Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93668 Case Number: LCR14444 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning rostering arrangements for four catering assistants at the Cork Regional Hospital.
Recommendation:
5. Although this case only relates directly to four catering
assistants in the kitchen floor area of the Catering Department,
there is serious concern on the Union's side that it constitutes
the thin-end of the wedge to be used against other groupings in
the Catering Department. This speculation can only lead to uneasy
and unhelpful industrial relations and the Court recommends that
the parties meet to discuss Management's plans in respect of the
Department.
In relation to the case at issue, the Court notes that despite
earlier discussions, there is disagreement as to whether the Union
accepted the Board's nominated industrial engineer to carry out
the examination of the area. To clear this matter the Court
recommends that a joint exercise, involving the Board's industrial
engineer and the Union's industrial engineer, should be carried
out to establish the practicality and appropriateness, or
otherwise, of the changes sought by the Board. The parties should
then negotiate on the outcome and if the matter is not resolved,
it should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.
The work examination should be completed by mid-June at the
latest.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93668 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14444
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rostering arrangements for four catering
assistants at the Cork Regional Hospital.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The four workers currently operate a three shift system
i.e. 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.; 11.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m.; 12.00
p.m. to 8.30 p.m. The Board proposed changing the 12.00 p.m.
to 8.30 p.m. shift to 11.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. The Union
objected to this stating that there would be a loss of shift
premium and it would not be possible to complete the workload
by 7.30 p.m. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a number of conciliation conferences were held.
A study was carried out by an industrial engineer following
one of these conferences and he recommended in favour of the
11.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. roster. The Union rejected this and
the matter was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to
the Labour Court on the 25th November, 1993. The Court
investigated the issue on the 13th April, 1994 in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board is proposing this change to save the payment
of premia to which the workers have become accustomed during
the past thirteen years.
2. The industrial engineer, in carrying out his study, was
totally selective and people were restricted to the work they
did in the kitchens.
3. The new shift would make it impossible to complete the
workload by 7.30 p.m.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board has made every effort to settle this dispute.
2. The most suitable rosters are 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. and
11.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. as indicated by the industrial
engineer's study.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Although this case only relates directly to four catering
assistants in the kitchen floor area of the Catering Department,
there is serious concern on the Union's side that it constitutes
the thin-end of the wedge to be used against other groupings in
the Catering Department. This speculation can only lead to uneasy
and unhelpful industrial relations and the Court recommends that
the parties meet to discuss Management's plans in respect of the
Department.
In relation to the case at issue, the Court notes that despite
earlier discussions, there is disagreement as to whether the Union
accepted the Board's nominated industrial engineer to carry out
the examination of the area. To clear this matter the Court
recommends that a joint exercise, involving the Board's industrial
engineer and the Union's industrial engineer, should be carried
out to establish the practicality and appropriateness, or
otherwise, of the changes sought by the Board. The parties should
then negotiate on the outcome and if the matter is not resolved,
it should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.
The work examination should be completed by mid-June at the
latest.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th May, 1994 ---------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.