Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95314 Case Number: LCR14825 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ST. MARY'S ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Conditions of employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions the Court has concluded that the
Hospital's approach to the resolution of this dispute is
reasonable and practicable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Hospital increase its
offer to a sum of #600 nett.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95314 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14825
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ST. MARY'S ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Conditions of employment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is presently employed as an
ambulance driver. The Union claims that the worker should be
reinstated as a boilerman in accordance with an agreement
made with the Hospital in 1985. The worker concerned was
appointed maintenance helper in 1975 and relief boilerman in
1978. He was appointed to the post of ambulance driver in
July 1985 but continues to carry out weekend boiler relief
duties. The worker agreed to act as ambulance driver subject
to a commitment from the Hospital that he would fill the next
vacancy for boilerman. The Hospital confirmed this by letter
to the worker in 1988. The letter also stated that such a
vacancy would be subject to review in the light of
restructuring. The boilerman retired in 1993 and Management
placed one of its maintenance workers in the post. The Union
claims that the worker concerned should have been appointed
and that he has been unfairly treated. Management rejected
the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 9th
May 1995. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 23rd May 1995. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 29th June 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hospital does not dispute that it gave a commitment
to the worker in 1985 that he would be appointed to the
boilerman post. Management should honour this
commitment.
2. The worker concerned suffers an ongoing weekly financial
loss because of the Hospital's failure to implement its
undertaking to him.
3. The Union, as a compromise, suggests that the worker
could forego his claim on the boilerman position on the
basis of having his wage equalised with that of the
boilerman.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital accepted in 1988 that the claimant would
have first option to fill the vacancy for boilerman.
However, it was pointed out that the position of
boilerman would be restructured when the existing holder
left.
2. Because of changes in technology relating to the heating
system and requirements relating to the incinerator the
position of boilerman no longer exists. The work is
presently covered on an interim basis. The worker
presently covering these duties will have to be
redeployed at the end of the year.
3. It does not make sense to transfer the claimant from a
permanent secure position to a temporary post presently
being phased out and which will be all but eliminated
by the year's end.
4. The Hospital is prepared to offer the claimant a
once-off payment of #500 in full and final settlement of
his claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions the Court has concluded that the
Hospital's approach to the resolution of this dispute is
reasonable and practicable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Hospital increase its
offer to a sum of #600 nett.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th July, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.