Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91256 Case Number: AD9153 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ST LUKE'S HOSPITAL AND ST ANNE'S HOSPITAL - and - A WORKER |
An appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner Recommendation S.T. 433/90 regarding a dispute re alleged loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant had a legitimate
claim to be answered and that he pursued it in good faith. Having
considered the submissions however, the Court is of the view that
the additional monetary payment recommended by the Rights
Commissioner is appropriate to the case.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91256 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5391
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ST LUKE'S HOSPITAL AND ST ANNE'S HOSPITAL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner
Recommendation S.T. 433/90 regarding a dispute re alleged loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker is employed as a boilerman at St. Luke's and St
Anne's Hospital since 1963. In October, 1989, the Hospital
conceded that overtime hours for boilermen had been calculated
at the incorrect rate since 1978. This was corrected at the
time and a Union claim on behalf of 2 of the 3 boilermen
involved was settled as follows:
Worker I (8 years service)
#500 at Christmas 1989
#500 at Christmas 1990
#500 at Christmas 1991
#500 at Christmas 1992
Worker II (short service)
Once off payment of #200
2. The worker in this claim belonged to another Union which
was not involved in the negotiations. The Hospital extended
the settlement for Worker I and payments of #500 each were
paid at Christmas 1989 and at Christmas 1990. The worker was
not satisfied that the settlement took account of his extra
service during the period of the incorrect payments (2 years)
and the Union brought a case on the worker's behalf before a
Rights Commissioner for recommendation. The following
recommendation (S.T. 433/90) was issued on 15th April, 1991.
"RECOMMENDATION
On the basis that this is a once off exercise, I
recommend that the claimant receives #400 at Christmas
1993 or such sooner time when he may retire. The payment
to be made by the Hospital without prejudice and accepted
by the claimant in full and final settlement of his
claim."
The worker appealed the recommendation on his own behalf to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 21st June,
1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was discovered in 1989 that the incorrect overtime rate
had been paid since 1978. At this time the worker asked his
Union to claim on his behalf the retrospective payments to
which he was entitled. The Union did not act on his behalf
and the Hospital subsequently applied unilaterally an
agreement reached with another Union for a worker with less
service.
2. The worker is seeking an entitlement to the full amount
due since 1978 and finds the payment representing the years
1980 to October, 1989 as unacceptable. The worker acted in
good faith throughout and because of circumstances outside his
control, was unable to negotiate a settlement prior to the
Rights Commissioner's hearing. The compensation allowed for
in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation does not
compensate adequately for the 2 years' payment due.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In October, 1989, the Hospital conceded that the overtime
rates had been incorrect since 1978 and the rates were
corrected. A subsequent claim for retrospective compensation
was settled and the terms extended to the worker. At no time
did the worker or his Union become involved in the
negotiations, although the Union was notified in advance. The
worker was notified of the outcome and voiced no opposition at
that time.
2. The Hospital had negotiated in good faith and reached
agreement with all concerned. The agreement arrived at was
freely negotiated and was an agreed amount. Although unhappy
that any further payment should be made, the Hospital has
accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant had a legitimate
claim to be answered and that he pursued it in good faith. Having
considered the submissions however, the Court is of the view that
the additional monetary payment recommended by the Rights
Commissioner is appropriate to the case.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
----------------
1st July, 1991 Chairman
J.F./J.C.