Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92508 Case Number: AD92226 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 208/92 concerning alleged loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92508 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD22692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 208/92 concerning alleged loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Western Health Board
at the District Hospital, Ballina. It has been the practice for a
number of years for the workers concerned to work on public
holidays, performing porter duties mainly. Three of the workers
work on all public holidays and the fourth worker works an average
of three public holidays during the year. Payment for public
holidays is paid at double time plus a day in lieu. In 1991,
following a review of its public holiday requirements, the Board
proposed to roster one porter on each public holiday. The Union
claims that the Board's proposals would result in considerable
loss of earnings to the workers concerned. Local level
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 23rd October, 1991, and 4th March,1992.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner by the Labour
Relations Commission. The Rights Commissioner investigated the
matter on 21st July, 1992 and recommended as follows:
"The claimants have been providing the cover for a substantial
number of years. They have established a valid claim for
compensation in my view.
The problem is that the expectation of compensation for the
loss incurred is very great indeed and cannot be reasonably
met. The actual loss per annum is #37 x 4 holidays = #148
per annum. The range of compensation formulae ranges from
0.5 of annual loss to 1.25 times the loss. I am reluctant to
go beyond these accepted norms. However, much official time
has already been expended in the resolution of this claim and
in order to conclude it at this point I would like to
recommend that the claimants receive the amounts stated below
in full and final settlement of all their claims and for
their co-operation with the new regime:
Since writing the above I have learned from the Union that
the Board made an offer of #250 to each claimant after the
investigation which is news to this Commissioner. This offer
has been rejected and on that basis I recommend the following
without prejudice or precedent to settle the matter and save
further valuable official time":
P. J. Kenny - #350
E. Duffy - #350
M. Egan - #350
S. McLoughlin - #300
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was rejected by the Union
who appealed it to the Labour Court on 24th August, 1992. The
Court heard the appeal on 5th November, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has been custom and practice for a long number of years
for the workers concerned to work on bank holidays. One of
the workers commenced his employment on a bank holiday and was
told that bank holiday working was a condition of his
employment.
2. The Board's proposals to change bank holiday working would
lead to fundamental changes in the conditions of employment of
the workers concerned. The proposals would affect the workers
in the following way:
(A) loss of holiday premium
(B) loss of earnings
(C) change in their holiday structure.
The workers have given long service to the Board and their
conditions of employment should not be changed.
3. The changes would result in the workers concerned being
treated in a less favourable way than most other members of
staff. Bank holiday cover by night porters and temporary
staff is still required.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation falls short of
the workers' expectations. The amount of compensation should
be increased substantially.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rostering of 1 porter on public holidays is sufficient
to meet all service requirements. On public holidays, the
Hospital operates at a significantly reduced level, with
medical and para-medical services provided on an emergency
basis only.
2. In the revised rostering arrangements, the workers will
continue to receive earnings in addition to basic pay. They
will receive public holiday premia for working two public
holidays per annum, plus additional payments for Saturday and
Sunday working.
3. The Board's budgeting allocation has been severely
curtailed by the Department of Health. The current budget
allocation has a shortfall of #1.9 million approximately, with
the shortfall for the Hospital at #8,000. The new roster will
provide for more cost effective and efficient rostering of
porters.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
30th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.