FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RIVERSDALE NURSING HOME (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Issues relating to closure of Riversdale Nursing Home.
BACKGROUND:
2. Riversdale Nursing Home is a 26 bedded, fully equipped facility located in Palmerstown, Co. Dublin. It opened for business in 1992. On the 2nd of July, 1999, the Company announced to its workers that the business had become non-viable and that it had no option but to close the Home.
Local level discussions took place at which Management indicated that all statutory obligations in respect of the closure would be honoured. The Union sought an enhanced redundancy package on behalf of the workers. Management rejected the claim. As agreement could not be reached, the matter was referred by the Union to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of July, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Management is refusing to recognise and acknowledge the contribution made by the staff who have given long and loyal service and delivered a high standard of care and quality of service.
2. Rates of pay are low and the workers are seeking 4 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements.
3. The average redundancy settlement in the health sector is 4 weeks' pay per year of service, plus statutory entitlement.
4. The Union is concerned that the employer took a decision to close down the Home at a time when staff sought the assistance of the Labour Court to improve their conditions of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Riversdale Nursing Home is a non-viable enterprise and it is incumbent upon a managing director to cease the operations of a Company in this position. It is with much regret that Riversdale had to make this decision. The Company will honour all statutory commitments but under no circumstances can it come close to meeting the Union's expectations.
2. The Home first opened in 1992, targeting the luxury end of the nursing home market. Riversdale House, despite being a high calibre product is limited by its small capacity in a highly competitive market. Management endeavoured to address this problem on several occasions by seeking planning permission for a further 13 bedrooms in order to make the venture more viable. Unfortunately, every application was rejected.
3. It is apparent that the Union's expectations are unreasonable and unattainable. The bank accounts of Riversdale speak for themselves (details supplied) and are fully transparent. Basing expectations on tangible and real scenarios is justifiable but in the case of Riversdale the Union's expectations can only be aspirational. The Company is aware of its duty to its patients and in that regard it sought the co-operation of staff in attaining an orderly wind down. Unfortunately this was only forthcoming on the condition of an ex-gratia payment.
4. The Company has made provisions for the re-deployment of staff into other nursing homes in the area, as it is aware of the possible consequences the closure could have on people's lives. Several homes have vacancies.
5. The decision to close the Company was not taken lightly and, after exploring various options, management felt that this was the only sensible conclusion. Management wishes to exercise their duty of care to patients and staff alike, however, they can only manoeuvre within clearly defined limitations and no leeway exists beyond statutory obligations. Evidence has been provided to substantiate the fact that the Company cannot afford anything other than statutory commitments. The Court is requested to so recommend.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully evaluated the submissions made by the parties and the other information provided in the course of the hearing.
The Court does not accept that the business in question has become non-viable and regards the closure of the nursing home as being essentially voluntary in nature. Moreover, the Court can see no meaningful distinction between the proprietors of the home and owners of the building in which it is located. The building represents a very significant asset which can be realised following closure.
For these reasons and having regard to the relatively short service of the staff concerned, the Court recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th July, 1999______________________
FB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.