Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93110 Case Number: LCR14072 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: VOLUNTARY AND HEALTH BOARD HOSPITALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Because of the financial constraints imposed on hospitals and
Health Boards in recent years, payment of compensation for loss of
earnings has only been recommended by the Court in exceptional
circumstances. The case of the Radiographers as dealt with in
LCR11031 was, from a management view point, primarily related to
financial considerations and the need to reduce the costs of the
service through changed working and pay arrangements. From the
Union's perspective, it related to a general pay claim based on
relativities. The resolution of the dispute was a package which
incorporated the more pressing requirements of both sides. The
final salary scales and the retrospective payments involved some
element of compensation for loss of earnings insofar as the
benefit of the revised arrangements only fell to the hospitals
following final agreement.
The right of the Trade Union to pursue a claim for loss of
earnings was accepted by the employers though without commitment
to any concession. The implied Court position on this matter was
that it would consider the merits of such a claim if it were
submitted for recommendation.
The Court has now considered the submissions of the parties and
having had regard to the terms of the 1987 final agreement, the
present financial constraints in the health services generally and
the manner in which these have impacted on the earnings of many
hospital workers without any compensation, does not consider that
general compensation is appropriate in this case. However there
are exceptionally large losses involved for some individuals and
the Court recommends that in these cases a compensatory payment of
half the annual loss above #2,000 should be made.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93110 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14072
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: VOLUNTARY AND HEALTH BOARD HOSPITALS
(Represented by The Local Government Staff Negotiations Board
The Irish Business Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 98 radiographers who are employed in
various hospitals. In 1987 an industrial dispute, involving the
Voluntary and Health Board Hospitals and radiographers, was
settled following acceptance by both parties of Labour Court
Recommendation 11031. It dealt with a wide range of issues, one
of which was the replacement of the on-call system in hospitals
with the sessional system. Both systems provided cover by
radiographers for emergency work outside normal hours (9.00 a.m. -
5.00 p.m.) in hospitals from Monday to Friday as well as Saturday
and Sunday. The old on-call system provided for a fixed payment
per patient. The sessional system provided for a fixed payment
per session. The Court recommended in favour of its introduction
with a maximum of 9 sessions per week of 5 hours duration. The
system was introduced because of the escalating costs of the old
system. In return for operating the sessional system the
radiographers received lump sum payments and salary increases.
The parties could not reach agreement on the issue of compensation
for loss of earnings and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in May,
1991. Subsequently both parties undertook to provide details of
the loss of earnings incurred by the radiographers which resulted
from the introduction of the sessional system. A further
conciliation conference was held in July, 1992 but no agreement
was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 5th February, 1993. A Court
hearing was held on the 18th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. LCR11031 was accepted in full by both parties as a
resolution of an industrial dispute. In that recommendation
the Court recognised that the introduction of the sessional
system "would involve a serious loss of earnings for some
radiographers The effect of such loss would be cushioned by
the retrospection due under salary increases already
determined". The Court also acknowledged the Union's right to
serve a claim for loss of earnings. The Union obtained
details of the losses incurred and submitted them to
Management who refused to accept that such a claim even
existed
2. The Union is claiming three (3) times the annual loss of
the workers. The hospitals have saved approximately #500,000
as a result of the introduction of the sessional system. The
savings are on-going whereas the Union's claim for
compensation is a once-off claim. If the losses of the
workers concerned were calculated in current terms they would
be much greater, as the number of patients has increased
substantially. This has also lead to a huge amount of extra
work on the employees concerned.
3. The Court has recommended compensation in may similar
instances. (LCRs 10403, 10028, 10760, 11862, 13454 refer).
MANAGEMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The radiographers have already been adequately
compensated for the introduction of the sessional system They
received substantial pay increases and lump sum payments in
1985 and 1986. In LCR11031 of 1987, the Court recommended
that the lump sums on offer be accepted. These ranged from
#2,000 to #3,000 and were paid to the workers concerned.
2. While the hospitals accepted that the union could pursue
a claim for loss of earnings, management always stated that it
would reject such a claim as the various lump sums and salary
increases constituted an extremely generous package.
3. Medical laboratory technicians received similar salary
increases and lump sums in return for the introduction of a
sessional system in the early nineteen eighties. They have
not been paid further compensation even though they have a
greater involvement in the emergency system. Concession of
the claim could lead to repercussive claims from the medical
laboratory technicians.
4. The workers concerned continue to earn substantial
earnings in addition to their basic pay. This contrasts to
many workers in the Health Service who have suffered losses of
earnings from a change in working arrangements. In many of
these cases the Court rejected claims for compensation
(LCRs13499, 13053, 13034, 12509, 12498 refer).
5. The hospitals' financial situation is precarious
(details supplied to Court). Management cannot afford to
concede the claim which amounts to #5 million. Pay costs will
amount to 70% of the total increase in funding for the health
services this year and concession of the claim could only be
at the expense of further cut-backs in services or manpower.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Because of the financial constraints imposed on hospitals and
Health Boards in recent years, payment of compensation for loss of
earnings has only been recommended by the Court in exceptional
circumstances. The case of the Radiographers as dealt with in
LCR11031 was, from a management view point, primarily related to
financial considerations and the need to reduce the costs of the
service through changed working and pay arrangements. From the
Union's perspective, it related to a general pay claim based on
relativities. The resolution of the dispute was a package which
incorporated the more pressing requirements of both sides. The
final salary scales and the retrospective payments involved some
element of compensation for loss of earnings insofar as the
benefit of the revised arrangements only fell to the hospitals
following final agreement.
The right of the Trade Union to pursue a claim for loss of
earnings was accepted by the employers though without commitment
to any concession. The implied Court position on this matter was
that it would consider the merits of such a claim if it were
submitted for recommendation.
The Court has now considered the submissions of the parties and
having had regard to the terms of the 1987 final agreement, the
present financial constraints in the health services generally and
the manner in which these have impacted on the earnings of many
hospital workers without any compensation, does not consider that
general compensation is appropriate in this case. However there
are exceptionally large losses involved for some individuals and
the Court recommends that in these cases a compensatory payment of
half the annual loss above #2,000 should be made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
---------------------
May, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.