Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91498 Case Number: LCR13480 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TOGHERMORE COMMUNITY CENTRE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for parity with instructors in the Midland and Western Health Boards.
Recommendation:
5. Having fully considered the nature of the training being
imparted by claimants in this case, the Court is not satisfied
that it equates to that provided by the comparators in the Health
Boards. Accordingly, the Court does not find grounds to recommend
concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91498 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13480
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TOGHERMORE COMMUNITY CENTRE
(WESTERN HEALTH BOARD)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for parity with instructors in the
Midland and Western Health Boards.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Centre was established in 1975 to meet the needs of long
stay patients from St Bridgid's Psychiatric Hospital, Ballinasloe.
These needs are met at the Toghermore Centre by a
multi-disciplinary management programme comprising of ongoing
support at medical, nursing, para-medical and activation input.
Accommodation at the centre consists of a 50 place workshop and a
residential centre of 35 places. Both the workshops and the
residential centre operate day training programmes for the
residents of the centre, for persons from a network of group homes
within the Tuam urban area and clients who live at their their own
homes.
2. The claim is on behalf of 6 instructors who work in
semi-sheltered workshops. The workers are paid the assistant
foreman rate and are seeking parity with instructors in the
Midland and Western Health Boards (LCR11592 refers). The claim
was first lodged on 12th April, 1990 and at a meeting on 24th May,
1990 an offer of £16 approximately was made by the employer which
was rejected by the workers. A further offer of £20 made on 7th
August, as also rejected.
3. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 3rd September, 1990. Conciliation conferences
were held on 31st October, 1990 and 11th April, 1991. At
conciliation, the parties agreed to recommend the following
proposal from the Industrial Relations Officer for settlement.
"That the instructors' rate be Craftsman's rate + 30% in full
and final settlement and in recognition of any instructional
dimension in the job of the workers concerned. This increase
would apply from the acceptance of the offer".
The offer was rejected and both sides agreed to join in a
reference to the Labour Court. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation by the Labour
Relations Commission on 16th September, 1991. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Galway on 16th October, 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are fully qualified training instructors
and are qualified craftsmen. The workers in qualifying,
completed the same courses for training as those instructors
employed by the Midland and North Western Health Boards. It
is the job of the instructors to impart a wide range of skills
and knowledge to the trainees. Each instructor is responsible
for the conduct, welfare, supervision and training of each
trainee. A programme has to be developed to cater for the
needs of each individual trainee and their particular
handicap. This places particular stress on the instructor who
must develop with the trainee a whole range of social and
interpersonal skills (details supplied).
2. The workshops produce a quality product which is then
sold on for a premium price (details supplied). The
instructors do not see any difference in the training carried
out by them as against that carried out by instructors in the
Midland and North Western Health Boards. The workers are a
new grade of instructor in the Health Boards and the craft
rate is no longer a suitable base for fixing salary. A new
salary scale should reflect the duties and responsibilities of
the training instructors. It is for this reason that pay
parity is being sought with similar workers in the Midland and
North Western Health Boards.
CENTRE ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rate of pay for the instructors was originally
determined by reference to the craft rate in October, 1980.
Following local negotiations, the rate was increased to
assistant foreman rate. There is a substantial difference
between the work of the instructors and instructors employed
by the Health Boards. The training given does not equip
trainees with the necessary skills to compete in the open
employment market. The centre has a multi-disciplinary team,
headed by a psychiatrist. The goals for the trainees are
clinical, whereas the Midland and North Western Health Boards
operate rehabilitation centres for the physically handicapped
where the goals for the trainees are different. At the
centre, the primary aim is to accelerate the element of
community psychiatric services with an emphasis on preparing
clients for ultimate transfer to group homes. A training
element is an essential part of the rehabilitation process but
it is essentially directed at enabling the trainees to
function in a social rather than employment setting.
2. The workers were recruited and are still assigned to
work substantially different from that which would justify the
claim. The work of the centre requires a multi-disciplinary
effort from a wide variety of staff. Concession of the claim
would have implications in all Health Boards. The over-run in
the Health Boards budget at the end of August was £2 million.
At present instructors at the centre are paid in excess of the
rates which apply to instructors at the Galway Association of
Mentally Handicapped Children and the Western Care Association
(details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having fully considered the nature of the training being
imparted by claimants in this case, the Court is not satisfied
that it equates to that provided by the comparators in the Health
Boards. Accordingly, the Court does not find grounds to recommend
concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th November, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
J.F./U.S. ---------------
Chairman