Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90576 Case Number: LCR13248 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. MICHAEL'S HOUSE - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim for the regrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
visited the facility in question the Court has come to the
conclusion that whilst the criteria used to establish the grade of
the member of staff in charge of a particular unit may be very
broad, in the light of the ongoing developments in the care of
handicapped people they are the only reasonably objective criteria
available. On the question of the grade of the previous post
holder the Court is satisfied that in the particular circumstances
which obtained the grading was entirely personal.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90576 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13248
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ST. MICHAEL'S HOUSE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the regrading of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed to the position of
"Nurse-in-Charge" in the Multiple Handicap Unit (M.H.U.) in
September, 1981. The M.H.U. caters for the severely handicapped
both mentally and physically. There are currently seven staff
categorised as Person-in-Charge including the worker concerned and
the other six who are attached to the residential units. They are
all paid at the rate of junior ward sister (salary scale #13,438,
#14,485). There are currently fifteen staff categorised as Head
of Unit and are paid at the rate of matron (salary scale #16,018 -
#18, 164). The Union claims that the post of the worker concerned
should be upgraded to that of Head of Unit with the salary scale
of matron. The claim was first submitted in November, 1986 and
was again clearly spelt out in a letter to Management in May,
1988. The Union is seeking the upgrading of the post on the
grounds that a previous job holder was on the matron's scale and
recognised as a Head of Unit and that the worker concerned
undertook all the duties of the previous job holder, and since her
appointment has taken on additional duties and responsibilities.
Management has rejected the claim stating that the responsibility
of the position has diminished and changed. The issue could not
be resolved at local level discussions and was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 18th July, 1990.
A conciliation conference was held on the 12th September, 1990 but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 25th September, 1990. A Court hearing was held on
the 8th November, 1990. Subsequent to the hearing further
correspondence was received from both parties and the Court
visited the Multiple Handicap Unit on the 22nd March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The previous holder of the post was called "Head of Unit"
and paid a matron's salary therefore St. Michael's House cut
the salary for the post when they appointed the worker
concerned as "Nurse in Charge." This title is unique to the
worker concerned. There are no others and it carries with it
the dual role of Head of Unit and Nurse in the Unit. The
worker was the only medical person on the staff of M.H.U.
Therefore, she had to carry out this essential dual role while
working there, in the exact same manner as the previous post
holder (who was also a nurse).
2. The reduction in salary was not accompanied by a reduction
in duties. Quite the opposite was the case. The worker
undertook all of the former post holder's duties on her
appointment. Not only that but the role has expanded and the
duties increased. The staff complement has increased by four
and the number of handicapped by three in M.H.U. The worker
concerned had to deal with clinicians, (Doctor, Psychologist,
Occupational therapist, and P.E. teacher), most of whom did
not contribute to the service during the previous post
holder's time as Head of Unit. The worker also developed new
programmes, managed volunteers, and through fund raising
campaigns raised thousands of pounds for St. Michael's House.
3. Management has sought to dismiss the worker's claim by
seeking to link her situation to that of "person-in-charge."
There is no such link as "persons-in-charge" have a separate
title, separate duties and none of them have been appointed to
positions which were previously held by a matron. Their
category was introduced as a new category of staff after the
appointment of the worker concerned. To underline the point:
during the period of sabbatical leave of the worker she has
been replaced by two people - a Nurse and a
"Person-in-Charge." Thus any comparison between this
individual claim and any other general category of staff in
St. Michael's House is wholly inappropriate.
4. The Union believes that the worker has given excellent
service and has shown great commitment and restraint in
working as head of this unique unit knowing that she was not
being properly remunerated. She should never have been
appointed as a junior ward sister and should be upgraded to
matron and placed on that scale. The Union is seeking that
the upgrading be backdated to the date of her appointment in
September, 1981.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is based on two major elements -
(a) The worker is carrying out the work of Head of
Unit.
(b) A previous post holder was paid as Head of Unit.
The Heads of Units are based in the child/adult care units,
the workshops and the short term training unit. In
distinguishing the posts, three criteria will be used, i.e.
number of staff, hours per week and number of clients
(mentally handicapped).
No. of Staff Hours per Week No. of Clients
Person-in-Charge
(M.H.U.)
(The worker
concerned)
4 35 12
Residential Units
14 39 12
(7 day, 24 hour
responsibility)
Head of Unit
10 39 40/80
These criteria suggest that there are considerable differences
not only between Person-in-Charge responsibilities and Head of
Unit responsibilities, but also between the worker's position
and that of the other Persons-in-Charge.
2. The second argument (b) is that the worker is currently in
a post previously held by a Head of Unit. It is correct to
say that one of the previous post holders was recognised as a
Head of Unit and paid at matron salary level. This however
was strictly on a personal to holder basis and reflected that
workers previous position in St. Michael's House. In 1974 she
was responsible for an adult care unit which moved to
Cheeverstown House. This unit had 65 clients and was clearly
at a level which was recognised as Head of Unit. In 1977 this
worker had health problems and her post and responsibilities
were greatly reduced, however, she maintained her salary
position on a personal to holder basis. In 1978 she took
charge of the M.H.U. until her retirement in 1981. The vacant
post was then advertised and it was clearly stated that (1)
the title of the post was Nurse-in-Charge and (II) the salary
scale attaching to the post was that of junior ward sister.
The worker concerned was successful and on appointment
accepted her contract which clearly indicated that the salary
scale was that of junior ward sister. The worker did not
raise any questions regarding title or salary at this time.
3. The worker lodged her claim for salary review in 1984.
The other Persons-in-Charge, who are represented by another
Union, also claimed Head of Unit scale at this time.
Following protracted negotiations a proposal emerged in 1990
which offered all 7 Persons-in-Charge upgrading to ward sister
salary (current scale #13,875 - 15,356). This offer was
immediately accepted by the other six but rejected by the
worker concerned. The Union's claim is that she is in a
different category. The conditions attaching to the
Department of Health's approval for the upgradings were (1)
acceptance by all 7 staff members and (II) cost to be met by
St. Michael's House. To date, due to the outstanding claim of
the worker concerned, no upgradings have been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
visited the facility in question the Court has come to the
conclusion that whilst the criteria used to establish the grade of
the member of staff in charge of a particular unit may be very
broad, in the light of the ongoing developments in the care of
handicapped people they are the only reasonably objective criteria
available. On the question of the grade of the previous post
holder the Court is satisfied that in the particular circumstances
which obtained the grading was entirely personal.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
8th April, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.