Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95296 Case Number: LCR14801 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GALVIA HOSPITAL, GALWAY (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for re-grading - Porters.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties and consulted with the author of the I.P.C. report.
Taking into account all the information before it, and having
considered the various stages in the exercise, the Court is of the
view that the result of the grading exercise, as set out in the
report of the I.P.C., was reasonable.
The Court does not recommend any change in the grading of these
posts. The Court does not recommend any change in the proposal on
differentials made by management.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95296 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14801
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
GALVIA HOSPITAL, GALWAY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for re-grading - Porters.
BACKGROUND:
2. Galvia is a private commercially-run hospital which commenced
operations in 1988, and employs approximately 130 full-time
staff. The dispute concerns the grading of workers in the
following categories:-
Hospital Engineer, Head Porter, Floor Porters, Theatre
Porters, Central Sterile Supplies Department Operatives,
X-ray Assistant.
In November, 1993, the Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.) was
appointed to carry out an investigation assessing the work
performed by a range of the Hospital's staff, including
portering staff, by means of comparison with Western Health
Board (W.H.B.) personnel. The I.P.C. report, which was
issued in June, 1994, was rejected by the Union, on the
grounds that, as the W.H.B. had refused access by the
assessor to individual workers in the W.H.B., the grading
structures proposed were flawed. Conciliation conferences
were held, under the auspices of the Labour Relations
Commission, following which the Hospital made a final offer,
which included a 5% differential for general porters. The
offer was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 24th of April, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute, in Galway, on the 17th of
May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The I.P.C. report is flawed and cannot be relied upon.
Specifically, the I.P.C. was refused permission by the
W.H.B. to talk to and/or view W.H.B. job-holders and/or
systems in operation. Therefore, the only evidence
which the I.P.C. had for its W.H.B-related conclusions
was based solely on the W.H.B's Personnel Officer's view
of the detail and value of a number of posts which he
had neither held nor had any personal experience of.
The Personnel Officer's view may also have been
influenced by the fact that there are currently job
evaluations pending in some of the W.H.B. jobs. If the
I.P.C. had been given access to the jobs and job holders
in the W.H.B., it would have been concluded that the
levels of specific responsibility, flexibility and
interchange in Galvia far exceeds that which operates
within the W.H.B.
2. Over the years, the workers at Galvia have acquired and
developed skills which are not yet recognised by Galvia
but which have made it one of the best run hospitals in
Ireland.
3. While the I.P.C. report gives recognition to the degree
of flexibility, loyalty, and commitment of the staff, it
makes no attempt to reward the workers appropriately.
4. The Hospital consistently claimed that its financial
position was central to its refusal in the early stages
to concede W.H.B. rates. It has followed a policy of
reducing benefits to staff, e.g., abolition of Christmas
and other staff bonuses, reduction/elimination of
canteen subsidy. Whatever justification there might
have been in the past for such a policy, none exists at
present, as evidenced by the Chief Executive's memo
dated 26th of July, 1994, which describes the hospital
as being "on a very sound financial footing".
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The I.P.C., as recognised experts, were called in to
advise the parties. The Union, whilst accepting the
grading for porters set out by the I.P.C., has sought to
establish a differential for flexibility arising from
additional duties, e.g., handyman/painting and
decorating. The Union also sought to establish a
differential in respect of the X-ray assistant, Theatre
porters, C.S.S.D. staff and to retain the old relativity
in respect of the Head porter. These claims were
rejected but a 5% differential was offered in respect of
the portering staff. This was a fair and reasonable
offer in the circumstances.
2. There is no basis for any differential to be paid above
Health Board rates for any staff other than the general
porters, who perform some additional duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties and consulted with the author of the I.P.C. report.
Taking into account all the information before it, and having
considered the various stages in the exercise, the Court is of the
view that the result of the grading exercise, as set out in the
report of the I.P.C., was reasonable.
The Court does not recommend any change in the grading of these
posts. The Court does not recommend any change in the proposal on
differentials made by management.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.