FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST. ANNE'S SERVICE, SEAN ROSS ABBEY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Retrospection in night shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. St. Anne's Service was established in Roscrea in 1930, and currently employs 240 staff. The Service provides residential care and day services for approximately 170 people with varying degrees of mental and physical disabilities The dispute concerns the incorrect application of night-duty premia to nursing and care staff, and dates from 1979. The loss of earnings covers night duty staff only. Management had applied the night duty rate @ 16% rather than 25% (time and one quarter).
There is no dispute that compensation is due. What is in dispute is the amount - the Unions reckons that full compensation from 1979 - 1996 (when the error was corrected) would be £74,000 approximately. This would involve a core group of 9 staff and 12 relief staff. Management contends that the workers nominated by the Unions represents only 83% of all staff in receipt of night duty premia. Management calculated the annual loss at approximately £6,000 for the period 1988-1996, for which its records were available, and made an offer of £12,000 in full and final settlement of the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and 3 conciliation conferences took place, the final one on 30th of September, 1998. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of June, 1999, in Roscrea.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
1. Management had admitted that an error was made in the calculation of the overtime. Management's offer of £12,000 retrospection is totally inadequate. The calculation is only based on figures from 1988 (when computer records began). The Unions' figure is based on a sample of pay slips of the people concerned, and goes back to 1979 when the error first occurred.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The error made was a genuine one. However, the Unions' claim is unrealistic. Management's offer of £12,000 is based on approximately twice the average annual shortfall for the period 1988 - 1996, for which records are available.
2. The Service has very limited funding and could not afford to pay the Unions' claim. Any concession of the Unions' claim would pose a most serious and genuine threat to the level of service for those in its care as well as the existing staff levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully examined the submissions by the parties, the Court recommends that the claim should be addressed by the payment of a lump sum of £35,000 in full and final settlement of this claim. Due to the financial constraints on the Service, the Court recommends a phased basis for the payment of the above award over a three year period, commencing in December, 1999.
The method of distribution of the payments to be decided by the Union and the claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th July, 1999.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.