Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95364 Case Number: LCR14945 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD (LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD) - and - 3 WORKERS;MR. AENEAS MCCARTHY, SOLICITOR;MS MARIE DENNEHY |
Dispute concerning the payment of a sleeping-in allowance.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that the
employees here concerned were recruited on the basis that they
would have a sleep-in commitment for which they were paid at the
Grade VI (non-nursing pay rate). This was to be an all embracing
rate of pay.
Accordingly in these circumstances the Court takes the view that
there are no grounds for concession of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95364 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14945
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
3 WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY MR. AENEAS MCCARTHY, SOLICITOR)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a sleeping-in allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In the mid 1980's, the board recruited hostel
supervisors as part of its policy towards a more
community-oriented service. The workers are employed by
the Board as resident hostel supervisors attached to
Limerick mental health services. They are based in
medium support hostels concerned with the supervision
and training of residents who were previously in
psychiatric hospitals.
2. The workers presented a claim to the Board for the
payment of a sleeping-in allowance of #14.87 per night.
The Board rejected the claim. By letter dated 14th
June, 1995, the workers referred the claim to the Labour
Court under the terms of Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the claim
in Limerick on 30th August, 1995.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are obliged to "sleep-in" and can be
disciplined by the Board if they leave their place of
employment during the sleep-in period. By not paying
the workers for "sleeping-in", the Board is in breach of
contract (details supplied).
2. The sleep-in allowance was first introduced in 1984 for
childcare workers. The workers satisfy all the criteria
for payment of the allowance (details supplied). The
workers are seeking a payment which is already paid to
comparators in other health board areas (details
supplied).
3. The workers are forced to sleep-in for the Board's
convenience and they must provide services to clients
during this period. The claim is reasonable and should
be backdated to 1991 when it was first claimed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers were recruited on the basis that they would
be prepared to sleep-in. Accordingly they were paid the
Group VI non-nursing pay scale which compensates for the
fact that a sleep-in commitment is a requirement of the
position.
2. A similar claim has been brought by SIPTU and was
rejected on the same basis. In addition the claimants
were reminded of a national agreement on pay which was conditional on
duration of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work
(PCW) (details supplied).
3. In addition, the claim is cost-increasing and therefore
debarred under the terms of the PCW. Any concession of
the claim would lead to repercussive claims in all
health boards areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that the
employees here concerned were recruited on the basis that they
would have a sleep-in commitment for which they were paid at the
Grade VI (non-nursing pay rate). This was to be an all embracing
rate of pay.
Accordingly in these circumstances the Court takes the view that
there are no grounds for concession of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th October, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.