Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87625 Case Number: LCR11511 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UCD - and - AUEW(TASS) |
Dispute concerning pay and conditions for biochemists employed in the College's diagnostic laboratories.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the terms of the proposals which the
parties agreed to recommend at the conciliation conference be
implemented as soon as possible.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87625 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11511
CC87234 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11511
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS
(TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY SECTION)
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning pay and conditions for biochemists employed
in the College's diagnostic laboratories.
Background:
2. Biochemists in the College's diagnostic laboratories have
traditionally had parity of pay and conditions with similar staff
employed in Dublin hospitals. In 1986, the College sought to
apply a 5% superannuation deduction and to increase working hours
from 30 to 35 hours per week, claiming that these conditions
existed in hospitals and that they had not applied to the
claimants earlier because of an oversight on its part. When an
offer of promotion to the grade of Senior Biochemist was made to
one of the claimants in October, 1986, the College made the
proposed changes part of his terms of employment. He refused to
accept this and his promotion was not implemented. In December,
1986, the salary scales for biochemists employed by the Health
Boards and voluntary hospitals were revised by an 8% increase in
pay with partial retrospection to October, 1983. When the Union
claimed a similar increase for the College biochemists, the
College made concession dependant on acceptance of the new terms.
As no local level solution could be found, the Union referred the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 4th
February, 1987. At a conciliation conference held on the 26th
March both the promotion question and the pay increase issue were
discussed. Following a second conciliation conference on the 10th
April, the following formula was put forward by the Court's
Industrial Relations Officer to settle the dispute -
"(a) Increases in salary scales to be implemented as per
Department of Health letter of the 1st December, 1986,
Ref 5102/12 addressed to Health Boards and Voluntary
Hospitals.
(b) 5% superannuation deduction (in addition to Widows and
Orphans 1.50% where applicable) with effect from 1st May,
1987.
(c) 35 hour week with effect from 1st May, 1987.
(d) Claimant to be offered promotion with effect from 1st
May, 1987 on terms similar to those contained in
College's letter of the 17th October, 1986".
These proposals were rejected by the workers concerned. A third
conciliation conference, held on the 8th July, failed to resolve
the matter and on the 17th August it was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on the 10th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The College has claimed that the existing employment
conditions of the biochemists are anomalous and are
merely being corrected. However, related issues have
been before the Court on previous occasions and the
Court has affirmed that the workers concerned have
parity of pay and allowances with hospital biochemists
(LCR7498 refers). At no point did the College dispute
the working hours or the pension provision
(Arbitration No. 5 - 83 and LCR9992 are also
relevant).
(b) College maintenance workers have a pay parity with
Local Authority workers but they do not pay the 5%
pension contribution that the Local Authority workers
do.
(c) The current proposals from the College would break a
longstanding relationship on pay parity with hospital
biochemists. The College's proposal for increased
working hours is in itself a 17% increase to the
College in hours worked.
College's arguments:
4. (i) The College's objective in negotiating was to give the
biochemists in the College financial parity with their
counterparts in hospitals. In trying to achieve that
aim the College had in mind the comparable case of
certain members of staff who are employed as
technicians and are paid on I.M.L.T. scales. These
technicians bear a deduction of 5% superannuation from
their wages in line with their colleagues who are
employed in hospitals.
(ii) The College regards as reasonable, and is willing to
accept and implement, the proposals put forward at
conciliation on the 10th April. These, when
implemented, would give biochemists financial parity
with biochemists employed in the Health Boards and
would define their working hours in accordance with
the Health Boards' standards. The College asks the
Court to recommend implementation of the Industrial
Relations Officer's summary of proposals with a
suitable adjustment of the effective date for items B,
C and D.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the terms of the proposals which the
parties agreed to recommend at the conciliation conference be
implemented as soon as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd November, 1987 John M. Horgan
D.H./P.W. Chairman