FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST VINCENT'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Car parking arrangements for employees in the Maintenance Area
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions' claim concerns car parking arrangements and is on behalf of a number of workers in the Technical Services Department (TSD) in the Hospital. The Hospital employs approximately 3000 staff. Over the last 10 years the Hospital has undergone a €200 million re-development and investment programme. Part of this involved the construction of a multistorey car park to cater for additional parking. Parking is divided into dedicated patient/public and staff areas. During the re-development all staff who had benefitted from informal parking arrangements lost these privileges. The Unions claim that the workers concerned are entitled to park in an area which is partly used by Technical Services and where they had parked previously.
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 2nd February, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd June, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some of the workers involved had been parking in the designated area for many years, some up to 37 years, so it is a long-established principle.
2. Whilst management has provided some free parking it is on a "first come, first served" basis. This could mean arriving at 6.30 a.m. although the person might not start working until 8.00 a.m/9.00 a.m. Using the multistorey car park costs €1,248 per annum. Another option of parking in Belvedere RFC involves a walk of 2 km. each way.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned have no entitlement to car parking facilities by virtue of a contractual provision or any other basis. None of them requires a car in the course of their work.
2. The alternative arrangements outlined by the Hospital is the same as for all other employees and these have been accepted by same. No employee
has received any compensation as a result of changed car parking arrangements.
3. There were a number of similar claims before the Labour Court previously and all were rejected by the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim in relation to car parking arrangements for employees in the maintenance area. The Unions submitted that the claimants have enjoyed designated parking facilities in the Technical Services Department yard since 1970 and that such an arrangement should continue.
Hospital management stated that due to a major redevelopment and construction programme such facilities are no longer available. It informed the Court such arrangements have ceased for all grades in the Hospital and alternative arrangements have been put in place which includes dedicated staff parking facilities both on site and off site. Some of which are at a discounted rate while others are available free of change on a first come first served basis.
This issue was the subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation,St. Vincent’s Hospital v INO, No: 17772, concerning a similar claim on behalf of nursing staff in the Hospital in 2004 and the Court held as follows:
- “The Court is not satisfied that it is an implied term in the conditions of employment of those associated with this claim that they be provided with free parking facilities within the hospital complex. Neither does the Court consider it reasonable to require the Hospital to provide such facilities on a guaranteed basis.”
In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the maintenance staff concerned should co-operate with Hospital management and accept the alternative parking arrangements on offer.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the Unions’ claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th June, 2011______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.