FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLOVERLODGE NURSING HOME (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No.17938.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 24th August, 2004 a dispute between the parties concerning, Rates of Pay, Unsocial Hours Allowance, Pension Scheme, Sick Pay Scheme, was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation. In LCR 17938 which was issued on the 30th August, 2004 the Court recommended as follows;
"The Court accepts that the current rates of pay and other conditions of employment of the staff concerned are out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employment's and that, in consequence, the Union's claims have merit. In particular, notwithstanding the economic circumstances of the employment, the Court believes that, having regard to the current rates of pay, the imposition of a two year pay freeze is unreasonable.
Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the employer the Court is of the view that the parties should be given a further opportunity to explore the possibility of reaching an accommodation in relation to these claims. The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties resume negotiations on the Union's claims. These negotiations should not extend beyond 30th September, 2004, at which point, if final agreement has not been reached, the parties should report back to the Court and a definitive recommendation will issue."
Subsequently the parties entered negotiations. On the 20th October, 2004 the Company outlined its final position the Union on the terms of LCR17938 as follows:
1. The application of Phase 2 of Sustaining Progress from 1st October, 2004
2. Agreement to pay National Wage Agreements going forward, without prejudice to the Company's prerogative to plead inability to pay through the mechanisms provided by the terms of the National Wage Agreement.
3. Management agreed to enter discussions with the Union six months from the date of acceptance of these proposals. Such discussions will be based on a review of the current rates of pay and more specifically the issue of increasing the rates of pay at this point.
In relation to the Sunday Premium the Company proposed a 25% premium rate to be applied to all hours worked on Sundays, for all staff with effect from the date of agreement on the proposal.
The proposal was rejected following a ballot of the workforce and the Union sought a definitive recommendation from the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the Union accepts that the Company is still in a loss making situation these have been dramatically reduced in the last year. However, the rates obtaining in the Company are significantly out of line with comparators in the sector. The Union maintains its claim for €10 per hour for care assistants and pro rata in respect of other grades. The SP increase as proposed in the Company's letter of 20th October, is acceptable.
2. The Union is seeking a shift rate of 25% for night workers in line with its original submission.
3. The Company's offer in relation to Sunday Premium is not acceptable. The Union is seeking double time as per its original submission.
4. In relation to overtime worked in excess of normal full time hours the Union is seeking a payment of Time plus one half for the first four hours and Double Time thereafter.
5. The Union is prepared to forego its claim for a Pension Scheme until the end of the SP Agreement, in light of the Company's finances.
6. The Union is prepared to reduce its claim in respect of a Sick Pay Scheme from 8 weeks to 4 weeks in light of the Company's finances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim for €10 per hour for all care assistants and pro rata for other grades represents a 30% increase in basic pay and would impose a very significant cost on the Company. In light of its current financial situation the Company could not sustain such a cost.
2. In relation to the Union's claim for a 25% shift premium Management does not accept that it is the sectoral norm. This is evidenced from a recent survey of Irish Nursing Homes. The cost of the shift premium is prohibitive and outside the industry norms.
3. The Company believes that its offer of a 25% premium for Sunday hours is reasonable and is not out of line with industry norms.
4. In relation to the Union's claim for an overtime premium it is not common practice in the majority of private nursing homes. Because of the very nature of the work and the provision of a 24 hour service, a nursing home could not facilitate an overtime premium rate.
5. The Company believes it will not be in a position to provide for a company Pension Scheme by the expiry of the SP Agreement and reaffirms its position that it provides a PRSA pension scheme.
6. A survey of Irish Nursing Homes indicates that 68% of private nursing homes do not operate a Sick Pay Scheme. The imposition of a sick pay scheme as outlined by the Union is out of line with normal industry practice.
7. The Company is in severe financial difficulties. It cannot and will not be in a position to improve the proposal of 20th October, 2004 in the short term without further compromising its finances and placing the organisation in a potentially detrimental situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since this is a newly unionised employment the claims under investigation are not precluded under Sustaining Progress.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and has had full regard to all the material with which it was provided in relation to the hearing.
The principal group associated with this claim are responsible for the care of the elderly and infirm residents of the home. They are expected to have a high degree of commitment and skill in the performance of their duties. This together with other factors referred to by the employer in its submission to the Court, must be taken into account in determining a reasonable level of remuneration for the work involved. Having regard to these considerations and taking full account of the financial and commercial circumstances of the employment, the Court recommends as follows:
Pay.
The Court recommends that the rate of Care Assistants be increased to €9.00 per hour with effect from 1st July, 2005 and that it be further increased to €9.50 with effect from 1st January, 2006. Pro-rata increases should apply to the other categories associated with the claim.
These increases should be in addition to any increases to which the workers would ordinarily be due under Sustaining Progress.
Introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme.
The Court recommends that the Company introduce a sick pay scheme providing for four weeks sick leave per year at full pay less social welfare. All sick leave should be covered by a medical certificate . The scheme should apply to all employees who have completed their probationary period . The scheme should not operate in respect of the first 3 days of any illness.
Night Allowance/Sunday Allowance.
The Court recommends that a night allowance equal to 25% of basic pay for the hours involved be introduced. Where staff work on Sunday as part of their normal roster they should receive an allowance equal to 50% of their basic pay for the hours worked.
Overtime.
Where overtime is worked, in excess of normal full-time hours, payment should be at time and one half for the first four hours and double time thereafter. Where overtime is worked on Sunday (as distinct from Sunday working as part of rostered shift) double time should apply.
Implementation Date.
The adjustments in employment conditions referred to above should apply from 1st July, 2005
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st July, 2005______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.