Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90185 Case Number: LCR12814 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HAZEL HALL NURSING HOME - and - HAZEL HALL NURSING HOME;THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the re-instatement of two part-time employees.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is concerned at the deterioration in industrial
relations in the Home which appears to have commenced in January,
1990. In these circumstances the Court feels it is imperative
that a period of normality is restored during which negotiations
on the many points which have arisen can take place starting with
the question (not specifically before the Court) of Union
recognition.
The Court therefore recommends that the two employees dismissed on
the 10th March, 1990 be re-instated immediately on the same terms
on which they had been previously employed, for a period up to the
30th June, 1990. The Court would expect the parties to
immediately commence discussions aimed at resolving the existing
difficulties, thereby creating a climate in which the future
security of the Home for the patients, staff and owners can be
assured. These discussions naturally must cover future staffing
arrangements including work rosters which may or may not meet the
aspirations of the two employees who are the subject of this
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90185 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12814
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HAZEL HALL NURSING HOME
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the re-instatement of two part-time employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Home was taken over by new management in May 1989. In
January, 1990, the Union wrote to Management, advising that some
of the staff had joined its membership and sought a meeting
regarding wages and conditions etc. In addition, it also advised
that new contracts of employment that had been given to staff
members would not be signed until they had been negotiated with
the Union. Because of the unavailability of the full Management
team, a meeting was not held until the 15th March. A week
previously (on the 10th March) two part-time employees who worked
in a cleaning capacity at weekends were laid-off and the rosters
amended as follows:-
Old Shift Cleaning Dining Room
Worker A Monday to Friday Monday to Friday
Worker B 9 a.m. to 12 noon 12 noon to 1.30 p.m.
Worker C Saturday and Sunday Saturday and Sunday
Worker D 9 a.m. to 12 noon 12 noon to 1.30 p.m.
New Shift
Worker A Sat Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri
8-2 8-2 8-2 Off Off 8-2 8-2 Week 1.
Worker A Off Off Off 8-2 8-2 Off Off Week 2.
Worker B Off Off Off 8-2 8-2 Off Off Week 1.
Worker B 8-2 8-2 8-2 Off Off 8-2 8-2 Week 2.
3. The issue of the lay-offs was raised at the meeting of the
15th March. The Union advised Management that unless the workers
concerned were re-instated it would serve official strike notice
in pursuance of same. Management, however, was not willing to
agree to this and no agreement was reached. (The meeting had been
arranged to discuss union recognition but because of the dispute
regarding the lay-offs, this issue has not yet been resolved and
although Management has had several meetings with the Union
concerning the lay-offs it hasn't yet recognised it for
negotiation purposes etc.). In the absence of agreement on the
lay-offs the Union served strike notice to expire on the 9th
April, 1990. On the 4th April the conciliation service of the
Labour Court invited both sides to attend a conciliation
conference in an effort to reach agreement. The Union agreed to
defer taking strike action pending the outcome of the conciliation
discussions. Two conciliation conferences were held (11th and
20th April) but no agreement could be reached. The Industrial
Relations Officer requested the Union to further defer taking
industrial action pending an early hearing of the dispute by the
Labour Court. The Union agreed to defer action and Management
agreed to join the referral to a full investigation of the dispute
by the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held on the 24th April,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 10th March, 1990, the two claimants had their
employment terminated without notice or consultation. Both
worked 4.5 hours on Saturday and Sunday. One had been
employed for 5 years and the other for 2 years in a cleaning
capacity. The basis of their dismissal was that Management
re-organised the daily duties and re-scheduled other crews who
worked Monday through to Friday to cover a 7 day roster with
one cleaner being available on a daily basis as opposed to two
per day. This eliminated a need for the week-end cleaning
staff. (One of the cleaners who had her work rostered from
five to seven days and is a member of the Union is also
objecting to the new schedule as well as the additional work
load).
2. The grounds put forward by the FIE for the dismissals were
that "the employees concerned were part-time and therefore
there is no obligation upon the Employer to give notice, that
they are not afforded protection under the Unfair Dismissals
Act and as no Union agreement exists that there was no
requirement for consultation'. In addition the Union was
advised that it "could not question Management's right to
re-organise, lay-off and do business as they see fit".
3. All employees are entitled to consideration, consultation
and when they are members of a union, the rights to collective
bargaining. It is not acceptable in Ireland today, nor within
the EC, that part-time workers can be ignored in respect of
their employment rights or that they can or should be treated
differently from permanent employees.
4. 4. The members have at all times fulfilled their obligation
within the employment relationship and depend upon the income
which they derived from this employment. The full-time
members are prepared to make the financial sacrifice of going
on strike in support of their part-time colleagues on the
principle that part-time workers do have rights, and, as trade
union members, are entitled to consultation and agreement in
respect of their employment.
5. The Court is asked to recommend re-instatement of the two
claimants, and in doing so support the social and political
aspirations that part-time workers should not be treated as
disposable objects without rights or consideration.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the new management took over significant
irregularities of pay were discovered. These were:-
(i) some employees were not paying the correct tax and PRSI
(ii) some employees were not shown on tax and PRSI returns at
all.
The direct effect of putting right the irregularities was:-
(i) to protect the amount of take home pay as under the old
management, increases of 13.6% to 54.8% were incurred
(gross).
(ii) cost of wages increased by 100% overall.
2. The two claimants had been working nine hours per week
since May, 1989. Management has no record of them being
employed with the previous owner, although it is claimed that
they had been working for five and two years respectively.
Whilst it is incumbent on Management to treat the two
individuals with respect there is no obligation to keep them
in employment. One of the claimants is understood to be
working outside the Home on a Monday to Friday basis. She was
offered relief work but declined it. The other is not
available for work on a Monday to Friday basis because she is
attending school/college, however, it is understood that she
would be available throughout the week during the summer
period.
3. Management assessed the needs and requirements of the Home
and is satisfied that these staff are surplus to requirements.
The Home is not in a position to maintain staff surplus to
requirements especially in the light of the significant
payroll increases which resulted from the alterations in the
pay structure following the take-over in May, 1989.
5. 4. Management's reasons for making the changes were twofold:-
(1) cleaning staff would not be involved in the dining room
and
(2) that the new shift system would bring the remaining two
workers into line with the shift worked by all other
staff in the Home.
5. The Court is requested to recommend that the Union accept
Management's rights in this manner and that the two
individuals concerned accept the offer of first consideration
for any suitable relief work.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is concerned at the deterioration in industrial
relations in the Home which appears to have commenced in January,
1990. In these circumstances the Court feels it is imperative
that a period of normality is restored during which negotiations
on the many points which have arisen can take place starting with
the question (not specifically before the Court) of Union
recognition.
The Court therefore recommends that the two employees dismissed on
the 10th March, 1990 be re-instated immediately on the same terms
on which they had been previously employed, for a period up to the
30th June, 1990. The Court would expect the parties to
immediately commence discussions aimed at resolving the existing
difficulties, thereby creating a climate in which the future
security of the Home for the patients, staff and owners can be
assured. These discussions naturally must cover future staffing
arrangements including work rosters which may or may not meet the
aspirations of the two employees who are the subject of this
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___27th___April,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman