FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NAZARETH HOUSE MALLOW (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Sick pay & night break.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns two items the subject,inter alia, of a 2014 collective Agreement concluded between the Union and the Nursing Home. The two items relate to changes to the sick pay scheme and the duration of breaks for staff working night shift. This dispute 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 3rd July, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th October, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Staff agreed to the effective abolition of the sick pay scheme on the basis that it was to be removed for all staff employed in the Home. After the Agreement was concluded the Home continued the sick pay scheme for another category of staff contrary to the understanding the Union had. The Union is now seeking a partial restoration of the sick pay scheme to restore a measure of equity to the situation.
2 Staff working nights for many years received paid breaks during their shift. This was eliminated under the 2014 Agreement as part of a cost-saving exercise. The effect of this elimination has fallen disproportionately on the night shift. The Union is seeking to have the effects of this change ameliorated so as to offset its effect on the wages of the staff concerned.
3 The Union and Management recently concluded the 2014 Agreement that was designed to protect the viability of the Home and both sides remain committed to achieving that objective. The Union has accordingly calibrated its claims in a manner consistent with the achievement of that objective.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Home and the Union agreed to eliminate the sick pay scheme as a cost saving measure in order to secure the viability of the Home. Management reached a separate Agreement with another union on comparable cost-saving measures appropriate to that grade. It is not legitimate for the Union to now seek to unpick its agreements without identifying comparable cost-saving measures to put in their place.
2 Staff working night shift have for many years received a paid break as they were not guaranteed an uninterrupted period during which they could dispose of their time as they wished. This situation was changed in the recent 2014 Agreement and staff are now free to dispose of their time as they wish during their scheduled break. Accordingly, Management, by agreement with the Union, brought the shift duration into line with the practices that apply to other shifts. In effect that means that staff take an unpaid break during the shift rather than a paid break as previously. Management argues that this has been implemented by agreement and is a cost-saving measure that is both necessary and equitable.
3. The Home has a survival and development plan agreed with the trade unions. The plan is very finely balanced and any alteration to it could have serious consequences for employment in the Home and indeed for its very survival. Accordingly, the Company asks that the Court uphold the Agreements concluded with the Union and reject the claims before it.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends, in the unique circumstances of this case, as follows:
Sick Pay
The Court recommends that the Company meet the Union’s claim for the introduction of 3 days' sick leave in a rolling 24-month period. The Court notes the Union’s acceptance that no sick pay will accrue in respect of the first three days of any period of absence through illness.
Night Shift
The Court notes the level of loss suffered by the 7 workers involved in this claim. However, the Court is also mindful that the survival plan agreed between the parties was based on the savings that accrued from this group of workers reducing their paid shift hours from 12 to 11 each night.
Taking both aspects of the case into account the Court recommends that the Employer restore 25% of the hour’s reduction with effect from 1 January 2016. A second 25% should be restored in October 2016 if the financial circumstances of the Home so permit. A third 25% should be similarly considered in July 2017 and the final 25% should be similarly considered for restoration in April 2018.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
9th November, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.