FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Relocation Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Health Service Executive (HSE) Southern Area and SIPTU in relation to the payment of relocation compensation to Chefs and Catering Assistants employed at St Johns and St Senans Hospitals. As part of the new Community Hospital in Enniscorthy a centralised catering facility is being introduced on the grounds of St Johns Hospital.
The Union is seeking relocation compensation for affected staff for co-operating with
the relocation and the additional training that will be required of them in the new facility.
Management reject the claim on the basis that the relocation will involve minimal disruption to the workers and that Sustaining Progress provides for co-operation with the modernisation and flexibility in the workplace.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st March 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th September, 2006 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes and co-operation expected of the workers in this case goes way beyond the "normal ongoing change" provided in Sustaining Progress. The relocation to new premises involves major change and additional training as well as working different rosters.
2.Catering staff and other non nursing staff in many other areas were previously awarded compensation in similar circumstances. The Unions claim for compensation for co-operation with the relocation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants in this case have already been compensated through the 2003 National Agreement for Support Grades 'Recognising and Respecting the Role' by a phased increase of €3656 per annum. This payment required staff to co-operate fully with "ongoing developments in quality initiatives and changes in work practices."
2. There is no justification for the payment of relocation compensation to the workers involved. Sustaining Progress provides for co-operation with flexibility and modernisation within the workplace.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought a relocation payment on behalf of chefs and catering assistants employed in both St. John’s Hospital and St. Senan’s Hospitals in respect of their co-operation with the move to the new centralised facilities at the newly built community hospital on grounds of St. John’s Hospital.
The Union stated to the Court that the catering staff are expected to co-operate with major changes associated with the move to the new facilities. In recognition of this requirement and in response to the claim, Management offered two extra days annual leave.
In support of its claim, the Union cited a number of cases where compensation awards had been made. The Court is not satisfied that these are comparable situations and consequently, the Court does not propose to depart from Management’s offer.
Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that two days’ extra annual leave, at neutral cost, should be granted on a once off basis to those claimants who fully co-operate with the centralisation of the catering facilities at the new community hospital.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.