Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94408 Case Number: LCR14582 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the automation of the boilerhouse/ redeployment.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
security jobs on offer are providing suitable alternative
employment and accordingly a redundancy situation does not exist.
The Court recommends in respect of these jobs that the parties
should with expedition seek to agree the conditions under which
the workers will be employed.
With regard to the other two jobs proposed the Court does not
consider that these constitute an offer of suitable alternative
employment and accordingly the Court considers that the workers
concerned should be offered the option of redundancy.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94408 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14582
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the automation of the boilerhouse/
redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Western Health Board is changing the boilerhouse
operation at Merlin Park Hospital from solid fuel to
oil. It proposes to redeploy 4 boilerhouse operatives
to alternative employment within the hospital complex.
The Board's offer of redeployment was not acceptable to
the Union due to unsuitable work, loss of earnings etc.
The Union sought the terms of the Public Service
Voluntary Redundancy Scheme on behalf of the claimants.
Management rejected the claim.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the
14th July, 1994 and 3rd August, 1994. The first
conciliation conference was adjourned to allow for
further local discussions on the basis of agreement
being reached on 2 redundancies and the possibility of
redeployment of 2 workers. Following the resumption of
the second conciliation conference agreement could not
be reached on the redundancy/redeployment issue and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 8th August, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute in Galway on the 28th
September, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have been declared redundant.
Their jobs as specified in their conditions of
employment have ceased to exist. They are entitled to
the terms of the Public Service Redundancy Programme.
These terms were offered to workers in a similar
situation at University College Hospital.
2. The workers were in employment which they expected would
continue until retirement. They left other employment
to take up what was regarded as extremely secure jobs as
boilermen with the Board. These posts are semi-skilled.
The workers are now offered general operative jobs which
do not equate to their jobs as boilermen.
3. The Union is prepared to negotiate on behalf of 2 of the
workers who are interested in suitable alternative
employment in the security area if agreement can be
reached on rosters, premium payments, loss of earnings
etc.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The work undertaken by boilermen no longer exists. The
Board has identified a number of areas within the
Hospital where service needs exist and these positions
are being offered to the workers concerned.
2. The claimants are being offered suitable alternative
employment. In their new assignments they will retain
their existing basic salaries on a personal basis.
3. The Board cannot concede the terms of the Voluntary
Redundancy/Early Retirement Scheme to the claimants
because alternative employment is available.
4. The Board is operating within extremely strict financial
constraints and has a substantial current deficit.
Concession of the compensation element of the Union's
claim can only be afforded at the expense of further
cutbacks.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
security jobs on offer are providing suitable alternative
employment and accordingly a redundancy situation does not exist.
The Court recommends in respect of these jobs that the parties
should with expedition seek to agree the conditions under which
the workers will be employed.
With regard to the other two jobs proposed the Court does not
consider that these constitute an offer of suitable alternative
employment and accordingly the Court considers that the workers
concerned should be offered the option of redundancy.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.