Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92493 Case Number: AD92209 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Hospital against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 191/92 regarding a claim for travel allowance for 4 vocational trainers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions considers there is
merit in the claim being made by the Union on behalf of the
workers concerned.
The claim however is cost increasing and consequently precluded by
the terms of the programme for Economic and Social Progress.
The Court recommends that the parties further address the matter
at the conclusion of the PESP.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92493 APPEAL DECISION NO AD20992
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Hospital against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 191/92 regarding a claim for travel
allowance for 4 vocational trainers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Hospital comprises a number of different functions.
The 4 vocational trainers are employed in the care of over 200
mentally handicapped adults. The wage rate for the position
was agreed in 1987 at 84% of the minimum point of the Eastern
Health Board Hospital Attendant scale.
2. The Union's claim for a travel allowance was first made
in 1990. The allowance claimed is #12.99 per week. The claim
was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation on
2nd June, 1992.
The recommendation as set out below issued on 7th July, 1992.
*"RECOMMENDATION
"I recommend that the claim for is conceded from the 1st June,
1992."
3. The recommendation was appealed by the Hospital to the
Labour Court by letter dated 12th August, 1992. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 18th September, 1992.
HOSPITALS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1989 agreement on rates of pay (details supplied)
specifically states that the pay relationship with the
Hospital Attendant grade is for basic pay only. The
relationship does not apply to any other conditions of
employment or allowances. The agreement was freely entered
into and is very specific.
3. 2. The Hospital is provided with an annual cheque by the
Eastern Health Board. In common with other funded hospitals
it is suffering from the effects of financial constraints and
any extra costs incurred by the Hospital must be met from its
own resources. The Hospital is entirely dependent on central
funding and has no external resources (details supplied). The
Eastern Health Board has informed the Hospital that it has no
funds to meet the cost of the claim even if it can be
substantiated
3. The claim, if conceded, would have repercussive effects
throughout the Health Service. The claim is a cost increasing
one and is debarred under the terms of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for a travel allowance for the vocational
trainers has been ongoing since 1990. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable and fair in the
circumstances and should be upheld by the Hospital because of
the small cost involved.
2. The allowance applies to non-nursing staff and of those,
the vocational trainers are the only group who do not receive
the allowance. Even temporary staff who cover for locum and
annual leave receive the allowance. The anomaly must be
corrected and in equity the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should be upheld.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions considers there is
merit in the claim being made by the Union on behalf of the
workers concerned.
The claim however is cost increasing and consequently precluded by
the terms of the programme for Economic and Social Progress.
The Court recommends that the parties further address the matter
at the conclusion of the PESP.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
14th October, 1992 ------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman