FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NAZARETH HOUSE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Nazareth House, which is a home providing care for the elderly, was founded by the Poor Sisters of Nazareth, in Sligo, in 1910. The home has a complement of 5 Sisters and 147 full-time and part-time employees, 110 of whom are non-nursing staff. The home has 85 beds which are contracted to the North Western Health Board (NWHB), along with 60 private beds of which 15 are subvented by the NWHB.
The dispute concerns approximately 75 care assistants and kitchen staff on whose behalf the Union is claiming parity of pay and conditions with similar staff in the NWHB. At present, the care assistants and kitchen staff concerned are paid about £2.50 and £2.00 per hour, respectively, less than their NWHB counterparts. Nazareth House does not pay premium rates for nights, Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays, does not operate a sick-pay or pension scheme and its staff have less holidays than apply in the NWHB.
The Union is seeking that all of those matters be brought into line with the arrangements that apply in the NWHB. The Union claims that, as nursing staff have recently achieved parity with NWHB staff, on foot of Labour Court Recommendation LCR16299 (Nazareth House -v- INO), non-nursing staff should not be treated less favourably. The Union also raised the issue of "millennium payments" claiming, on behalf of the workers concerned, the rates that applied in the public sector.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which it emerged that the home has been running at a loss and is able to survive only because it is subsidised by the Religious Order which runs it. However, management indicated that it would be prepared to concede the claims on the same basis as applied to the nursing staff, i.e., only if the NWHB was prepared to provide the requisite funding. Agreement was not reached between the parties and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 15th March, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 13th July, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The workers concerned perform similar tasks to their counterparts in other geriatric hospitals in the NWHB and the patients in Nazareth House are being cared for on behalf of the NWHB.
2. Nursing staff in Nazareth House have parity with NWHB nursing staff on foot of LCR16299 and management has accepted that the claimants should also have parity of pay and conditions with equivalent NWHB staff, retrospective to 12th April, 2000, as provided for in LCR16299.
3. The nationally agreed millennium payments should be applied in respect of the small number of staff concerned by that aspect of the claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The public sector rates for non-nursing staff can be applied only if the funding is secured from the NWHB. Management wishes to provide reasonable terms and conditions for its valued staff but this cannot be achieved given the meagre resources available and the existing budgetary constraints.
2. The NWHB claims that the subvention rate applicable is as set out in Statutory Instrument No. 227 of 1993. Accordingly, no increase has applied for 7 years and, as a consequence, loans were required from the Congregation and the Mother House in order to meet current expenditure (details supplied to the Court).
3. Although management was not in a position to accede to the Union's claim in respect of millennium payments, the staff concerned did receive a contribution direct from the Order's own funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is requested to recommend concession of rates of pay and other conditions of employment, in line with LCR16299. The Management are not opposing this claim and, therefore, there is no issue of justification for the Court to consider. The Court, therefore, recommends concession of the claim on a similar basis as LCR16299.
While the matter of funding is one between the parties and the Health Board, it would appear from the figures presented to the Court that no increase in subvention has been applied since 1993, resulting in the Religious Congregation having to provide finance to cover the losses incurred.
While this arrangement would seem to indicate that the Order is subsidising the Health Board, it is entirely unsatisfactory that employees should be receiving less than their personal entitlement because of this arrangement.
On the issue of the millennium payments, the Court is satisfied, given the financial position of the organisation, that the way management dealt with the matter at the time was reasonable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
25th July, 2000______________________
MK/MKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.