FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY A&L GOODBODY SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged failure to implement agreed salary increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. Arising from High Court proceedings issued by the Claimant against the Hospital, subsequent negotiations were held between the Claimant's legal representatives and the Hospital's legal representative. These negotiations resulted in a formal Settlement Agreement, dated 5th May, 2004, which statedinter alia, that 'the within agreement is in full and final settlement of the within proceedings and all issues arising in connection with the employment of the Plaintiffs at the Defendent Hospital'. After settlement of those Court proceedings theClaimant continued with his employment at the Hospital until he voluntarily resigned his employment in December, 2004.
The claim before the Court concerns the Worker's claim that the Hospital has not honoured a previous agreement of 2000, resulting in considerable payments owed to him.On the 5th December 2007, the Union, on behalf of the Claimant, referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hospital has not honoured the agreement of 2000, resulting in considerable financial loss to the Claimant.
2. The Hospital has also failed to address pay increases owed to the Claimant arising from the 2003 national agreement for public health doctors.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital strenuously denies that it breached any duties or rights owed to the Claimant.
2. The Claimant resigned from his employment in December 2004, yet did not refer this matter to the Labour Court until December 2007. This four-year delay in referring this matter is entirely inexcusable and inordinate.
3.The subject-matter of this reference to the Court, which refers to the period prior to the 2004 Settlement Agreement, has been fully and effectively discharged and waived by this Settlement Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court is of the view that the matters in question are covered by the terms of the legal settlement of May 2004 and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th May, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.