Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89644 Case Number: LCR12637 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HEALTH RESEARCH BOARD - and - IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION |
Claim by the Organisation on behalf of a doctor for an increase in salary and regrading of his post to consultant medical epidemiologist.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
makes the following recommendations:-
(i) that the claimant's salary be related to the Associate
Professor (U.C.D.) salary scale (e.g. #24,597 -
#32,898) and that he be placed on the second point of
that scale #26,255) with effect from 1st January, 1989
and progress to the maximum of the scale in the normal
manner.
(ii) that the claimant's post be redesignated to Consultant
Medical Epidemiologist.
The Court in their consideration of the case was seriously
disturbed at the offhand manner in which the terms and conditions
of the claimant had been addressed over the years.
The Court recommends that his position be formalised, and properly
documented, as quickly as possible.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89644 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12637
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HEALTH RESEARCH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Organisation on behalf of a doctor for an
increase in salary and regrading of his post to consultant medical
epidemiologist.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1972 the doctor concerned was appointed to the post of
Medical Research Assistant to the Director of the Medico-Social
Research Board (M.S.R.B.). From 1973 to 1975 he attended a two
year post graduate course in epidemiology and community medicine
in London and graduated with an M.Sc in social medicine. This
course was undertaken at the request of the M.S.R.B. and
effectively steered him to a specialised career. He was given to
understand by the then Director that soon after his return to
Dublin he would be working as a consultant epidemiologist with the
same conditions of service as other medical consultants. He
continued in employment however as a research assistant. In 1979
he made representations to the M.S.R.B. for an improved career
structure and better salary scale. In December, 1980 the post was
regraded by the Department of Health to that of Senior Medical
Research Assistant. In 1987 the M.S.R.B. and the Medical Research
Council amalgamated to form the Health Research Board (H.R.B.)
with a Chief Executive in charge. For the past number of years
the worker has had a number of meetings with Management on the
question of an improved career and salary structure but no
satisfactory conclusion was reached on these issues. In December,
1988 the Doctor submitted a claim for regrading of the post to
that of Consultant Medical Epidemiologist with the equivalent
salary scale to that of Deputy Chief Medical Officer in the
Department of Health whose present salary scale is #28,830 -
#33,367. The doctor's current salary is #25,792. The Board
rejected the claim. Local discussions failed to resolve the
matter and the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 4th July, 1989. A conciliation conference
was held on the 30th August, 1989 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th
September, 1989. A Court hearing was held on the 25th October,
1989.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
(1) SALARY:
3. 1. The Board asserts that the maximum point of the doctor's
scale was set at 85% of the former Director's salary. It must
be emphasised that there was no specific agreement entered
into in that regard. The salary scale of the doctor should
relate to that of comparable personnel in the research
management area. The present salary of the Chief Executive is
#30,343 and the Organisation understands that further
emoluments are payable to him arising from his transfer from
Eolas.
2. The doctor's rate of pay is seriously out of line with
comparable groups in the research and health area (details
supplied to the Court). It should be equal to that of the
Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health, and should
certainly not be less than that payable to the senior employee
(Associate Professor) in the Health Research Board Laboratory
in T.C.D. The senior employee was on a salary scale of
#32,899 with effect from 1st January, 1989. It is important
to note that this rate of pay is higher than that payable to
the Chief Executive of the H.R.B. and there is no 5% deduction
from this figure for pension purposes. On 1st March, 1980 the
Associate Professor's rate of pay was #12,233 while the
doctor's was #13,291. On the 1st January, 1989 the Associate
Professor's rate of pay was #32,899 and the doctor's was
#25,792. The salary scale of the Associate Professor U.C.D.
with effect from 1st January, 1989 was #24,597 - #32,898.
3. When the rates of pay for employees within the ambit of
the Gleeson Review is examined it is obvious that the doctor's
rate of pay is totally out of line with increases granted by
the Review Body. No special increase has been granted to him
since June, 1979 and his situation since that date is similar
to that of employees covered by the Review Body. Details of
recommended increased rates to those covered by the Review
Body have been supplied to the Court. There has been a
considerable erosion of real earnings in the case of the
doctor concerned and this erosion should be rectified.