FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COOMBE HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS CRAFT GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Removal of regular overtime (Re-instatement or compensation).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the withdrawal of overtime from 10 workers in February, 2009. One of the issues in dispute is whether the overtime was regular and rostered as the Union Group claims. The Hospital disputes this claim. The Union Group is seeking re-instatement of the overtime or compensation for its loss.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th July, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th November, 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were shocked by the sudden withdrawal of the overtime as there was no consultation with the Unions.
2 The overtime was regular and rostered and had been in place for 20 years or more. Workers had to make family arrangement and work schedules to accommodate it.
3. The workers concerned suffered huge financial losses as a result of the withdrawal of the overtime and deserve to at least be compensated.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Whilst the overtime was in place for a considerable time it was not rostered and was considered non-essential. Workers had the right to refuse to do it.
2. Because of the severe financial situation the Hospital finds itself in it had no choice but to look at whatever savings it could make. This included a major reduction in the overtime but it has not been withdrawn completely. The Hospital does not the money to pay any compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the elimination of the disputed overtime occurred against the background of severe budgetary cutbacks at the Hospital. In that regard the extent of the financial difficulties facing the Hospital are not disputed. The Court further accepts that the financial loss accruing to the claimants is substantial.
Nevertheless, the overtime in issue, while regularly worked, was not rostered or compulsory. Hence, it was not in a category which the Court would normally regard as part of a workers contractual earnings, the reduction of which would normally attract compensation.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the severe economic circumstances of the Hospital, the Court does not see any basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
The Court would, however, recommend that the parties keep the position under review and if appropriate opportunities for overtime working arise they should be provided to the claimants. The Court further recommends that the Unions be kept fully and adequately appraised of the on-going financial circumstances of the Hospital.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd November, 2010.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.