Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95168 Case Number: LCR14887 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for compensation for loss of premium earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant
concession of the Union's claim.
The Court recommends the compensation offered by the Health Board
should be accepted.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95168 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14887
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for compensation for loss of
premium earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Board has decided to close St. Joseph's Hospital in
Limerick as a consequence of the transition to a more
community-based psychiatric service. The closure is
being effected over a period and the latest stage is the
transfer of catering facilities to a centralised
catering service based in St. Camillus's Hospital. The
change involves the transfer of 15 workers (7 cooks and
8 attendants).
2. On transfer the workers would change to a new roster.
The cooks who presently work 2 weekends in 3 would be
rostered to work 2 weekends in 4. The cooks would also
lose 1.50 hours' premium pay. The attendants would
generally retain the working of 2 weekends in 3.
However, they would also lose 1.50 hours' premium pay.
The Hospital proposed to compensate for the loss by
applying the "Castlerea formula" which pays twice the
annual loss.
3. The Board's proposal was rejected by the workers and was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 9th November, 1994.
No resolution could be found. On 27th February, 1995
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under the
terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 30th
August, 1995 in Limerick (the earliest date suitable to
both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed change involves a major financial loss for
the workers by the elimination of 11 days per year of
premium payments. In addition, the change of roster
involves 2 extra days' attendance every 3 weeks for the
workers. This is a major change in the working
conditions of the workers and it also incurs added
expense.
2. Clearly the Castlerea formula is inadequate to address
the total losses of the workers. The Union is seeking a
further 30 days' pay in addition to twice the annual
loss. In the circumstances of the major change to be
endured by the workers, the claim for compensation is
reasonable.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board's priority in the process of change has been
to safeguard the employment of its permanent workforce.
The Board has already conceded much in an effort to
allay anxieties about the change (details supplied). It
is worth noting that the change in weekend attendance
has been brought about as a result of reduced activity.
2. The Board rejects the Union's claim for compensation for
attendance of 2 extra days every 3 weeks. This change
has been brought about by a new roster. However, the
workers still work the standard 39 hours per week. The
Board is willing to compensate for actual loss as per
the terms of the nationally negotiated Castlerea
formula. The Board's position has been upheld recently
by the Court in a similar case (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant
concession of the Union's claim.
The Court recommends the compensation offered by the Health Board
should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th September, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.