LCR16041

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/98/492 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR16041 (CC98/600) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BARRETT CHESHIRE HOUSE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Under payment for hours worked.




BACKGROUND:

2. Barrett Cheshire House provides accommodation and care for people who are physically disabled. The House is run by a local management committee consisting of residents, staff and volunteers who are accountable to the Cheshire Foundation in Ireland. The organisation is 95% funded by the Eastern Health Board (EHB) which in turn is funded by the Department of Health and Children.

The dispute concerns the rate of pay for workers at the House who are rostered for a 12 hour, 7 night rotating shift (84 hours) each fortnight. The issue in dispute is that the workers are only paid 80 hours each fortnight. The dispute was first raised in December, 1994 and the Union is seeking retrospective payment from that date. The House recognises the merits of the claim but states that it is, financially, not in a position to pay it.

The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 28th of July, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of October, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of November, 1998.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The workers concerned have been very patient and understanding of the financial difficulties which apply to the House. The Union acknowledges the work done by the Director of Services to try and solve the problem. However, the workers cannot be expected to continue to be under paid for work done.

2. The worker did try an alternative shift of 3 night on, 2 nights off, but neither side found it satisfactory.



HOUSE'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The problem is that the House is almost entirely funded by the EHB. The House has written to the Board on a number of occasions, including a request for 3 years' retrospective payment, but with no success. Unless the Board can persuade the Department of Health and Children to meet the cost of the claim, the House cannot pay it at the present time.




RECOMMENDATION:

The Court considers the position in which the workers associated with this claim find themselves to be wholly untenable. In common with all other workers, they are entitled to be paid at the rate agreed for the time in which they actually work.

The Union's claim for payment in respect of the four hours which are currently unpaid is fully justified, and should be conceded.

The Court recommends that payment be now made with retrospection to the 1st of January, 1995.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
8yh December, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

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