Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94253 Case Number: LCR14493 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY - and - IMPACT |
(1) Claim for additional annual leave (2) Claim for the introduction of a driving allowance.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find that the Union has established that there is any
agreed relationship between the working conditions of staff in the
Health Boards and those of similar workers in this employment. In
these circumstances, the Court considers that the Union claim for
additional annual leave is a direct cost-increasing claim and, as
such, is contrary to both the P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
The Court finds that the claim for a driving allowance is
similarly constrained by National Agreements.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of either
claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94253 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Claim for additional annual leave
(2) Claim for the introduction of a driving allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an organisation devoted to the care of mentally
handicapped people. It is funded by the Department of Health.
The Company has a number of centres nationwide. It employ several
hundred workers including Houseparents and Assistant Houseparents.
It is on behalf of approximately fifty of these workers, employed
in the Community Care Programme, that the Union has served the
claims.
3. Both claims were served on the Organisation on 26th May, 1993.
The Organisation rejected them on 17th June, 1993. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference took place on 11th January, 1994. No agreement was
reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 4th
May, 1994 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The workers concerned have at present annual leave of
nineteen days. In addition, two and a half privilege days
apply. Houseparents and Assistant Houseparents have been
linked to nursing grades for many yars. The minimum annual
leave for nurses is twenty-four days. The Eastern Health
Board, in whose areas the Community Services are based, set
annual leave levels for Child Care Workers at twenty-seven
days in 1989.
2. The willingness of the workers concerned to transport
clients has been of great benefit to the Programme and to the
clients themselves. A driving allowance is paid to other
workers in similar circumstances (details supplied to the
Court).
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All health-related agencies have similar terms of
employment. The Company's annual leave entitlement is in line
with the Department of Health's guidelines. Granting
additional annual leave could have a serious knock-on effect
on other agencies. The claim would be cost-increasing, as
relief cover would have to be provided. As such, it is
precluded under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work
(P.C.W.).
2. The Houseparents/Assistant Houseparents enquired of
Management some years ago about the possibility of providing
transport. Management provided eight mini-buses for the
various centres. The mini-buses have greatly improved
conditions for the workers as well as the clients. Workers
are no longer reliant on public transport. Driving the
mini-buses is part of the workers' duties. The Department of
Health does not provide for a driving allowance. The claim is
cost-increasing and as such is prohibited under the terms of
the P.C.W.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find that the Union has established that there is any
agreed relationship between the working conditions of staff in the
Health Boards and those of similar workers in this employment. In
these circumstances, the Court considers that the Union claim for
additional annual leave is a direct cost-increasing claim and, as
such, is contrary to both the P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
The Court finds that the claim for a driving allowance is
similarly constrained by National Agreements.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of either
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
5th July, 1994 ---------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.