Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93384 Case Number: AD9383 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BROTHERS OF CHARITY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 127/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions both written and oral the
Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
is correct and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93384 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8393
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BROTHERS OF CHARITY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 127/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as acting chief nursing
officer at Belmont Park Hospital, Waterford since 1984. The
hospital, run by the Brothers of Charity, provided psychiatric
services specialising in the treatment of persons with alcohol
related problems. In 1990, as part of Government re-structuring
of the health services, that function was taken over by the South
Eastern Health Board. As part of the reorganisation eight (8)
workers, including the worker concerned, volunteered to transfer
from Belmont Park to St. Otterans Hospital in May, 1992.
Subsequently the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the worker
concerned for compensation. Management rejected the claim. The
issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On
the 14th June, 1993 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"Despite the well argued case presented by the claimant's
union official I cannot see any real merit in the claim
presented and accordingly I must recommend that it fails as
in my view the Brothers have acted in good faith at all times
in the exercise which was forced on them by circumstances
outside their control".
On the 23rd June, 1993 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Kilkenny on the 29th
September, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned did not volunteer to transfer to St.
Otterans Hospital in the true sense of the word. For some
time previously he had experienced difficulties at work with
an immediate superior (details supplied to the Court). Senior
management were aware of the situation but took no action to
support the worker. When the opportunity to transfer to St.
Otterans arose the worker availed of the opportunity to change
his unhappy working environment.
2. The Union did not raise the issue of the worker's
differences with his superior at the Rights Commissioner's
investigation as it felt that the worker's claim was
sufficiently strong on its own merits.
3. The worker has given long and dedicated service to the
Brothers of Charity. A social evening and a gold watch is not
sufficient compensation. The Union maintains that the payment
of #1,000 to the worker would be a fair and reasonable
settlement.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was not obliged to transfer to the
South Eastern Health Board (St. Otterans Hospital). He
volunteered and confirmed this in writing to the Brothers of
Charity by letter dated 4th April, 1992. All staff (including
the worker concerned) were made individual presentations of
substantial value.
2. Senior Management did not ignore the worker's situation
vis a vis his relationship with an immediate superior. They
tried at all times to reach amicable solutions in lengthy and
separate discussions with both workers. Both were advised
that, notwithstanding personality differences, harmonious
working was essential for the smooth running of the hospital.
Senior Management cannot be held responsible for the
personality differences between individual staff members.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions both written and oral the
Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
is correct and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
8th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.