Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91532 Case Number: LCR13593 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: P.A.C.E. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for regrading on behalf of 3 Assistant Managers.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
the additional information submitted subsequent to the hearing.
On the basis of the evidence/comparisons submitted the Court is
not satisfied that the Union's claim is sustained. The Court
notes in particular the non-custodial nature of the hostel where
the claimant's work viz a viz other hostels referred to by the
Union. Nevertheless the Court considers that the claims should
be the subject of more detailed examination and accordingly
recommends that the parties agree to set up a joint working
party to examine and evaluate in an objective manner the work
performed by the claimants. The claim for upgrading should be
addressed on the basis of the results of the working party.
In the event of agreement not being reached at that stage the
parties should refer the claim and report of the Working Party
back to the Court for recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91532 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: P.A.C.E.
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for regrading on behalf of 3 Assistant
Managers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a voluntary body involved in the care and
education of offenders (from 16 years and upwards). It is
funded by the Department of Justice and through fundraising. It
operates from three locations one of which is a hostel in
Coolock in which the 3 workers concerned are employed. The
hostel is an 'open' hostel which caters for approximately 12
offenders at any one time. The offenders are there of their own
volition though occasionally some are there as a condition of
probation by an order of the Court.
The Assistant Managers who are employed in the hostel are paid
at Care Staff rate which is closely aligned with the Eastern
Health Board's Assistant House Parent grade. Their rate of pay
ranges from £11,320 to £13,803 on a 9 point scale. In April
1989 the staff, at local level, requested the Company to
consider the regrading of their posts but had no success. In
1990 the Union requested the Management to examine both the pay
and grading levels and proposed that Assistant Managers be
regraded to a scale equivalent to that of the Care Worker within
the Department of Education. This grade operates a 15 point
scale ranging from £10,286 to £17,205. The Union also proposed
regrading to that of Public Service Social Worker which ranges
from £14,747 to £18,521 on a 9 point pay scale. In support of
its claim the Union made comparisons with other detention and
assessment units (details supplied to the Court) where
professional qualifications are not required for the position of
Care Worker. The Company rejects the Union's claim and contends
that due to the nature of the hostel i.e. that it deals with
adults and is an 'open' hostel, it cannot be compared to hostels
where residents must be under constant supervision.
The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 16th October, 1990. Conciliation conferences
were held on 23rd April, 1991 and 2nd September, 1991 at which
agreement was not reached. On 7th October, 1991 the Labour
Relations Commission referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on 4th December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Having examined the similarities between the duties of
Assistant Managers and Care Staff in detention centres, the
Union is satisfied that its claim for regrading is
justified. Throughout the negotiations with the Company
the Union has offered to partake in a workparty or study to
examine the validity of its claim.
2. Even though the centre is an 'open' hostel which
houses adults the residents, like those in other detention
centres, are all offenders who need supervision. A full
social welfare service is provided by the staff at the
hostel.
3. Staff in other hostels who are also represented by the
Union, perform similar duties to those of the workers
concerned in the dispute. They are classified as Care
Workers and are paid the appropriate rate. Even though a
professional qualification may be desirable for these posts
it is not a requirement. Similarly E.H.B. Social workers
who are employed in hostels do not require a professional
qualification.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The hostel in question is different from those to
which it has been compared by the Union in that it is an
open hostel where residents go voluntarily. It only
accepts adults who are capable of looking after themselves
and at all times they are free to come and go.
Accommodation and meals are provided in a supportive
atmosphere but minimum supervision is required. The hostel
is a half-way-house which prepares the residents for
independence.
2. The Company considers itself more closely linked to
two other hostels not referred to by the Union (details
supplied to the Court). In these two cases conditions and
salary are favourably comparable to those in the Company's
hostel. The work carried out in the hostel is not
comparable to that of a Social Worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
the additional information submitted subsequent to the hearing.
On the basis of the evidence/comparisons submitted the Court is
not satisfied that the Union's claim is sustained. The Court
notes in particular the non-custodial nature of the hostel where
the claimant's work viz a viz other hostels referred to by the
Union. Nevertheless the Court considers that the claims should
be the subject of more detailed examination and accordingly
recommends that the parties agree to set up a joint working
party to examine and evaluate in an objective manner the work
performed by the claimants. The claim for upgrading should be
addressed on the basis of the results of the working party.
In the event of agreement not being reached at that stage the
parties should refer the claim and report of the Working Party
back to the Court for recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
11th March, 1992 _________________________
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.