Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90575 Case Number: LCR13201 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the establishment of a review group for theatre household staff.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties,
the additional information sought and furnished subsequent to the
hearing and the background to the claim for the establishment of a
review group. The Court is of the view that there is sufficient
information available to the parties to enable them to process a
claim and accordingly the Court sees no merit in recommending
concession of the Union's claim for the establishment of a review
group.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90575 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13201
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the establishment of a review group for
theatre household staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1990 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of 8
household staff assigned to the theatre at Beaumont Hospital for
the payment of an 8% differential similar to that payable to other
non nursing staff employed at the Hospital. Management rejected
the claim on the basis that concession of same would have national
implications and that it was debarred under clause 3.5 of the
Public Service Pay Agreement.
3. The claim was then referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 17th July, 1990. At the conciliation
conference held on 21st September, 1990. The Union requested that
a review group be set up to carry out a job evaluation exercise on
the claimants work and examine in detail the current position in
the Voluntary Hospitals and Eastern Health Board agencies. This
was rejected by Management as it considered that the establishment
of a job evaluation exercise is a devise for a pay award. As no
agreement was reached the parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
requested further information from the parties which was
subsequently supplied.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Consideration of the payment of the allowance should be
made against any examination of allowances payable to staff
internally in Beaumont Hospital. For example, an 8%
allowance is payable to portering staff in stores and
pharmacy. Nursing staff, contract cleaning staff and
portering staff receive additional allowances for duties in
the theatre area.
2. In rejecting the claim Management cited the national
implications of the claim. However, the basic pay scales of
staff in each of the health Agencies are negotiated through a
different forum. Concession of the claim would not be passed
on as the arrangements for staffing are different in each
Agency.
3. Management have stated that there is no mechanism for
carrying out a job evaluation exercise. However, the Union
is currently engaged in 2 job evaluation exercises for
non-nursing categories of staff.
4. Management quoted 4 agencies that, as far as they were
concerned, did not pay allowances to theatre staff. The
agencies quoted have different staffing arrangements, pay
scales and conditions of employment than those of the workers
here concerned (details supplied to the court). Management's
limited survey did not show the true picture in the Hospital
and the Union's proposal that a job evaluation exercise and
examination of allowances payable internally and externally
is justified and warranted.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The claim falls to be dealt with under Clause 3.5 of the
Agreement on Pay in the Public Service. The claimants have
already received a special increase in accordance with Clause
3.3 of the Agreement and as a consequence any claim lodged
after the 25th January, 1989 cannot be processed to finality
until after 31st March, 1991.
2. The Union in seeking the establishment of a job
evaluation exercise is looking to have an 8% differential
applicable to other grades in the Hospital, paid to the
workers here concerned. Both parties are familiar with the
job content of the claimants and the other grades of staff in
the Hospital. Accordingly there is no reason why both sides
could not submit their respective submissions to the Labour
Court (after 31st March 1991) on the respective merits and
demerits of the case and request the Court in the normal way
to recommend on the issues in dispute.
3. Management is concerned that if an evaluation exercise
is conceded, where there is demonstrably no necessity to
engage in such an exercise, it will set a headline that other
groups are likely to follow, not only in the health service,
but in the wider public service where the terms of the Public
Service Pay Agreement are in force. Furthermore, it is
management's view that the commencement of such an evaluation
exercise would only fuel expectations of a pay increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties,
the additional information sought and furnished subsequent to the
hearing and the background to the claim for the establishment of a
review group. The Court is of the view that there is sufficient
information available to the parties to enable them to process a
claim and accordingly the Court sees no merit in recommending
concession of the Union's claim for the establishment of a review
group.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th February, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman