LCR15714

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/358 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15714 (CC97561) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST ANNE'S SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Sleepover duty.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns whether the worker concerned is required to do sleepover duty at St. Anne's Service, Roscrea.

The Service was established in Roscrea in 1930 and currently employs 208 people. It provides residential and day service care for approximately 170 people with varying mental and physical disabilities. Since 1991, the Service has decentralised to include community houses in Roscrea and Birr, and on-campus houses in the Roscrea and Thurles areas.

The worker was first employed as a catering assistant in 1992. In September, 1994, she commenced work as a member of the care staff. In March 1997, the worker was rostered for a sleepover in one of the on-campus houses for the 7th of April, 1997. The worker refused, claiming that it was not in her contract to do sleepover duties. However, she later agreed to work under protest, pending an investigation.

Following meetings at local level, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 30th of April, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of July, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of October 1997, in Thurles.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker's contract does not include any reference to sleepover being part of her duties. Management has imposed a number of changes without consulting the Union. This has happened despite a previous Labour Court Recommendation No. 15027 which

recommended that management use the industrial relations procedures in place.

2. Sleepovers did not become normal practice until 1995. There are 16 workers who are with the Service since pre-1991 who are not required to do sleepover. The worker concerned, who has been with the Service since 1992, should be treated the same as the 16 other workers. She is the only Union member on campus being asked to do sleepover. Contracts for workers joining since 1995 clearly specify sleepover in their hours of duty.

SERVICE'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Sleepovers are an integral part of community living and have been a feature of life in St. Anne's since 1991. They have become normal practice in community houses since 1995. The worker was employed in a community house in October 1994 and did sleepover duty as part of her normal duties. She was transferred to another area in the Service and was not required for sleepover duty until early 1997. The worker was told that sleepover could become part of her duties. Clause 3 of her contract refers to "normal hours of duty will be 39 hours per week on the basis of a 24 hour, 7 day week service driven roster". This could obviously include sleepover. Clause 5 of the contract refers to the need for flexibility.

2. Concession by the Service in the worker's case could lead to a number of claims for exclusion from sleepover duties by those participating in sleepover, although it is not expressly provided for in their contracts. The worker's refusal to do sleepover affects management's rights to relocate her to areas off-campus where sleepovers are normal practice. The Service's primary concern is the ability to meet the needs of its clients, and sleepovers have become a major part of that need.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is satisfied that the employer's argument that sleepovers are an essential part of the service required, and that this employee should work her share of sleepovers, is well founded.

However, the Court does not accept that the introduction of sleepovers is a normal extension to the working arrangements, one that requires no discussion with the employee.

The Court, therefore, recommends that the employee accept that she will be required to operate the sleepover roster. The parties to enter into immediate discussion to agree on the conditions under which it will be introduced.

If the parties fail to reach agreement, the matter can be referred back to the Court.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
24th November, 1997______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.