FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH / CORK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Disturbance Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for disturbance pay. In 2008 the HSE South's reconfiguration of St Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital included the closure of the laundry. The laundry service was to be outsourced and the workers concerned were redeployed across other hospitals throughout the city in a different capacity. The Union are seeking disturbance pay for the workers. The Employers position is that due to national directives and budgetary constraints Management was not in a position to concede a disturbance payment.
The issue 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th August, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th November, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union has made it clear from the outset that it would be seeking compensation for the closure and forced move of the workers. The workers concerned lived minutes walk from their place of work.
2 The workers have had to adjust and be trained for new positions. They are also away from home a substantially longer time.
3 The requested disturbance pay is modest considering the savings accrued by the Employer and the problems for the workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Following notification of the closure of the laundry service a consultation process was undertaken by management. As a result numerous arrangements were put in place for the workers formally based in the laundry including accommodating individual work patterns, transport, enhanced working environment, opportunity for training and up skilling and many others.
2 The workers have been redeployed successfully while maintaining their existing terms and conditions and they also continue to have access to premium earnings and overtime based on services requirements.
3 The Employer is satisfied that the proposed offer put to the Union is fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court is of the view that the HSE's offer of one additional day's leave in the current year is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of this case and should be accepted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
25th November, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.