Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93338 Case Number: LCR14142 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MATER PRIVATE HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the deployment of pantry assistants on Public Holidays.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(1) The parties agree to one assistant on Bank Holidays subject to
a ratio of 9 : 1.
(2) The Union agree to change of location for spare assistants and
also change of roster including working of a 12 p.m. shift if
required.
(3) This arrangement to be operated for a trial period of 12
months and to apply to public holidays only.
(4) The parties agree to assess the impact of the above at the end
of the 12 month period with particular reference to any loss
of earnings which may be incurred.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93338 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14142
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MATER PRIVATE HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the deployment of pantry assistants on
Public Holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Mater Private Hospital was opened in 1986 and replaced the
Old Nursing Home which was attached to the Mater Public Hospital.
It is run by the Sisters of Mercy and operates on a commercial
basis as it is not in receipt of State funding.
3. The Catering Department, which employs 59 full-time and
approximately 20 part-time employees, provides services to a 114
seater restaurant, 5 wards and an intensive care unit.
4. The intensive care unit and each ward has a designated pantry
from where meals are distributed to patients after first being
prepared and portioned in the kitchen.
5. During the course of 1990 and early 1991 discussions took
place between the parties on staffing requirements for Public
Holiday working (because of the reduction in patient numbers on
these days). In February, 1991 the following agreement was
reached:-
"(a) Two pantry assistants on normal rostered duty plus a
third person to be employed between 4.00 p.m. and 6.30
p.m., in order to help with serving of high tea etc.
(b) Employees who are rostered off on the weekend preceding
the Public Holiday will have the holiday off.
(c) Any person who is rostered on and wishes to have the
weekend off to contact the catering supervisor who will
endeavour to facilitate the request".
Prior to this agreement the normal complement of 3 staff per
pantry was in operation. The current rostering system for staff
on Public Holidays is as follows:-
- One pantry assistant from 7.00 a.m. to 3 p.m.
- One pantry assistant from 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.
(Lunch 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.).
- One pantry assistant from 12 p.m. to 9 p.m.
It was also agreed that staff who are rostered off duty for the
weekend would have the Monday off. Staff who are rostered for
duty and who wish to take the Monday (Public Holiday) off should
inform the catering manager on the Wednesday prior to posting of
rosters. Staff rostered for duty who want time off should also
notify the catering manager as of the same date.
6. Subsequently, Management sought to amend the agreement by
reducing staffing levels and by re-deploying staff from their own
pantry and shifts. The changes were sought on the basis that the
present arrangements were causing ongoing difficulties. The Union
objected to the changes and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 15th
January, 1992 and 22nd February, 1993. As no agreement was
reached the Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred
the dispute to the Labour Court on 31st May, 1993 for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 12th July, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers are claiming the right to work and retain
their own shifts on Public Holidays (at premium rates) whether
or not sufficient work exists, because they had this right in
the old Nursing Home. The Hospital paid compensation for
revised working hours and altered conditions of employment in
accordance with the terms of L.C.R. 10905.
2. The present working arrangements are uneconomic and result
in administrative difficulties (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Union proposed a fixed staff to patient ratio. This
proposal is not acceptable as it does not take the needs of
patients into account.
4. Management must have the right to determine its staffing
requirements. Management is willing to make an effort to
accommodate staff who wish to work on Public Holidays provided
there is acceptance that this may involve relocation to other
areas and shifts.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Management sought changes in the current agreement when it
was less than 1 year old.
2. The Union has carried out an examination of staffing
levels and patient numbers during previous Public Holidays and
finds no basis for change (details supplied to the Court).
3. Management has refused to agree a ratio system based on
staff to patient numbers.
4. A reduction in staffing levels on Public Holidays will
result in a loss of earnings for all staff, both permanent and
casual.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(1) The parties agree to one assistant on Bank Holidays subject to
a ratio of 9 : 1.
(2) The Union agree to change of location for spare assistants and
also change of roster including working of a 12 p.m. shift if
required.
(3) This arrangement to be operated for a trial period of 12
months and to apply to public holidays only.
(4) The parties agree to assess the impact of the above at the end
of the 12 month period with particular reference to any loss
of earnings which may be incurred.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
20th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.