Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95329 Case Number: AD9588 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 89/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties, is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be upheld and, accordingly, rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95329 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC
89/95.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of three theatre
porters for compensation due to inconvenience and dislocation
brought about through the implementation of rostered working
hours, from the 11th of July, 1994. The claim was rejected
by the hospital. The matter was the subject of investigation
by a Rights Commissioner, on the 8th of May, 1995, who found
as follows:
"1. While some degree of inconvenience may have been
experienced by the three named porters nonetheless in my
view this degree of inconvenience cannot be considered
as substantial.
2. I am also conscious of the statement by the employer
that the payment of compensation for inconvenience and
dislocation suffered would be without precedent within
the Hospital. Compensation certainly has been paid
where loss of earnings have been proven but this does
not apply in this instance."
He recommended that the claim must fail.
The Union appealed the Recommendation on the 31st of May,
1995, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 22nd
of November, 1995, the earliest date convenient to both
parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The three porters were never compelled to work until 10 p.m.
in their old employments (i.e., prior to the transfer of
staff from Jervis Street and the Richmond).
2. They are now required to work the revised roster and have
undergone a considerable worsening of their conditions for
which they should be compensated.
3. The claim is covered by the letter from the Department of
Health to the Chairman of the Beaumont Hospital Board, which
states that conditions will be no worse for staff
transferring from the other two hospitals.
4. There would be no repercussive effect arising from the claim
as only the three individuals are affected.
5. At the Labour Relations Commission conciliation conference on
the 18th of March, 1994, it was proposed that the issue of
the three employees who were the subject of a red-circling
arrangement in 1983, and the effect of the revised roster
arrangements on their situation would be discussed.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The hospital requires that the theatre is adequately covered
to provide 24-hour cover for reasons of health and safety,
adequate patient care, operational and services efficiencies.
2. The hospital does not accept the argument put forward by the
Union that the new roster has worsened conditions since,
prior to the introduction of the new roster, theatre porters,
including the three porters in question, worked until 10.00
p.m. on an overtime basis outside the theatre area, when
rostered to do so.
3. The number of occasions when porters have been required to
work until 10 p.m. has not increased significantly since the
implementation of the new roster (details supplied to the
Court). The facility to swap rostered overtime exists in the
hospital.
4. The Union has accepted that no loss of earnings has been
suffered by any of the three individuals due to the
introduction of the rostered working hours. In cases in the
past where the hospital has implemented rostered working
hours, financial compensation was based on loss of earnings
as provided for in the terms of the Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR 11550.
5. In all cases where rostered working hours were implemented in
other departments, the staff concerned were required to work
the new rostered working hours and no compensation was ever
made other than for loss of earnings.
6. The 'red-circling' arrangement covering the three workers
related only to the issue of pay.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties, is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be upheld and, accordingly, rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.