Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90638 Case Number: LCR13149 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 12 domestic workers concerning payment for working on St. Patrick's Day, 1990.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having read the submission of parties and heard
subsequent verbal arguments considers that the claim for an extra
days leave for the twelve staff is well founded and recommends
concession.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an
additional days pay based on additional workload.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90638 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13149
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 12 domestic workers concerning
payment for working on St. Patrick's Day, 1990.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose from the fact that St. Patrick's Day fell on
a Saturday. Staff who worked on the Saturday were rostered from
the overtime roster. Domestic staff work 5 days over 6, Monday to
Saturday. Staff rostered to work on Saturday, 17th March, 1990,
received 2T for all hours worked. They had also received their
normal pay for that week. Staff who were not rostered to work on
the Saturday received a days pay in lieu of the public holiday.
Monday, 19th March, 1990, was treated as a normal day for pay
purposes, but there was a reduced level of staffing due to reduced
activity levels in the Hospital. The staff rostered for the
Saturday also worked the Monday for which they received a normal
days pay. The staff that were not required to work the Monday but
were rostered to work, also received a days pay so they were not
at a loss due to the reduced level of activity in the Hospital.
The Union claims that the method of payment was unfair to those
who worked on the Monday and that they should receive an extra
days annual leave in respect of working that day. The Union
further contends that the staff had additional workloads on the
Monday and they should be compensated by way of an additional days
pay. The Hospital rejects the Union's claim. On 18th April,
1990, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 21st August, 1990, and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court, on 30th October, 1990, for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 5th
December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff who worked on Saturday 17th March, 1990, were
rostered from the overtime roster and received the normal
payment for work on the Saturday. The difficulties arose over
the bank holiday 19th March, 1990. Prior to that date, staff
were advised that they would receive the normal public holiday
payment. They were subsequently advised that they would not
receive any additional payments. This created an anomaly for
those who worked on the Monday. One extra days leave will
bring them back into line with the rest of the staff.
2. The Union believes that the selection process for staff
who worked on the Monday was wrong. Only 12 out of 40 staff
worked that day. The normal duty is 5.5 hours but staff had
to work 8 hours. The workload for the staff was higher than
normal. Due to the nature of childrens' illnesses, there is
not the usual downturn in numbers at the weekend. Indeed the
Hospital had the normal compliment of nursing staff working on
the Monday. In these circumstances the Union believes that
those who worked the Monday should be rewarded by the payment,
as an exceptional measure, of an additional days pay.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. The Hospital has fully discharged its obligations in respect
of the public holiday. As regards Monday, 19th March, 1990,
there was a reduced staffing requirement due to the reduced
activity in the Hospital. The staff who worked on the Monday,
received a days pay as this was part of their normal working
week. The Hospital sees no basis for the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having read the submission of parties and heard
subsequent verbal arguments considers that the claim for an extra
days leave for the twelve staff is well founded and recommends
concession.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an
additional days pay based on additional workload.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
14th January, 1991 -----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman