Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87780 Case Number: LCR11565 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL REMEDIAL CLINIC - and - IPU |
Claim for the restoration of differentials for two printing instructors.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, does not find grounds for recommending an increase in
the pay scales of the claimants because of the parity granted to
the other instructors in the Clinic.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87780 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11565
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CENTRAL REMEDIAL CLINIC (CRC)
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the restoration of differentials for two printing
instructors.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1980, the Department of Health established two categories
on the instructors' pay scale. The A grade instructors were
qualified printing craftsmen and the B instructors were non-union
and non-craft. In 1985, a claim was lodged on behalf of B grade
instructors (who are now members of the Local Government and
Public Service Union) for parity with the A grades. Following
discussions between CRC management and the Department of Health,
this claim was conceded and was implemented with effect from the
1st March, 1987. The Union, on behalf of the two A grade
instructors, claimed restoration of differentials but this was
refused by Management. Following the failure of local level
discussions, the Union referred the case to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 17th July, 1987. No progress
was made at a conciliation conference held on the 8th September,
1987, (earliest suitable date) and the issue was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 12th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two scales were established in 1980 on the basis of
prior skill requirements. So far as the Union can ascertain
there has been no change in the duties or responsibilities of
the B grade instructors since 1980 yet Management has now
agreed to place all of them on the A scale.
2. It is the Union's view that originally the Department of
Health accepted that the A instructors required specific
additional skills to fulfil their function and hence the
establishment of a differential.
3. While the duties of all the instructors are similar, the
A grade instructors must be time-served apprentices, have a
minimum of three years' post apprenticeship experience and
hold a Senior Trades Certificate. Both claimants meet these
requirements. Printing instructors must have such prior
training and qualifications. This is not a requirement,
however, for the B instructors.
4. The Union requests the Court to recommend that the long
established and accepted skill differential between the A and
B instructors be continued from the date of the increase on
the B scale.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Earlier this year the decision was made to pay all
instructors from a single scale. Rather than bring those on
the higher scale down to the lower one or to amalgamate the
two scales into a new scale, it was decided that the higher
scale should apply. This involved an increase in direct
labour costs but it was necessary to standardise the
instructors' scale. It would therefore be wrong to say that
the instructors who were on Grade B received an increase in
pay and as a result the Grade A instructors should receive a
pro-rata increase.
2. The granting of an increase to Grade A instructors would
not only involve the CRC in additional costs but would also
be in direct conflict with the single scale idea.
3. The C.R.C. depends almost entirely on the Department of
Health for its finance. The grant this year is expected to
be #1.05m which represents a reduction of over 11% in cash
terms in comparison to last year. In real terms the effect
of this reduction is over 20%. The consequences of this are
so grave as to require the CRC to review all its areas of
operation and to eliminate or drastically reduce its
involvement in areas which are not consistent with its
original objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, does not find grounds for recommending an increase in
the pay scales of the claimants because of the parity granted to
the other instructors in the Clinic.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th December, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman