FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROYAL VICTORIA EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Grade increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Hospital since 1989 as household domestic staff. She works 25 hours per week and her weekly pay rate is £132. The worker's duties are divided between laundry distribution and collection, and the taking in and stacking of stores. ( A full list of the worker's duties was supplied to the Court). The Union's claim is that the worker should be paid 8% differential of the Hospital porters' rate of pay for carrying out stores duties.
The Union claims that it first raised the issue with management in 1994. The matter was discussed at a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission in September, 1996. At the conference, the Hospital agreed to raise the issue with the Department of Health on the worker's behalf. The Department did not sanction the pay increase. A second conciliation conference took place in August, 1997, and the Hospital made further representation to the Department of Health but again the claim was rejected. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of January, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of February, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker commenced her employment she received training in the operation of stores duties, and these duties form an integral part of her work. The worker spends approximately 40% of her time in stores. The payment of the 8% differential is to carry out stores duties. It does not relate to the length of time taken. The only reason not to pay the worker is because she is a member of the domestic staff. It has been accepted by hospitals throughout the health service to pay the differential to staff carrying out stores duties since the mid 1980s..
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital must be guided by the Department of Health in this issue and the Department will not sanction payment of the differential. The 8% differential is payable to porters who are assigned on a permanent basis to the Hospital stores. The worker concerned only spends 40% of her time in stores and even then it is only as an assistant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties at the hearing, and to the additional information subsequently provided. The circumstances in which the claimed allowance is applicable do not appear to be clearly defined in any agreement nor is there evidence of a consistent practice in that regard in other hospitals.
While acknowledging that the worker in this case is not in a category to which the allowance would normally be payable, she is, nonetheless, carrying out duties which are additional to and more onerous than those appropriate to her grade. On balance, the Court is satisfied that if these duties were assigned to a Hospital Porter, rather than the claimant, the allowance would be paid. However, the claimant does not carry out the duties full time and on that account the full amount claimed would not be justified.
In these circumstances, the Court recommends that an allowance of 6% be paid with effect from the 1st of January, 1998.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th April, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.