Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87661 Case Number: LCR11478 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROTHERS OF CHARITY - and - INO |
Claim, on behalf of approximately fifty nurses, for: (a) a responsibility allowance and (b) an unsocial hours payment.
Recommendation:
10. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties, is of the view that an anomaly exists as between
the rates of pay for Houseparents and Registered Nurses for the
Mentally Handicapped (RNMH's). The Court recommends that this
question should be dealt with nationally through discussions
between all the interested parties.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an
unsocial hours payment in respect of duty between 8.30 p.m. and
10.00 p.m.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87661 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11478
CC86450 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11478
Parties: BROTHERS OF CHARITY
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately fifty nurses, for:
(a) a responsibility allowance and
(b) an unsocial hours payment.
Background:
2. The Brothers of Charity are a religious voluntary body engaged
in the care and training of persons with mental handicaps. They
operate in a number of locations throughout Galway and Roscommon,
the biggest centre being the Kilcornan Training Centre at
Clarenbridge, where these two claims have arisen. The training
centre is set up in a number of separate living units which on
average have eight persons per unit. The units are staffed by
registered nurses, houseparents and household staff.
3. The Union first raised these claims in early 1986 but local
level discussions failed to resolve the matter. On the 5th March,
1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court but no progress was made at a conciliation conference
on the 7th May, 1986. Further attempts to resolve the claims were
made, culminating in a second conciliation conference on the 18th
August, 1987. No progress was again possible and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 31st August, 1987. The Court investigated the dispute at a
hearing in Galway on the 30th September, 1987.
Claim (a) - Responsibility allowance:
Background:
4. Both nurses and houseparents look after the mentally
handicapped in the training centres. The scales for both
categories are negotiated nationally and the houseparent scale is
approximately #350 per annum higher than the nurses scale at the
maximum point. The Union contends that the nurses have more
responsibility and higher qualifications and should therefore be
paid more and is seeking approximately #1,000 per annum per nurse.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) As can be seen from the pay scales submitted to the
Court, an appreciable anomaly exists in favour of the
houseparent (scales attached at Appendix I). This
anomaly becomes quite intolerable when one considers the
extra responsibilities placed on the nurses by Management
vis-a-vis their houseparent colleagues. At conciliation,
Management acknowledged that, apart from her own duties,
the qualified nurse must accept extra responsibilities
such as the administration of drugs, examinations when
patients become ill, and the provision of first aid.
(b) In the past, before there was a formal grade of
houseparent, the Brothers of Charity employed a 'surgery
nurse' to carry out all of the above duties. This person
was paid a higher salary than the houseparent, thus
acknowledging her responsibilities.
(c) It should be noted that the grade of houseparent, and the
accompanying salary, were initially designed to work in
community homes for normal children, with their
employment within the mental handicap field only really
due to the shortage of appropriately qualified registered
nurses.
(d) The Union contends that it cannot be denied that the
Brothers of Charity demand extra duties from the
claimants and these duties can only be rewarded through
the payment of an allowance which would acknowledge that
not only must the nurse care for her own clients but she
must also partially look after those of her houseparent
colleague.
Management's arguments:
6. (a) The administration of medication is normally carried out
by nurses because with their training they are the most
suitable persons for the performance of this task. This
forms only a small part of the programme of caring and
training for each individual in care. In other programme
areas the houseparents, who in all cases have long
experience in dealing with mentally handicapped persons,
will take primary responsibility in accordance with their
skills. This is all part of a natural division of labour
and does not reflect any greater value attaching to
particular tasks.
(b) Management does not impose duties or responsibilities on
staff which are either beyond their competence or which
are not carried out by similar staff in other services.
Furthermore, in other areas where services to persons
with a mental handicap are administered by the Brothers
of Charity, for example the community based hostels, the
houseparents normally see to the medication requirements
of the residents.
(c) While the claim for responsibility allowance has tended
to focus primarily on the question of administration of
medication, it would appear that one of the issues
underlying the claim is the fact that the salary scale
for the nurses is currently marginally lower than that
which applies to houseparents. This has not always been
the case. It has been argued by the Union that this is
anomalous as the nurses are professionally qualified
persons with at least three years formal training. The
houseparents have no equivalent qualifications but all
have long experience and have received considerable
in-service training. On this issue, it should also be
noted that the scale applicable to houseparents here is,
in fact, that which applies to Child Care Workers
generally, and such workers normally have a professional
qualification.
(d) Given this broader underlying issue and the fact that the
responsibility allowance is in effect a claim for a
revision of the approved scale for staff in the category
affected, it is Management's view that concession of the
claim would have implications for similar staff
throughout the Health Service. Therefore, it considers
that this issue is one which requires national
negotiation and the Court will be aware that even if it
wanted to, Management could not depart from the norms set
nationally without approval and funding from the
Department. Bearing this in mind the claim should be
pursued as part of national discussions with the Union
and other interested parties.
Claim (b) - Unsocial hours payment:
Background:
7. The duty roster within these services involves the day roster
spanning from 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. and the night roster from
8.30 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. This roster therefore involves an overlap
of 1.50 hours every evening. During this overlap the person on the
day roster receives the flat hourly rate while the person on the
night roster is in receipt of time + .25. The Union is claiming
time + .25 to be paid between the hours of 8.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m.
to those on the day duty roster.
Union's arguments:
8. (a) The Union contends that all equality legislation and
natural justice point to the concession of the claim for
it is unfair to expect staff to work exactly the same
hours, doing exactly the same work, for different rates
of pay.
(b) The Court should note that this type and length of
overlap is unique in nursing.
Management's arguments:
9. (a) Departmental directives indicate that in order for the
night duty premium to be applied, a person must begin
their tour of duty at 8.00 p.m. or later and the tour of
duty must run to after 12 midnight. Thus the payments do
not apply to persons whose tour of day duty extends
beyond 8.00 p.m. but finishes before 12 midnight.
(b) In adopting this policy the Centre is acting in line with
directives which apply elsewhere and any change in the
practice would have national implications as the payments
made were negotiated nationally and applies throughout
the Health Service.
Recommendation:
10. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties, is of the view that an anomaly exists as between
the rates of pay for Houseparents and Registered Nurses for the
Mentally Handicapped (RNMH's). The Court recommends that this
question should be dealt with nationally through discussions
between all the interested parties.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an
unsocial hours payment in respect of duty between 8.30 p.m. and
10.00 p.m.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
DH/PG Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX I
Salary Scales Payable from the 1st May, 1987
Registered Nurse Houseparent Difference
Mental Handicap_ ___________ __________
9388 9755 367
9754 10070 316
10142 10384 242
10514 10700 186
10906 11014 108
11217 11329 58
11541 11645 104
11818 11962 144
11924 12276 352