Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91233 Case Number: LCR13326 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of three switchboard operators concerning their employment status, rate of pay and access to the superannuation scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the Board applied the terms of the 1980 Rationalisation
Agreement fairly and in accordance with general practice even
though strictly speaking the terms of the agreement did not apply
to the category of staff involved.
The Court therefore does not consider the Union's claim to be
sustainable and does not recommend that it be conceded.
On the issue of superannuation the Court does not consider it to
be appropriate to issue a recommendation on this occasion.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91233 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13326
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of three switchboard operators
concerning their employment status, rate of pay and access to the
superannuation scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of a rationalisation process revised pay scales were
introduced in respect of non nursing personnel in Health Boards
from the 6th March, 1980. In June, 1990, the Union submitted a
claim that the three telephonists employed at St. Otteran's
Hospital, Waterford, should be put on the top point of the grade 2
scale retrospective to 1980, that their status should be confirmed
as permanent and that they have access to the superannuation
scheme. The Board responded that the workers in question were
regarded as permanent part-time staff and as such did not work
sufficient hours to qualify for entry into the superannuation
scheme. The Board also indicated that the operators were paid the
minimum of the grade 1 scale which was the appropriate rate. To
qualify for grade 2 status required different entry
qualifications. No agreement could be reached locally and on 21st
June, 1990, the dispute was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 20th
September and 8th November, 1990, and 24th April, 1991, however no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 21st May, 1991, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has in its possession correspondence dated 1982,
from the Board to the Hospital, which states that telephonists
employed at St. Otteran's Hospital, should be paid at the
group 4 scale and if a telephonist was occupying an
established post, whether part or full time on 6th March,
1980, the maximum of the scale should be paid on a pro-rata
basis and temporary telephonists should be paid at the minimum
of the scale.
2. The Union submitted a claim for payment at the top point
of the grade 2 scale, similar to other telephonists employed
by the Board in Waterford Regional Hospital. The Union also
confirmed at conciliation that it was prepared to settle for
the top rate of group 4.
3. During the conciliation conferences the Board brought
events of the 1960's and '70's into the argument in tracing
the background of telephonists in psychiatric hospitals. This
is irrelevant to to-days claim. Irrespective of the number of
hours worked, which vary from 30 to 45 per week, these workers
should be paid as per their colleagues in the Waterford
Regional Hospital, who enjoy the grade 2 rate of pay plus
Saturday and Sunday premium where it applies. The Union's
claim is soundly based and job specification related and
should therefore be conceded.
4. The Board has rejected the claim that these workers should
be included in the superannuation scheme because of the
part-time nature of their employment. The Union contends that
while the members work an average of 30 to 35 hours per week,
they are permanent and should therefore be included in the
scheme.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Department of Health circular S100/314 dated the 9th May,
1980, and terms of offer (details provided to the Court) set
out the revised pay scales, effective from the 6th March,
1980, for assimilation purposes. All permanent wholetime
staff at the time were assimilated onto the maximum of the
appropriate scale. This circular also provided for the
exclusion of part-time general operatives and non-nursing
personnel from the definition of permanent wholetime staff. A
separate provision was made for part-time employees as
follows:-
"...an increase in the current rate payable to each
employee pro-rata with the above offer and on the same
basis should be negotiated locally in line with existing
practice."
2. The rationalisation agreement raised a number of issues
for the Board in relation to the employees concerned. The
said part-time employees were excluded from the agreement by
definition. They were not related in any way, in pay terms,
to the previous rates paid to non-nursing personnel and were
paid a non-qualified rate. This was borne out by the fact
that even after receiving the due increase they were still
below the minimum of the rationalised scale. However, the
Board's policy was, and still is, to pay part-time staff on an
hourly or pro-rata basis at the minimum of the scale. As a
result the Board granted them an additional increase to bring
them into line with the rationalisation agreement. In being
assimilated onto the minimum of grade 1 the workers concerned
received a greater increase than their wholetime equivalents
received.
3. The Union has referred to a letter from the Board to the
Hospital. The Court is requested not to regard this letter in
isolation as it is one of a series of internal correspondence.
Subsequent to the letter referred to, the Board's Personnel
Officer, who in his letter had been referring to the national
position, accepted that having regard to local practices the
appropriate rate was grade 1.
4. The Board took the initiative in bringing the group of
workers concerned into line by establishing a common rate of
pay in accordance with the spirit of the rationalisation
agreement. No appeal was lodged by staff against this
decision under the appeal mechanism established. Presumably
this was because they had achieved very favourable terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the Board applied the terms of the 1980 Rationalisation
Agreement fairly and in accordance with general practice even
though strictly speaking the terms of the agreement did not apply
to the category of staff involved.
The Court therefore does not consider the Union's claim to be
sustainable and does not recommend that it be conceded.
On the issue of superannuation the Court does not consider it to
be appropriate to issue a recommendation on this occasion.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
20th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.