INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
ST MICHAEL'S HOUSE
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION (INO)
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Non-payment of holiday premium.
2. The dispute concerns the non-payment of arrears of holiday premium. The holiday premium has been paid for the years 1998 to date. The claim relates to the calculation of retrospective payments.
The Unions argue that the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973, provides for the inclusion of premium payments in pay during annual leave. In 1975, the Department of Health issued a circular giving sanction for this payment. The Unions claim that holiday premium was paid to some workers (van drivers ) but not to nurses employed at St. Michael's House.
Management states that it made a significant offer to the Unions to resolve this dispute, but the offer was rejected.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 20th of November, 2001, and on the 13th of December, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of February, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th of June, 2002 (earliest date suitable to the parties).
3. 1. Nurses and non-nursing staff are in receipt of public sector pay rates at St. Michael's House which are funded by the State.
2. Staff are aggrieved at the considerable loss of earnings from 1973 to 1998. They have a justifiable claim and seek appropriate retrospection.
3. The staff have been treated in a careless manner by management. Holiday premium was paid to some workers (van drivers) and not to others.
4. The staff are seeking six years' retrospection in full and final settlement of this claim.
4. 1. St. Michael's House is solely reliant on funding from the Department of Health and Children through the Eastern Health Authority who has already rejected an application for funding for this claim.
2. This is a cost increasing claim and as such is debarred under the current national agreement.
3. The Court should be aware that whilst the claim before them concerns the INO and SIPTU members, this claim will have implications for other groups not represented at the hearing.
4. Management questions the validity of this claim seeking redress six years from 1998, given that the original claim was only served and addressed in 1998.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that employer offer and that the Unions accept a lump-sum payment equal to €381 per employee for each year in which they were in the employment of St. Michael's House between 1991 and 1997 inclusive.
This should be accepted in full and final settlement of the current claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th June, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.