Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94346 Case Number: LCR14555 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning time off for the cashing of pay cheques.
Recommendation:
Notwithstanding the aspirations of the Board to introduce a new
method for the payment of wages the Court considers the problems
which have been raised by the workers should be addressed and
every effort made to ensure that cheques are available before
finishing time on the Thursday of each week.
Employees should not be required to use part of their rest periods
to collect the wages due.
The Court, however, given all of the views expressed by the
parties does not find grounds to concede the one hour off and
accordingly rejects the Union claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94346 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14555
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning time off for the cashing of pay cheques.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 2,000 non-nursing grades
throughout the Eastern Health Board area, including
attendants, domestics, porters, catering staff and
telephonists. Payment of wages by cheque was introduced for
all non-nursing grades in 1970. In 1991 the Union submitted
a claim that these grades be given one hour off per week to
cash their pay cheques. There were protracted negotiations
held at local level without agreement. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 3rd February, 1994.
As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 23rd June, 1994. The Court investigated
the dispute on the 29th August, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers in other Public Sector employments are allowed
time off each week to cash wage cheques. The workers
concerned are entitled to the same treatment.
2. Many of the workers concerned work night shifts and
experience great difficulty and inconvenience in
relation to the cashing of pay cheques because of the
unsocial hours.
Many have to cash pay cheques on their days off. Others
have to remain on the premises for two hours or more
after completing a twelve-hour shift the night before.
3. It is not unreasonable for the workers concerned to seek
the same arrangements for cashing pay cheques as other
Public Sector employees. There have been many examples
in relation to the problems caused to the workers
concerned over the years (Details supplied to the
Court) which demonstrate clearly that the present system
is unsatisfactory.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Health Board is presently preparing to replace the
cheque payment system with a 'paypath system' thus
eliminating difficulties in relation to the cashing of
cheques.
2. The cheque-payment system has operated for over twenty
years. Throughout that time the claimants have cashed
their weekly pay cheques without recourse to time off.
Management finds it difficult to accept that a system,
in operation for so long, should now give rise to
difficulties.
3. The Union's claim effectively seeks to reduce the
working week by one hour. This would have considerable
staffing and service implications in hospitals and
health agencies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Notwithstanding the aspirations of the Board to introduce a new
method for the payment of wages the Court considers the problems
which have been raised by the workers should be addressed and
every effort made to ensure that cheques are available before
finishing time on the Thursday of each week.
Employees should not be required to use part of their rest periods
to collect the wages due.
The Court, however, given all of the views expressed by the
parties does not find grounds to concede the one hour off and
accordingly rejects the Union claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th September, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.