Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92408 Case Number: LCR13775 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SERENITY LODGE NURSING HOME - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding (1) Pay and conditions. (2) A reduction in working hours.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that this claim falls to be considered
in accordance with the I.C.T.U./Labour Court letter of
understanding in relation to the application of the P.E.S.P.
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Union's claim for a phased increase as set out
on Page 4, Para 16, of the submission to the Court is reasonable
in the circumstances and accordingly the Court recommends
concession of the claim.
With regards to the claim for the implementation of an agreement
for reduction in working hours the Court is strongly of the view
that if industrial relation are to improve in the enterprise it is
imperative that agreements freely entered into are honoured by
both parties. The Court accordingly recommends that the agreement
dated 4th April, 1991 be adhered to by Management and if found to
be inoperable that the Union agree to renegotiate.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92408 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13775
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SERENITY LODGE NURSING HOME
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding
(1) Pay and conditions.
(2) A reduction in working hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim is on behalf of 6 domestic workers in the
Company's Avondale Nursing Home in Callan, Co. Kilkenny. The
present owners bought the Company as a going concern in 1990.
The home has a capacity for 39 elderly patients. The Company
also has 12 workers employed in another nursing home in
Ballon, Co. Carlow.
2. The 6 workers are employed on a part-time basis with
allocated hours ranging from 4 to 24 per week. The hourly
rate is #2.50 with a 10% premium for night working. The
workers joined the Union in January, 1991. There was an
official dispute in April, 1991 for Union recognition. The
dispute was resolved and the settlement terms (details
supplied) were signed by both parties on 18th July, 1991.
3. Prior to the settlement terms, rates of pay and
arrangements for hours of work were agreed at a conciliation
conference of 29th March, 1991. The agreement provided for a
review of pay on 29th May, 1991. The review provision was
activated by the Union on 31st January, 1992. The Company
advised the Union by letter dated 3rd March, 1992 that it was
not in a position to grant any increases and it declined a
local meeting. It was not possible to progress the matter
locally and the dispute was referred by the Union to the
Labour Relations Commission. The services of the Commission
were declined by the Company.
4. The 2 issues outlined above were referred to the Labour
Court by letter dated 10th July, 1992, under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Portlaoise on 8th September, 1992
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Pay and Conditions
The present rate of pay is effectively unsustainable. It is
lower than some of the worst comparable rates (details
supplied). The Union has made every effort to resolve the
dispute through negotiation. This has been rejected by the
Company and the only avenue open was to go directly to the
Labour Court.
2. The claim for an increase in pay is limited to basic rate
increases. This is due to the extent of the disparity which
exists between the worker's pay rates and those of the public
sector. The Union requests the Court to note the Union's
long-term aspiration for parity with public sector
equivalents. The present claim is an interim claim but it is
imperative that the minimal adjustments sought be made over
the period 29th March, 1991 to 31st December, 1993.
Hour rate from 29th March to 31st July, 1991 : #2.50
" " " 1st August to 31st January, 1992 : #2.75
" " " 1st February to 31st July, 1992 : #3.00
" " " 1st August to 31st July, 1993 : #3.25
" " " 1st August to 31st December, 1993 : #3.50
(Plus 10% Differential for Night Duty).
3. A reduction in Working Hours
At the conciliation conference of 29th March 1991, it was
agreed that one month's notice would be given for any changes
in the number of hours being worked. If the number of
patients dropped below 30, hours would be adjusted
accordingly. The Union is seeking that full formula as agreed
be honoured by the Company. In November, 1991, the Company
unilaterally changed the hours of a worker. Another change
occurred in May, 1992. The changes resulted in the loss of 35
day hours without any consequent change in patient numbers.
There has also been other changes (details supplied). The
Union is seeking a return to the agreed number of working
hours with the agreement on 4th April 1991 being honoured by
both parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Pay and Conditions
At present there are 27 patients in the home and this has been
the position for the past 6 months. The highest number of
in-patients has been 34 and this was only for a brief period
in 1991. The Company have invested #66,000 to extend and
improve the premises. It has already increased the wages of
the workers by 75p per hour. The Company is only operating at
a break even level. Its only income is from its patients and
if it cannot increase patient fees, it cannot increase wages.
It is certain that if patient fees increase there will be a
drop off in patient numbers.
2. A reduction in working hours
A substantial decrease in the number of patients led to a
reduction in hours worked by all staff. The Company is not in
a position to guarantee hours of work to any worker. If the
patients are not there, there is not the same requirement for
working hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that this claim falls to be considered
in accordance with the I.C.T.U./Labour Court letter of
understanding in relation to the application of the P.E.S.P.
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Union's claim for a phased increase as set out
on Page 4, Para 16, of the submission to the Court is reasonable
in the circumstances and accordingly the Court recommends
concession of the claim.
With regards to the claim for the implementation of an agreement
for reduction in working hours the Court is strongly of the view
that if industrial relation are to improve in the enterprise it is
imperative that agreements freely entered into are honoured by
both parties. The Court accordingly recommends that the agreement
dated 4th April, 1991 be adhered to by Management and if found to
be inoperable that the Union agree to renegotiate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
5th October, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.