FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - THREE WORKERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for compensation for underpayment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three workers concerned are employed by the Health Board as resident hostel supervisors attached to the Limerick Mental Health Services. They are based in medium- support hostels concerned with supervision and training of residents who were previously in psychiatric hospitals.
The dispute before the Court concerns the workers' claim that since the commencement of their employment (details supplied), they have worked a roster which included hours for which they have not been paid. The workers calculate the unpaid hours at approximately 525 hours per annum. In October, 1995 agreement was reached on the introduction of a new roster which addressed the issue of additional hours. The workers' claim relates to the period from the date of their employment to the date of the introduction of the new roster. They are seeking payment of their claim in full.
The Board acknowledges that the supervisors were underpaid but disputes the figures claimed. Its position in relation to the payment of retrospection is that it had no knowledge of the claim prior to March/April, 1995 and any question of retrospection should only apply from that date.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 27th February, 1996 and the 3rd December, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th February, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 21st May, 1997.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers raised their concerns individually with various hospital administrators prior to 1990. Their concerns were not taken seriously.
2. The three supervisors have given good service to the Health Board. They are qualified nurses and provide services which are consistent with their education and training.
3. There is no dispute in relation to the hours worked. The supervisors were employed to provide services to residents on a 40 (39) hour week. They could not leave their assignments except when relieved.
4. Every second week-end the supervisors worked from 4.30 p.m. on Friday to 9.00 a.m. on the following Monday. Included in this rota were nightly sleeping-in periods of 8.5 hours. The staff were on duty for a total of 39 hours. They received payment for 24 hours.
5. Premium payments for Sunday were based on a 12-hour day. The workers were on duty for 15.5 hours. Similar discrepancies arose in relation to bank holiday working.
6. The Board's position does not reflect its acknowledged debt to the supervisors post-1991 and does not respond in any way to their claim for arrears due from the commencement of their employment.
HEALTH BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are a number of factors which contribute to this claim:-
(a) The claimants assertion that calls were made on their time outside of designated working hours i.e. attend early or stay late. It has always been the Health Board's position that time off in lieu could be taken for any extra time worked.
(b) The duty roster worked from 1991. The Health Board maintains that a duty roster with a 39 hour week was introduced during 1991.
2. This claim, even if it had merit, would have sizeable cost implications for the Health Board as there are 11 hostel supervisors employed in similar positions. The estimated total cost would average over £9,000 per annum for each of the years 1993-1995.
3. The Health Board cannot say what hours were actually worked in each hostel throughout the period 1991 to 1995, other than to say that all hours recorded were paid. It was expected from the beginning that some flexibility would be operated.
4. It was acknowledged to the claimants in October, 1995 that compensation for some extra hours worked before October, 1995 was due. In October, 1995 following local discussions with the claimants, a new roster was introduced which addressed the issue of additional hours.
5. Following agreement on the revised roster the Health Board agreed to pay the hostel supervisors four or five additional hours premium payments for each bank holiday worked, back dated to January, 1995. The Health Board regard this matter as settled.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and the subsequent information supplied by the Board.
Given the time span involved in the claim and the major differences between the parties in relation to the background information on various duties and shifts the Court is not in a position to decide the merits of the arguments.
It is accepted by the Board that some monies are due to the claimants but a wide gap exists between the parties on the merit and value of this figure.
Having considered all aspects of the case the Court recommends that the Health Board pay the claimants a total sum of £25,000 in full and final settlement of their claim for arrears due-the claimants to agree how this figure should be divided between the three people involved taking into account their various work patterns.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th June, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.