Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91185 Case Number: LCR13303 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL - and - TWO (2) WORKERS |
Dispute concerning rates of pay for the two (2) workers
Recommendation:
4. The Court finds there has been a lack of information made
available to the staff with regard to their employment and
payments.
The Court notes the rates of pay which are applicable to the
hospital staff.
Further the Court notes the staff concerned in this claim have
been paid at the maximum of the Non-Voluntary Non-Eastern Health
Board Hospitals scale.
In all the circumstances the Court does not find grounds for
concession of the workers claim and accordingly rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91185 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13303
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL
and
TWO (2) WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rates of pay for the two (2) workers
BACKGROUND:
2. The hospital is funded from private sources and employs 60
catering/household workers. Half these staff work in the catering
area and half in the household area.
The workers are paid by the hospital at a rate of pay approved by
the Department of Health for domestics/catering
assistants/household etc., staff. The two(2) workers involved in
this claim work in the catering area and are claiming the Eastern
Health Board rate for kitchen porters. The Hospital claims that
the workers are employed as catering assistants and are paid the
rate set out in the Department of Health guidelines. The two (2)
workers referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 20th May, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. The workers were recruited as kitchen porters (details
supplied to the Court) and only recently realised that they
were not being paid the rate for the job. The Eastern Health
Board rate is the only rate which allows for kitchen porters.
2. When this was brought to the attention of the hospital
authorities their work was re-graded to catering assistant so
that their pay remained within Department of Health
guidelines. The workers were referred to as "porters" in the
Hospital's 1989 Annual Report.
3. The workers were recruited as porters and are entitled to
be paid accordingly. The flexibility requiring them to do
other work was only introduced in the last five (5) years.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers in the catering and household areas are
required to be fully flexible and interchangeable. Staff
transfer from one area to the other. All 60 workers are paid
at the same rate.
2. The hospital does not pay the Eastern Health Board (EHB)
rates to any of its staff. Concession of this claim would
have repercussive implications throughout the hospital and
could be regarded as discriminatory.
3. This claim is also in breach of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court finds there has been a lack of information made
available to the staff with regard to their employment and
payments.
The Court notes the rates of pay which are applicable to the
hospital staff.
Further the Court notes the staff concerned in this claim have
been paid at the maximum of the Non-Voluntary Non-Eastern Health
Board Hospitals scale.
In all the circumstances the Court does not find grounds for
concession of the workers claim and accordingly rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
5th June, 1991 --------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman