Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8754 Case Number: LCR11094 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for regrading of 10 workers employed as security personnel at the Cork Regional Hospital by the Southern Health Board from Group 4 salary scale (#146.14 - #155.82) to Group 7 salary scale (#155.39 - #166.76).
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that the duties of the security
personnel have altered to such an extent as to warrant regrading
and does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8754 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11094
CC861802 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11094
Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for regrading of 10 workers employed as security
personnel at the Cork Regional Hospital by the Southern Health
Board from Group 4 salary scale (#146.14 - #155.82) to Group 7
salary scale (#155.39 - #166.76).
Background:
2. In 1981 a rationalised pay structure agreement was negotiated
between the Local Government Staff Negotiation Board (LGSNB) and
the Unions for all non-nursing staff employed by the health
boards, throughout the country with the exception of Dublin. The
main feature of the agreement is a five tier grading structure.
The security personnel were placed in group 4. This grading was
not acceptable to these workers as up to the time of the agreement
they were on the same rate of pay as senior porters (who are now
Grade 7). They submitted a claim to the Labour Court at the time
(Labour Court Recommendation No. 7474 refers). This claim was not
successful. Since 1981/1982 the Union claims that the duties and
responsibilities of the workers concerned have greatly increased.
In early 1986 the Union reactivated the claim for regrading. In
October, 1986 a meeting was held between the LGSNB and the Union.
As no progress was made the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 5th November, 1986. A
conciliation conference was held on 22nd January, 1987. As no
agreement could be reached both parties agreed to refer the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held in Cork on 19th March, 1987.
Union's Arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned are the only security personnel
directly employed by the Board. Security is supplied by
contractors in other areas of the Board's operation. No
other health board employs security personnel directly,
making it virtually impossible to comprehend their
inclusion in a national scale.
(b) The Regional Hospital is a very large complex, and has a
substantial number of people passing through each day.
The workers must patrol the grounds both night and day
and in addition they have many other onerous duties to
perform (details supplied to the Court).
(c) There have been many major changes in the workers duties
since 1982 (details supplied to the Court). The job has
also become increasingly more demanding and dangerous
with the increasing crime wave in society. The workers
have had to divorce themselves from the general staff in
order to perform their duties in a proper fashion. The
job today demands a very high level of integrity,
diplomacy, responsibility, intelligence and maturity.
(d) The LGSNB have argued that the top 3 groups in the
rationalisation exercise only deal with supervisory
grades. However, the Union argue that unlike the other
workers, the security personnel are not supervised in
their respective duties. The rationalisation agreement
was concluded six years ago and did not legislate for
all future situations. Agreements may be altered by
negotiations.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) The security workers are an integral part of a national
rationalised agreement covering some 10,000 staff.
Placings in the structure were made only after extensive
negotiations and a very detailed examination of the
various jobs involved cannot lightly be set aside.
(ii) It has been the consistent policy of management
throughout all eight health boards to uphold the
integrity of the agreement. Small groups cannot seek to
re-negotiate their position in the structure.
Concession to one group would precipitate many other
claims and the speedy fragmentation of the agreement.
(iii) The staff side recognised and fully accepted that the
disturbance of previous pay relationships was an
inherent feature of a rationalisation exercise.
Clause 5 of the Agreement deals specifically with this
point:
"It is accepted by both sides as fundamental to the
rationalisation process that no consequential
claims for the restoration of the previously held
differentials should be made on behalf of the staff
covered by this Agreement."
(iv) Grade VII is a supervisory grade, the claimants have no
direct supervisory duties. Changing times and demands
have affected all Health Board staff and cannot be used
as an argument for regrading of one group.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that the duties of the security
personnel have altered to such an extent as to warrant regrading
and does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
6th April, 1987
M.D./P.G.