Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87154 Case Number: LCR11297 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - LGPSU |
Claim on behalf of 10 domestic supervisory staff for an increase in pay and a 35 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not find that the duties and responsibilities
of the claimants as described in the submissions and elaborated
upon at the hearing warrant the payment of grade 4.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87154 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11297
CC861816 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11297
PARTIES: NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 10 domestic supervisory staff for an
increase in pay and a 35 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1981 a rationalisation agreement was entered into by the
Local Government Staff Negotiations Board (L.G.S.N.B.) and the
unions concerned for non-nursing staff employed by all the health
boards in the country with the exception of Dublin. The purpose
of the agreement was to rationalise all the pay rates which then
existed. This resulted in a five-tier grading structure. In
addition the agreement provided for a three-tier supervisory
structure broadly based on the number of workers being supervised.
The supervisors were placed on grade 7 and grade 8. At the time
of the agreement seven of the workers were on rates of pay higher
than those provided for in the agreement. They were allowed to
retain their rates of pay on a personalised basis in acordance
with clause 7 of the agreement. The Union are seeking to have the
workers placed on officer grade 4. If they were placed on this
grade, they would be entitled to a 35 hour week in addition to the
extra money they would receive. The present rates of pay for the
supervisory grades range from #140.27 to #165.79 per week. The
existing personal rates are #177 per week in general hospitals and
#163 per week in psychiatric hospitals. The grade 4 rates range
from #194.84 to #243.90 per week. The Board rejected the Union's
claim and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 5th November, 1986. A conciliation conference
was held on 27th January, 1987. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Sligo on 23rd
June, 1987 a date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Domestic supervisors are performing a frontline
management role and are carrying a large range of
responsibilities and major accountability. (details
supplied to the Court). Their present rates of pay do
not reflect this level of responsibility.
(b) With the exception of the twelve months immediately
after the signing of the 1981 rationalisation
agreement, there was no prohibition on any particular
group seeking better pay rates or upgrading in the
future. It could not be argued that where a job
developed into a more managerial type job an arguement
for regrading could not be made at this stage.
(c) Other groups who were originally regraded in the
general non-nursing grades category have subsequently
established a more independent and specific grading
appropriate to their responsibilities. Notable among
these grades would be catering grades. Even one group
who are defined in the 1981 agreement within the
category of group 8, i.e., laundry supervisors, are by
and large not paid within that group at this stage.
This particular grade within the Board is paid at a
level which is analagous to the grade 4 clerical
administrative scale and in some other health board
areas is paid analagous to the grade 5 or staff officer
scale.
(d) There is a tendency within the health services these
days and particularly within the Board to develop
frontline supervisory staff to what could be described
more appropriately as service managers and not simply
supervisors. This is a welcome policy and probably
provides a better value and better service to the
State. If such a policy is to be successful then the
remuneration of the people concerned must be
comensurate with the responsibilities which they carry.
These are the type of supervisory managerial staff who
are achieving efficiencies within the health boards and
whose brief is constantly being extended into areas of
maintenance and energy control.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) Concession of this regrading claim would have a
seriously undermining effect on the rationalisation
agreement as the claimants have already been the
subject of an agreed classification. It has been the
consistent policy of management throughout all eight
health boards to uphold the integrity of the
agreement. The Court itself has in the past upheld
management's position. (Labour Court Recommendation
Nos. 7734, 7940, 8148, 9174, 11,094 refer).
(ii) The claim is in effect an attempt to renegotiate the
central agreement locally and if successful would
certainly precipitate claims from similar grades in
other health boards and other categories of staff
covered by the agreement. The unions set out to
achieve a rationalised pay structure for health board
non nursing personnel and having succeeded in their
objective cannot realistically argue a case for a
higher level of remuneration for this small group of
staff.
(iii) There has been no real change in the nature of the
job performed by the claimants to justify any
departure from their positioning under the
rationalisation agreement.
(iv) It is significant that a number of groups in the
health service who are working a 40 hour week have
been unsuccessful in pursuing claims for a reduction
in the working week (Labour Court Recommendation Nos.
9045, 10,898 refer). All the evidence available
clearly indicates that there has been no general
trend towards a reduction in the 40 hour working
week. The Labour Court itself will be aware that
virtually every claim before it for a 25th round
increase included a claim for a shorter working week.
The Court invariably recommended against any such
reduction in the light of the financial circumstances
of many of the companies involved. It is
management's contention that there is no
justification for a reduction in the working hours
against the background of current health board
finances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not find that the duties and responsibilities
of the claimants as described in the submissions and elaborated
upon at the hearing warrant the payment of grade 4.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John M. Horgan
____9th___July,____1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Chairman.