FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-054182-ir-07/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced permanent part-time employment as a member of the Household Staff at Peamount Hospital in March 2005. Her contracted hours of work initially was for 20 per week, but due to a shortfall in staffing levels this was later increased to on average 30 hours per week during September, 2006. For operational reasons her hours were increased to 39 per week before being reduced back to her original 20 hours. The Claimant brought her grievance to the attention of her Union as it was her contention that she ought to be granted the option of working the additional hours that were still available.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th July, 2008, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions made by both parties. The respondent has the right to manage the service required in the hospital. I have also considered there was no breach of contract in regard to the Claimant and the extra hours offered to her were clearly on a temporary basis.
However, the panel for relief work needs to be more formalised and part time staff should get first option on agreed criteria basis. I therefore recommend that both parties meet to put a more formal arrangement in place."
On the 29th July, 2008, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was clearly unnecessary to reduce the Worker's hours as there are other opportunities within the Hospital for her to continue to work 39 hours per week.
2. The shortfall in her earnings should be reimbursed to the Worker in full, as all options to maintain her on a 39 hour week were not explored before she was put on a reduced roster of 20 hours per week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker's part-time position remains in place as per her contract of employment, she understood that the extra hours allocated to her were of a temporary nature and for a specified period of time, after which she would revert to her original substantive post and roster.
2. Management does not accept that the Worker was denied the opportunity of working additional hours as they are clearly advertised and she could have applied for them if she was interested. Management has no contractual obligation to provide the Worker with any additional hours after the agreed temporary period had expired.
3. Management is entitled to manage and deploy resources where appropriate and necessary, as it sees fit in the most efficient manner possible in the best interest of the Hospital. They have acted fairly and consistently in all of their dealings with the Claimant.
DECISION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and recommendations of the Rights Commissioner are reasonable and appropriate.
Accordingly, the recommendation is affirmed.
The Court is, however, satisfied that the Claimant did have an expectation that she would continue to have additional hours during the continuance of her colleagues illness. In these circumstances the Hospital should afford the Claimant priority for any additional hours which should arise in the immediate future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th October, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.