FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Amelioration of losses incurred due to a disciplinary penalty.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed at the General Hospital, Tullamore, Co. Offaly as an attendant/porter.
In 1998, following a complaint from a female patient and a subsequent investigation by the Board the worker concerned was re-deployed to non patient care duties.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for an improvement in the financial loss incurred by him when he was moved from portering duties.
The Board rejects the Union's claim stating that the worker concerned suffered no loss in basic pay and is not precluded from earning premium pay.
The dispute was not resolved at local level. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of September, 2000. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The losses incurred by the worker have had a devastating effect on his personal finances.
2. The worker applied for other positions in the hospital but was unsuccessful in securing the posts.
3. The worker has not been given the chance by the Board to redeem himself. He should now be compensated for the losses he incurred due to his re-deployment.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board has lost confidence in the worker's ability and suitability for future involvement in direct patient care.
2. He is welcome to apply for any job in the hospital which does not involve patient contact.
3. He did not suffer any loss in basic pay due to his re-deployment. He is not precluded from earning premium pay in his present position.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court cannot support the Union's claim for compensation and does not recommend its concession.
The Court notes that the employee is not precluded from applying for any alternative post which does not involve any direct contact with patients or of availing of the opportunities to enhance his earnings.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29 September, 2000______________________
G.B./S.H.Kevin Duffy
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.