Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94222 Case Number: AD9494 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Right Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW17/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court has
concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is fair in
the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94222 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9494
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Right Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW17/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed in a temporary capacity, at
Wexford General hospital since January, 1989. In June,
1992, a new wing was commissioned at the Hospital which
necessitated some organisational changes. In November,
1992, arising out of the changes, the worker was
successful in a competition for the post of General
Operative.
2. The worker submitted a claim for compensation for loss
of earnings in respect of weekend overtime work which he
had worked while employed in a temporary capacity. The
claim was rejected by the Board and it was referred to
the Rights Commissions Service for investigation. An
investigation took place on 23rd March, 1994 and the
recommendation as follows, was issued on 31st March,
1994.
"I recommend that the worker and the Union accept that
no compensation is merited in this dispute."
3. On 19th April, 1994, the recommendation was appealed to
the Labour Court under the terms of Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 6th December, 1994 in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was discriminated against as his new
permanent position could have included all of his
temporary duties. The worker had no choice but to
accept the permanent post which did not include weekend
overtime.
2. Many workers suffered a loss by being transferred to the
new wing. Unlike his colleagues, who were offered
compensation of 1.25 times the annual loss, the worker's
loss of #55 per fortnight is being ignored by the Board.
The worker should be compensated on the basis of the
formula which will be eventually agreed in respect of
his colleagues (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The nature of temporary employment with the Board is
that hours of work can vary considerably. This includes
the overtime element. The worker has now secured a
permanent position with the Hospital which includes
premium earnings on alternate weekends.
2. The worker's present position arose out of negotiations
with the Union on reorganisation. The new post is of
greater advantage to him in financial and personal terms
The Board is unwilling to compensate a worker where there
has been no loss.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court has
concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is fair in
the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman