Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95160 Case Number: LCR14832 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTRE - and - THE IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION |
Dispute concerning alleged unpaid money to a Doctor.
Recommendation:
The employer did not attend the Court hearing. The Court took
into account the contents of a letter from the employer dated 3rd
April, 1995, and the written and oral submissions of the employee
representative.
This case was before the Court in June, 1993, and was referred
back to the parties based on an undertaking given that discussions
would be held to solve the problem.
The employee representative alleged that despite numerous attempts
to arrange a meeting no response was forthcoming until the letter
of 3rd April, 1995.
Based on the information before the Court and the Court's
interpretation that the employer's letter indicates acceptance
that some compensation is due, subject to verification, the Court
makes the following Recommendation:
Compensation to be paid to the claimant. The amount of
compensation to be agreed between the parties following submission
of the details of the claim to the employer.
If the parties cannot agree on a figure for compensation by 30th
September, 1995 the Court will, on request by either party, make a
Recommendation on this issue.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95160 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14832
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTRE
AND
THE IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unpaid money to a Doctor.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Doctor was employed as a Senior House Officer with
the Centre from 16th January, 1990 until 31st December,
1991. On 6th January, 1992, the Organisation wrote to
the Centre concerning a claim for certain payments which
it alleged were due to the Doctor.
2. No progress was made locally on the claim and the Centre
was not prepared to refer the matter to the conciliation
services of the Labour Relations Commission. The claim
was referred to the Labour Court on 16th December, 1992,
in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969.
3. The Court investigated the dispute on 8th June, 1993 in
Mullingar. The claims referred to the Court concerned
the non-payment of overtime since July, 1991 and the
payment of 8 weeks' holidays not availed of. The Court
did not issue a Recommendation as both parties agreed to
return to local discussions on the matter. The parties
were advised that if the local discussions failed to
resolve the dispute the Labour Court would reconvene the
investigation and issue a Recommendation.
4. By letter dated 24th February, 1995 the Organisation
reactivated the claim under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. An investigation took
place in Tullamore on 21st June, 1995. The Hospital
wrote to the Court on 3rd April, 1995 and the Court
noted its contents. The Centre was not represented at
the investigation.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During his employment the Centre stated that the
Doctor's employment was satisfactory. The Organisation
has been processing this claim since 1992. The Centre
has at all times refused to meet with the Organisation
on the claim or to discuss it.
2. Non-payment of overtime since July, 1991.
Paragraph 4 of the contract of employment signed by the
Doctor stated that he would work a 39-hour basic week
with on-call duties and payment for overtime at a rate
to be agreed with the administrator's office. While at
the Centre, the Doctor worked an average of 85 hours'
overtime. On the basis of the non consultant hospital
doctors' overtime rates, the Organisation is claiming
#5,772 (details supplied).
3. Payment for Annual Leave not taken
When the Doctor commenced his employment with the
Centre, he was allowed a total of 3 weeks' leave per 6
month period. In his first 6 months he availed of his
full entitlement with the approval of the Centre. The
Doctor was given to understand that if he did not avail
of annual leave, he could be paid in lieu. The Doctor
is owed a total of #4,324 in lieu of annual leave not
availed of (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the Court hearing. The Court took
into account the contents of a letter from the employer dated 3rd
April, 1995, and the written and oral submissions of the employee
representative.
This case was before the Court in June, 1993, and was referred
back to the parties based on an undertaking given that discussions
would be held to solve the problem.
The employee representative alleged that despite numerous attempts
to arrange a meeting no response was forthcoming until the letter
of 3rd April, 1995.
Based on the information before the Court and the Court's
interpretation that the employer's letter indicates acceptance
that some compensation is due, subject to verification, the Court
makes the following Recommendation:
Compensation to be paid to the claimant. The amount of
compensation to be agreed between the parties following submission
of the details of the claim to the employer.
If the parties cannot agree on a figure for compensation by 30th
September, 1995 the Court will, on request by either party, make a
Recommendation on this issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th July, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.