Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93313 Case Number: LCR14124 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GALVIA HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute arising from a claim on behalf of the hospital's services staff for parity of pay-rates with Western Health Board hospitals' services staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends concession of the Union's claim for parity with similar
categories of workers in the Western Health Board.
The Court further recommends that the parties enter into
discussion immediately as to how and when the recommendation above
will be implemented.
These talks should embrace all aspects of the parity claim
including such items as fringe benefits, the hospital's ability to
pay, etc.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93313 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14124
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: GALVIA HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute arising from a claim on behalf of the hospital's
services staff for parity of pay-rates with Western Health Board
hospitals' services staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a commercial, 60+ bed, private hospital,
established in 1986, in Galway, employing approximately 130
full-time staff.
The Union represents Catering, Portering, Stores and Laundry
staff, one Theatre Operative and one X-ray Assistant. Its claim
is for pay-parity for these staff with equivalent categories in
Western Health Board hospitals, with the retention of a
differential currently enjoyed by Portering staff and the X-ray
Assistant, for additional duties performed. The Union also
requires that pay rates for part-time staff be brought into line
with those for full-time staff.
The Company's position is that its rates of pay are in line with
the rates of similar categories in the private sector which it
contends is the appropriate comparator, as the hospital receives
no public funding.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 9th of December, 1992 at
which the Company made an offer, the main points of which were:
1. an increase from #3.81 to #4.00/hour for Catering and
Housekeeping staff, with no change in Porters' or the
X-ray Assistant's rates,
2. a review of the hourly rate for regular temporary staff
with more than 2 years' service,
3. 6 months' retrospection,
4. The retention of existing fringe benefits.
The Company's offer was rejected by the workers and a second
conciliation conference followed on the 4th of March, 1993. The
Union's position was that the Company's offer did not go far
enough, and that the differential for Porters and the X-ray
Assistant must remain.
The Union acknowledged the Company's financial difficulties and
was prepared to accept the phased introduction of its demands. It
sought the Company's acceptance of the principle of parity, citing
the fact that Nursing staff had parity with Health Board Nursing
staff (Labour Court Recommendation L.C.R. 13694 refers).
The Company pleaded inability to increase its offer and argued
that Nursing and Medical staff were in a different category and
that national rates apply to them.
The dispute was not resolved and it was referred to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st of
June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers in question carry out at least the same duties
as their equivalents in Health Board Hospitals. They are
entitled, therefore, to receive the going rate currently in
operation in those Hospitals.
2. It is unfair and intolerable that discrimination should
exist between professional and non-professional staff in the
Hospital. Since Nursing staff have parity with comparators in
the Health Board it follows that the Services staff should
also have parity.
3. The Hospital puts forward the image of providing a service
which is a cut above the service provided by Public Hospitals.
Staff that contribute to providing this enhanced service
should not be paid inferior rates of pay.
4. The Hospital has argued that it cannot afford to concede
the claim. It adopted a similar stance regarding the Nurses'
claim, before the Court recommended that they be paid the
Health Board rates. It now appears that the lower-paid
workers in the Hospital are subsidising the pay-rates of their
higher-paid colleagues.
5. Once the principle of pay parity is accepted by the
Hospital, the timing of its implementation/retrospection can
be negotiated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital is a private sector employer and note must be
taken of its present difficult financial circumstances. It
does not have access to any religious
funds/donations/bequests, nor does it have access to funding
from the Department of Health. At present the hospital is in
a serious loss-making situation (details supplied to the
Court). Any cost increases would force the Hospital to
consider more cost-effective options such as the
contracting-out of services, with the obvious risk of
redundancies.
2. The Hospital's services pay-rates are fair and reasonable
when compared to rates in other similar employment, not just
within the hospital sector. Its rates also compare favourably
with J.L.C. rates for the Hotels' services sector (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The workers enjoy a fringe benefits package (including a
subsidised canteen) better than that enjoyed by workers in
similar employments in the private sector.
4. The concession of the claim would mean that private sector
hospitals could not operate in the market on the basis of
their own pay-rates and terms and conditions, and that they
would have to slavishly apply public-sector pay-rates.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends concession of the Union's claim for parity with similar
categories of workers in the Western Health Board.
The Court further recommends that the parties enter into
discussion immediately as to how and when the recommendation above
will be implemented.
These talks should embrace all aspects of the parity claim
including such items as fringe benefits, the hospital's ability to
pay, etc.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
30th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.