement the Eastern Health Board rate of
allowance and to pay five months retrospection provided the
Union drop its claim for a full retrospective payment.
Claim 3 - Payment of a lump sum in lieu of deferral of a pay
increase
12. 1. The claim relates to a lump sum payment arising from the
23rd Wage Round. Paragraph 4.2.(C) of the 1983 Public Service
Pay Agreement provided for a retrospection payment in 1986
i.e. "retrospection due in respect of claims under Paragraph
3.1. of the amendments to the 1981 Agreement on Pay in the
Public Service may be paid in January, 1986". The Union are
claiming that as the payment was made to Eastern Health Board
workers (lump sum payment of #8.35 per week for the period 1st
May, 1983 to 30 September, 1983) the retrospection payment
must also be made to workers in the Home, as they have direct
parity with Eastern Health Board pay and conditions.
Management's position is that there is no evidence to suggest
that an agreed parity existed between both workforces at the
time of the 1983 Pay Agreement and accordingly they have no
obligation to make lump sum payments as claimed by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. Eastern Health Board workers received a lump sum payment
in 1986, under the terms of the 23rd Wage Round. Paragraph
4.2(C) of the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement provided for
the retrospection payment. Workers in the Home did not
receive this lump sum. There is an approximate #183 due to
each one.
2. Management of the Home claim that they had no written
agreement to make a lump sum payment to its workers under the
1983 Public Service Pay Agreement, as there is no evidence
that an agreed parity existed between both workforces. It has
always been accepted that workers in the Home enjoy direct
parity with pay and conditions applicable to Eastern Health
Board staff. A letter dated 16th July, 1984, from the Home's
representative dealing with personnel matters, clearly affirms
the relativity between the workforces (supplied to the Court).
HOME'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. The claim for a lump sum payment arising from the 1983
Public Service Pay Agreement has already been the subject of a
Labour Court hearing (recommendation 10,921). During that
Court hearing the Home argued that no records existed on an
agreement to pay a lump sum. The Home did not accept that its
workers had parity in pay and conditions with Eastern Health
Board workers. The Home is still not aware of any written or
verbal agreement to pay retrospection arising from the 23rd
Wage Round.
2. At the time of the Labour Court hearing the Home was not
in a financial position to entertain the claim. This position
has not changed as the Home still has serious financial
difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
15. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties makes the following recommendations:-
1. That the parties accept that an established parity in
respect of terms and conditions of employment exists
with workers in the Eastern Health Board.
2. That the Eastern Health Board rates for travel, night
duty allowance (calculated on the basis of 112 hours),
and Saturday allowance be applied with effect from 1st
January, 1989.
3. That the parties recognising the financial constraints
on the home agree a basis for a phased implementation
of the amounts due by way of retrospection subject to
all outstanding monies being paid on or before 31st
July, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
30th April, 1990 -------------
A. McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman