Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93551 Case Number: AD9525 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GALVIA HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 358/93.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties and the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court is very conscious of the difficulty in identifying a
comparative job within the Service. However, having considered
all the circumstances of this particular case, the Court does not
support the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation that the claimant
should be "afforded the same conditions for call-outs as his
qualified nursing colleagues".
The Court is of the view that the I.P.C. proposal on payment for
call-out is more appropriate and equitable in this case. The
Court, therefore, recommends that the call-out arrangements as
proposed by the I.P.C. be implemented. In addition, the Court
recommends that the #500 on-call allowance that the claimant
currently enjoys should be retained and consolidated.
This new arrangement to be monitored for a 6-month period.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93551 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
GALVIA HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST
358/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by one worker, a hospital
engineer since 1986, for an 'on-call' allowance. The claim
was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation in
August, 1993, from which ST358/93 issued. The Rights
Commissioner recommended that "the claimant is afforded the
same conditions for call outs as his qualified nursing
colleagues". The recommendation was appealed by the hospital
and a Labour Court investigation took place on the 3rd of
December, 1993. The Court decided to defer its decision on
the appeal, pending the issue of the findings of an
evaluation by the Irish Productivity Centre of associated
matters. The I.P.C. assessment was issued in July, 1994.
The Court re-heard the appeal of ST358/93 on the 1st March,
1995.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The I.P.C. recommended that the hospital engineer should
no longer be responsible for the portering function and
that that role should be left to the Head Porter. It
was also recommended that the hospital engineer be paid
a call-out rate based on a minimum payment of two hours
per call-out at time and a half and at double time for
late hours, Sundays and Bank Holidays, the hourly rate
set at #9.27 (is based on the current maximum of the
Draft Technician Grade 1). It was further recommended
that the grade should be that of Draft Technician Grade
1, Point 7 of the scale - the scale running from #16,414
to #18,535.
2. The hospital engineer's current total remuneration
package includes a basic salary of #17,500 plus VHI and
telephone allowances, totalling approximately #500, and
a yearly average of 30 call-outs at #50 per call-out,
(#1,500). In total, his package amounts to
approximately #19,500.
3. The hospital believes that the grade suggested by the
I.P.C. is broadly correct and appropriate and compared
with other private/voluntary hospitals, the hospital
engineer is well rewarded. Because of technical and
equipment developments, the need for call-out has become
decreased during the past year and, with the removal
under the proposed scheme of the requirement for
portering supervision, the Hospital Engineer will have
less work to do.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Western Health Board refused permission for the
interview of W.H.B. job-holders or the viewing of W.H.B.
systems in operation. The only evidence available to
the I.P.C was based solely on the one-sided, restricted
view of the W.H.B's personnel officer.
2. The I.P.C. exceeded its terms of reference by
recommending a call-out payment system and in extending
this call-out system to a second individual. The I.P.C.
was asked to recommend "....appropriate Department of
Health Grades", only. The I.P.C. was not asked to
comment specifically on the case of the Hospital
engineer, or anyone else.
3. The I.P.C. Report failed to give sufficient weight to
the level of flexibility and higher degrees of
responsibility which operate in a 'profit driven'
hospital versus a 'public-service driven' hospital.
This would have been obvious if the I.P.C. had gained
direct access to W.H.B. employees and systems.
4. The I.P.C. Report is not in tune with what is actually
taking place on the ground in respect of hospital
engineering and maintenance services either in the
W.H.B. or within Galvia hospital.
5. There is no direct or even close comparator in the
W.H.B. to the post of Hospital Engineer in Galvia. The
duties of this post are, in the W.H.B., spread over a
number of posts and grades.
This view is supported by the Rights Commissioner who
stated:
"I feel that the claimant occupies a unique position
as Maintenance Main/Organiser, Supervisor (of
Contractors) Administrator etc., and as such cannot
be compared fairly with the general run of
maintenance persons in the Health Service
nationally".
6. Notwithstanding the general view that sees the Hospital
Engineer as a highly flexible indeed unique post holder
the I.P.C. saw fit to recommend in respect of the
claimant:
(a) a decrease in annual salary of #297 ;
(b) a salary relationship with a Draughtsman
Technician, with no reason given ;
(c) a decrease in on-call of some #1,500 per annum.
7. The Hospital relies heavily on the argument that it is
in a 'perilous financial state'. The Union understands
that the true financial state of the Hospital is
considerably stronger than has been suggested.
DECISION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties and the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court is very conscious of the difficulty in identifying a
comparative job within the Service. However, having considered
all the circumstances of this particular case, the Court does not
support the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation that the claimant
should be "afforded the same conditions for call-outs as his
qualified nursing colleagues".
The Court is of the view that the I.P.C. proposal on payment for
call-out is more appropriate and equitable in this case. The
Court, therefore, recommends that the call-out arrangements as
proposed by the I.P.C. be implemented. In addition, the Court
recommends that the #500 on-call allowance that the claimant
currently enjoys should be retained and consolidated.
This new arrangement to be monitored for a 6-month period.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th March, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman