FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST JAMES'S HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Inclusion in on-call system and compensation for past exclusion
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was appointed to the position of Carpentry Services Officer in May, 2000. Prior to this date he had been relieving in the position following the retirement of the previous incumbent in November, 1999. The Union's claim is for the worker's inclusion on an on-call roster and for loss of earnings. The claim was previously the subject of LCR 16964. The Court did not recommend concession of the claim but did recommend that the"issue be dealt with as part of the wider discussions now taking place". The Union's case is that these discussions concluded with an agreement entitled "Technical Services Department (TSD) after-hour helpdesk system", dated 21st of February, 2002. The Union believes that the TSD document would have included the worker in the on-call roster. The Hospital's case is that a supplementary document to the TSD - dated 25th of July, 2002, and known as AHS - which would have expanded the roster to include the worker was never formally agreed between the parties. (At the hearing there was disagreement between the parties as to whether either document had been agreed.)
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 29th of July, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of January, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has made numerous attempts since February, 2002, to have the worker included in the on-call roster but management has continually frustrated these efforts.
2. Points 5 and 7 of the TSD document specifically mentions the inclusion of the Carpentry Service Officer (the worker concerned) in the on-call system.
3. At present only 2 out of 6 service officers are involved in the on-call roster. The loss of earnings to the worker concerned over the last number of years has been considerable.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's terms and conditions of employment are clearly outlined in his contract of employment. The contract makes no reference to payment of an on-call allowance or a requirement to perform these duties. It states that overtime may be required on an exceptional basis depending on work requirements.
2.The allowance is, in effect, a disadvantage payment i.e. where work requirements impact on a worker's personal life. The worker cannot claim a loss of earnings as he has never been required to perform on-call duties.
3. The AHS document would have expanded the roster to include the worker but the Union has refused to talk to management. The Hospital believes that the current on-call arrangements will suffice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The only change in circumstances since the Court issued Recommendation LCR 16954 was the production of the document dated 21st February, 2002, which was intended to extend the Ater-Hours Helpdesk System. This document has all the appearances of an agreement but it appears not to have been ratified, in so far as it affects Services Officers, by the relevant decision making process on the Trade Union side.
In these circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect the Hospital to implement the proposed changes without agreement with the relevant Trade Union group. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th January, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.