Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90434 Case Number: LCR13034 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a special payment to thirteen drivers and one attendant to compensate for a reduction in their overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the level of earnings which the claimants have
received since their redeployment and the financial constraints on
the Board, the Court having considered the submissions from the
parties does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90434 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13034
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
JAMES CONNOLLY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a special payment to thirteen drivers
and one attendant to compensate for a reduction in their overtime
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. As and from 4th September, 1989, a 24 hour ambulance
service/accident and emergency system was introduced in all Dublin
accident and emergency hospitals. Prior to the introduction of
this system, James Connolly Memorial Hospital provided a service
for the Northside on a rotational basis with two other hospitals.
During normal working hours the hospital service was operated by a
driver and an attendant (rotational basis). When the hospital was
on call the ambulance service was operated by a driver only on an
overtime basis. Following the introduction of the 24 hour service
system the Board assigned a driver and an attendant on a full time
basis to each ambulance. Arising from this three additional
attendant posts were created in the ambulance service area. As
part of a cost cutting measure the hospital decided at the same
time to close the gate portering service and to redeploy the four
porters concerned. One porter was assigned to the hospital's Xray
department and the other three porters were assigned to the
ambulance service area. During discussions, at local level, on
the revised operating systems the Union raised the issue of loss
of overtime earnings arising from the changes. Management in a
letter to the Union on 29th January, 1990, responded as follows:-
"The Board is agreeable to examine the overtime earnings of
the Drivers employed in the Hospital. If a loss of earnings
is identified as a result of the introduction of the new
arrangements following the closure of the Gate Portering
service compared with the earnings under the arrangement that
existed in the Hospital prior to the introduction of the full
24 hours on-call system and a claim for compensation for such
a loss is submitted by the Union, the Board would be prepared
to have this matter referred to the Labour Court for
investigation."
The Union then claimed compensation for loss of overtime earnings
arising from the redeployment of the gate porters. The Board
rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not in a position to
make any compensatory offers because of its critical financial
position. As no agreement was reached at local level the dispute
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
16th May, 1990. The dispute was not resolved at a conciliation
conference held on 17th July, 1990. Both parties requested a full
Court hearing. The Court investigated the dispute on 6th
September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. From 1981 until February, 1990, overtime for these workers
was, rostered and was an integral part of their conditions of
employment. The Board agrees that the average loss of
overtime is 2.50 hours per week. In 1987, a commitment was
given, by way of an agreement, that workers' conditions of
employment would not change.
2. In a letter to the Union on 6th July, 1989, the Board
stated:-
"The Board is prepared to discuss the question of loss of
earnings as soon as a loss, if any, can be established."
In a letter dated 29th January, 1990, outlining the changes
which were due to take place, the Board again gave a
commitment to examine the overtime earnings of workers
affected by the change, stating that it would be prepared to
have the issue referred to the Labour Court, if necessary.
3. The Board has argued that in general, no loss of earnings
has occurred as earnings for a particular period in 1990,
compared with the same period for 1989, reveal that no real
loss has arisen. However the figures for 1990 include phase 3
of the P.N.R. and a special increase of approximately #2.25
per week.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Having examined the earnings of the workers covered by the
claim over corresponding 21 week periods before and after the
redeployment of the gate porters, the Board contends that
there are no grounds for conceding the claim (details of
earnings mid February 1989 - mid July, 1989 and mid February,
1990 - mid July, 1990, supplied to the Court). As can be seen
from these details the earnings of staff have actually
increased in all cases with two exceptions. In one case the
total loss in earnings is less than #30 over the 21 week
period. In the other case the driver was on sick leave for 19
of the 21 weeks examined and accordingly it is not possible to
determine his actual loss of earnings, if any exists. In the
case of the attendant there may be a reduction in his overtime
earnings. However, as a result of the redeployment of the
gate porters and the introduction of shift work for attendants
on the ambulance, this worker now enjoys greatly increased
earnings as he is in receipt of shift, Saturday, Sunday and
Public Holiday premia which previously had not been paid to
him.
2. The Board has had to sustain a shortfall of over #20
million in the past 3 years in its requirement to provide
services. In order to live within the reduced allocation the
Board has had to examine carefully its approach to providing
services and pinpoint areas where savings can be made. Since
1987 the Board has taken a number of measures to ensure that
it does not exceed its financial allocation, included in these
measures were the reduction in premium and overtime earnings
of staff and the redeployment of staff. At a time when all
funds must be directed towards maintaining services to
patients and preserving employment, payment of compensation
for any loss of earnings cannot be considered.
3. The situation that arose in James Connolly Memorial
Hospital with the withdrawal of the gate portering service was
a redundancy situation within the meaning of the Redundancy
Payment Acts. However, with the introduction of the 24 hour
accident and emergency service the Board took the opportunity
to reduce the rostered overtime available to driving staff to
assist in the creation of three posts of attendant on the
ambulance. With the creation of these three posts the Board
was in a position to redeploy three of the gate portering
staff into vacant posts. The creation of these posts may have
resulted in the loss of some overtime for drivers but it also
resulted in the Board redeploying staff into posts when other
less desirable courses of action may have been open at that
time. It is better to maintain staff in employment through
re-deployment, even if it means the elimination of overtime to
others, than to make such staff redundant.
4. In a number of cases where changes/cutbacks have occurred
the Board has received claims for the payment of compensation
for a loss of earnings. In all of these cases (with the
exception of Boilermen - where an agreement was in existence
since 1983) the Board has strongly resisted the payment of
such compensation. A number of these cases were then referred
to the Labour Court and the Court has recognised the special
financial position of the Board by rejecting the claims i.e.
L.C.R.'s 11403, 11404, 11758, 11838, 11936 and 12427.
5. Despite the shortfall in its allocation the Board has
endeavoured at all times to preserve employment as far as
possible by concentrating mainly on the reduction of "on cost"
payments. However the Board still found it necessary to
terminate the employment of a number of temporary staff in
1987. Since then even though the Board has not been forced to
disemploy temporary staff because of its financial position
staff numbers employed have been reduced, as over 170 opted to
leave the service under the terms of the Voluntary
Redundancy/Early Retirement Scheme and a number of other
vacancies have been left unfilled. At a time when the Board
has had to disemploy staff, make offers in respect of
voluntary redundancy and early retirement and leave vacancies
unfilled because of a shortfall in its financial allocation
there is no way that it can afford to pay compensation to
existing staff for any loss of earnings.
6. The Board has been given a current overdraft limit of #5
million by the Department of Health and in no circumstances
can this peak overdraft limit be exceeded. To date it has
kept within the weekly cash limits set out by the Department
of Health and the overdraft limit, which is very strictly
monitored, has not been breached. However, the Board's bank
accounts are being operated to a level which is close to the
maximum limits and there is no room for any flexibility
whatsoever within cash-flow management procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the level of earnings which the claimants have
received since their redeployment and the financial constraints on
the Board, the Court having considered the submissions from the
parties does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
27th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman.
A.McG./J.C.