Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92641 Case Number: AD9388 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 266/92 regarding the allocation of weekend work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that the 1978 agreement is
applicable in this case.
The current arrangements in respect of J. Stone were put in place
as a consequence of an agreement reached between the parties as a
result of redundancy. The Court does not consider these
arrangements should be overturned except by mutual agreement
between the parties. If the Health Board are to increase the
employment prospects of Mr. Stone the Court does not consider it
would be contrary to the redundancy terms to seek to alter the
week-end working arrangements.
The Rights Commissioners recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92641 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T.
266/92 regarding the allocation of weekend work.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The district hospital in Roscrea closed in 1986. A
porter/attendant was made redundant. The worker's redundancy
settlement was conditional on him retaining weekend duties as
relief ambulance driver at Roscrea.
2. A temporary full-time ambulance driver had been recruited
in Roscrea in September, 1985. This worker was subsequently
taken on as a permanent driver in March, 1987. The worker
made representations to the Union and the Board for a share of
the weekend duty. The Board rejected the claim on the basis
that the arrangements were in accordance with Agreements
reached with the Union in 1985 and 1986.
3. The Union had difficulties in resolving the issue because
of the Agreement in place which affected both of its members.
Various efforts were made (details supplied) to resolve the
difficulty but no compromise was possible between the 2
workers.
4. The matter was eventually referred to the Rights
Commissioners' Service and an investigation took place on 20th
August, 1992. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation issued
as follows on 7th September, 1992.
"I recommend that the Union's claim succeeds and that the
duties be shared on a 50/50 basis and that the present
roster remains unaltered, as I do not share the Board's
expressed concerns in relation to the possible quality
of service from the full time A/D".
5. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by
the Board to the Labour Court by letter dated 15th October,
1992. The Labour Court heard the appeal under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 1st September, 1993
in Roscrea (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dispute in this case is between 2 Union members. The
Board's position is that the present arrangements for weekend
working are in accordance with agreements reached in 1985 and
1986. The Board has no problem with the revision of weekend
duties provided the same level of cover is provided without
additional cost. The Union members have been unable to reach
agreement between themselves.
2. The Board is not attempting to defend the entitlements of
either worker. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
being appealed as the granting of additional duty as proposed
is contrary to the terms of the 1978 National Agreement. The
Board is also conscious of the fact that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation leaves the Board open to a claim
for compensation for loss of earnings.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union did not seek the application of the 1978
Agreement nor did it see that agreement as being applicable in
this case. The Rights Commissioner was asked to resolve the
difficulties in the sharing out of weekend work.
2. In the last number of years the relief ambulance driver
has received 2 days work (5 hours x 2) each week. It is
likely that the worker will receive more work in the future.
The consensus among the other drivers is that if the worker's
earnings potential increases then he should agree to share
some of the weekend work. The worker is insisting on the
application of the 1986 Agreement where the full-time
ambulance driver gets no week-end overtime except emergencies.
DECISION:
5. The Court does not consider that the 1978 agreement is
applicable in this case.
The current arrangements in respect of J. Stone were put in place
as a consequence of an agreement reached between the parties as a
result of redundancy. The Court does not consider these
arrangements should be overturned except by mutual agreement
between the parties. If the Health Board are to increase the
employment prospects of Mr. Stone the Court does not consider it
would be contrary to the redundancy terms to seek to alter the
week-end working arrangements.
The Rights Commissioners recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
28th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.