Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89834 Case Number: AD9043 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 258/89 concerning compensation for increased duties.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89834 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4390
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. S.T. 258/89 concerning compensation for increased duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1987, Letterkenny General Hospital had to affect major
staff reductions in the non-nursing grades. At that time there
were four security posts. The Board proposed that the security
men take on some non-security duties. This would allow two posts
to be saved in the portering area. Two security men with the
longest service insisted on carrying out security duties only. It
was eventually agreed that the two with least service would
undertake the non-security work (medical records and post round).
This resulted in a reduction in the portering staff of two. The
two security men who were re-deployed sought compensation for the
change in duties. The matter was the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's investigation. In recommendation S.T. 354/88 the
Rights Commissioner recommended that they each receive #1,000 upon
acceptance of the recommendation and #300 on 1st January, 1989.
The recommendation was accepted by all parties. In 1989, the two
security men who had not changed duties indicated that they also
sought compensation. The Board rejected the claim. The security
man hereconcerned referred the question of compensation to a
Rights Commissioner. On 21st July, 1989, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation (S.T. 258/89).
"The claimant has established that he has less back up in
emergencies. The figures speak for themselves. However he
is not expected to perform the work of two men by the Board.
He has again declined to rotate with the two down graded
colleagues. In that event I cannot recommend any
compensation.
In relation to loss of earnings there is no precedent which
I can use to help him here and I must therefore recommend
that this claim fails also".
The security man rejected the recommendation and on 6th November,
1989, he appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal on 26th September, 1990, (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The security men who were re-deployed were compensated
because they took on extra duties and responsibilities. The
two remaining security men also have more onerous duties. Two
men are now doing the work of four. Often two security men
would be working at one time because of a duty overlap. Now
there is only one security man on at any one time.
2. The re-deployed security men are financially better off
than the remaining security men. As a result of the
re-deployment the security men have each dropped a Sunday
duty. The re-deployed security men do relief duty on two
Sundays out of every four Sundays.
3. The security man concerned believes that he should be
compensated in a similar manner to the re-deployed security
men as he has been as flexible as they have been. He does not
believe that the Rights Commissioner took into account his
increased duties and his flexibility.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the area of loss of earnings, the security man's
position is no different from that of a great number of staff
in the non-nursing category. The Board has tried to reduce as
much week-end work as possible and thereby allow for continued
employment of a greater number of staff. All categories of
staff are affected by this, some to a greater extent than the
security man hereconcerned. No compensation for loss of
premium earnings has been paid.
2. The security man does not differ from any other worker
with regard to a greater workload. Reduction in all areas of
the workforce have occurred in the past few years. No
compensation has been paid to any category. The security man
is not expected to do the work of two security men and as
heretofore he works 40 hours per week. All security staff are
assigned a reasonable workload.
3. The Board does not accept that compensation is warranted
in this case as the circumstances are completely different.
The security man chose to remain in the security area. The
re-deployed staff, who worked in security for 5/6 years, now
perform entirely different duties which were formerly
portering duties.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
18th October, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman