Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91243 Case Number: LCR13347 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AIRMOUNT MATERNITY HOSPITAL, WATERFORD - and - THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION |
Claim by the Union for retrospective compensation for hours worked in excess of 80 by nurses on night duty.
Recommendation:
1990
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91243 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13347
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: AIRMOUNT MATERNITY HOSPITAL, WATERFORD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for retrospective compensation for hours
worked in excess of 80 by nurses on night duty.
BACKGROUND:
2. The nurses concerned while on night duty work 7 nights on and
7 nights off over a fortnightly period. Each night duty consists
of a 12 hour shift and the nurses are therefore present for night
duty for 84 hours per fortnight. During discussions on the
introduction of a 39 hour week the question of the night nurses'
pay and hours of work was discussed. The Union claims that night
nurses worked 84 hours per fortnight but were only paid for 80
hours. Arrears of pay is due to the nurses concerned (about 32)
for extra duty worked over the years. The Hospital rejects the
claim. The implementation of the 39 hour week was agreed from 1st
July, 1990 and the Hospital offered as a gesture of goodwill to
either pay or give time off in lieu of the 4 hours per fortnight
in dispute from that date. This offer was rejected and as no
agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 30th November, 1990.
A conciliation conference was held on 14th February, 1991 at which
no agreement could be reached and the dispute was referred on 7th
May, 1991 to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission
in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on
19th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of paid working hours was first raised locally
in 1982. The Hospital responded at that time by stating that
all hours worked were paid for and therefore there was no
issue to discuss. When the issue was raised in 1990
Management formally accepted that a discrepancy did exist and
that nurses were only paid for 80 hours when they actually
worked 84 hours per fortnight. Management offered to rectify
the anomaly immediately but with no retrospection. This was
unacceptable as the anomaly has existed for about sixteen
years and retrospective compensation should be made.
2. Nurses who worked the 84 hour night duty were not able
to avail of a proper meal beak as they were on-call at all
times. If a problem arose they had to forego their break in
order to deal with it. The effect was that they worked 84
hours although paid for 80 hours. The pay anomaly has
existed since around 1975. The nurses deserve some sort of
recognition for the extra unpaid hours worked and
retrospective compensation should be awarded.
3. The issue of unpaid hours when on night duty has been
the subject of discussions in a sister hospital where it has
been acknowledged that there must be retrospective
compensation in monetary terms (details supplied to the
Court).
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital has no record of the issue of unpaid excess
hours being raised in 1982. The Hospital accepts that nurses
on night duty were present for 84 hours but when allowance is
made for meal breaks (either formal or informal) the number
of hours actually worked could have varied from 77 to 80.
There is no basis to the Union's claim for retrospective
payment.
2. Over the years, Management did not insist on breaks
being staggered or that a certain number of nurses should be
on the wards during meal breaks, once there was adequate
cover. Nurses took meal breaks as suited themselves and
there were never any complaints about this arrangement.
Meals are freshly cooked at night and availed of by nurses.
It cannot be argued that nurses did not receive breaks. In
fact, it was often possible for nurses to take more than one
hour when the wards were not busy.
3. The Hospital does not accept that the example of the
sister hospital quoted by the Union is appropriate. While
not accepting that there is money due to the nurses in
respect of the 4 hours, as a gesture of goodwill and to
facilitate the introduction of the 39 hour week, the Hospital
did offer to either pay the 4 hours or to give time off in
lieu from July 1st, 1990. This offer was made as a "once
off" one without admission of any further liability. Serious
repercussions could follow from any concession of this claim.
In the circumstances the Hospital requests the Court to
endorse its offer which was made as a gesture of goodwill and
to accordingly reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties considers in all the circumstances the issue should
be resolved by the credit of accrued time from the 1st January,
1990.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
18th July, 1991
A.S. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman