Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93623 Case Number: LCR14252 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the grading of 10 staff.
Recommendation:
3. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that the claimants are included in the general claim
for non-nursing staff which was heard by the Court on 12th
October, 1993 and therefore are precluded from making an
additional or alternative claim because of the provisions of
Clause 4 of Annex 1 to appendix A of the P.E.S.P. In the
circumstances the Court does not deem it appropriate to recommend
in favour of the Union claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93623 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14252
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the grading of 10 staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 17th September, 1990, the Union submitted a claim for
an increase in pay for the houseparent grade in Peamount
hospital. Local discussions took place but agreement was not
reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 26th
September, 1993 and the 5th November, 1993. Agreement could
not be reached and the matter was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 8th November,
1993. The Court investigated the dispute on the 11th
November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The hospital in a previous submission in 1992 agreed
that those working as houseparents should receive the Eastern
Health Board houseparents rate.
2. The work of the houseparents in Peamount hospital is
similar to that of houseparents employed by the Eastern Health
Board.
3. The workers are allowed submit one cost increasing
claim.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 4 of the Memorandum on Pay in the Public Sector
allows one cost increasing claim to be processed on behalf of
any group. Under this clause a major claim on behalf of all
non-nursing personnel has been submitted which was subject to
a hearing by the Labour Court on 12th October, 1993.
2. Concessions on this claim could have costly repercussive
effects.
3. The hospital is a Section 65, grant-aided agency of the
Eastern Health Board. The rates of pay of the group involved
in this claim are not out of line with similar grades in the
Eastern Health Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that the claimants are included in the general claim
for non-nursing staff which was heard by the Court on 12th
October, 1993 and therefore are precluded from making an
additional or alternative claim because of the provisions of
Clause 4 of Annex 1 to appendix A of the P.E.S.P. In the
circumstances the Court does not deem it appropriate to recommend
in favour of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P O'C/U.S. ---------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.