FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Underpayment of Premium pay for Sundays.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the application for Sunday Premium payment for former nurse employees who had worked 12 hour shifts.
In 1999 a claim was lodged in respect of the nonpayment of Sunday premium for current Nursing staff who worked a 12-hour shift on Sunday. This practice was quickly rectified by the hospital authorities. Shortly afterwards the issue of retrospection for these nurses was raised by the Union. Following conciliation conferences on the 18th and 31st of May, 2001and on the 31st of August, 2001 a full and final settlement was agreed.
In February 2002 a claim was lodged by the Union on behalf of former nurse employees in respect of the nonpayment of Sunday premium for working a 12-hour shift on Sunday.
A conciliation conference was held in April 2002 and adjourned. The hospital were not in a position to attend any further conciliation conferences on this matter.
The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of March, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of December, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union secured agreement in respect of underpayment of premium payment for nurses currently employed at the hospital in 2001. The hospital agreed that nurses had been denied one-hour premium pay for a period of twenty years.
2. Payment was made to a number of nurses who were employed at the time the original claim was lodged, on the 1st May 2000 but subsequently left. A number of nurses in similar circumstances have come forward and they have not been paid the retrospection.
3. The group on whose behalf this claim is being made provided nursing services between the years 1980 and 2000 and wrongful deductions were made from their salaries.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement reached in September, 2001 was in relation to nurse employees currently employed in the hospital at that time. The agreement was in full and final settlement of their claim for retrospection.
2. The claim currently before the Court is an attempt to undermine the agreement reached in September, 2001.
3. The Union did not dispute the terms of the September, 2001 agreement in any way.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to both the oral and written submissions of the parties. In September 2001 an agreement was reached following a Labour Relations Commission proposal on retrospective awards in respect of Sunday premium for nurses working 12-hour shifts. This was agreed in full and final settlement of all matters relating to the INO's claim. The Court accepts that in normal industrial relations terms this wording denotes a conclusive deal from which no further claims could be made.
The Hospital were clearly of the view that no further claims would be made, and that no agreement existed on a claim for parity in respect of former employees of the Hospital. The Union on the other hand were of the view that the rights of possible claimants - former employees, were not being waived but would be presented in the future if they became known to the INO.
The Court has considered the status of the September 2001 full and final settlement and notes that it did not make any reference to the possibility of future claimants, which could potentially increase the cost of the agreed settlement by a substantial amount.
The Court notes that to date the Hospital has granted the agreed retrospection awards to those nurses who were in the employment of the Hospital from the 1st May 2000. Among the Union's list of claimants are a number of other former nurses who were in a similar position but have not received the awards.
The Court recommends that the Hospital should confirm this position and pay all those nurses who were in the employment of the Hospital on the 1st of May 2000 where a claim was made (either listed in the INO claim or who claimed separately to the Hospital) and have not already received such an award.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd December, 2003______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.