Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92293 Case Number: AD92196 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GALWAY SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL - and - IMPACT |
An appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC91/92 concerning the salary scale of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written submissions and the oral evidence
presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that the
precise intent and the authority of the minute of the 16th June,
1986 concerning the salary of the worker concerned is
questionable. There is no doubt however that it was intended to
improve her salary position.
Having regard to this fact, to the structure of the organisation
and to the salary relationship of the worker's superior and
subordinates with salaries in the Health Boards, the Court
considers it appropriate and equitable that the worker should have
a similar relationship.
Accordingly the Court considers that the worker's salary should be
related to that of a social worker in the Health Board i.e. scale
#14746-#18782. Her placement on the appropriate point of the
scale having regard to her service should be on a phased basis
similar to that which will apply to assistant supervisors going
onto Assistant House Parent scale as has been agreed in principle
between the parties.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92293 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
GALWAY SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
(Represented by Federation of Irish Employers)
and
Irish Municipal Public And Civil Trade Union
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC91/92 concerning the salary scale of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council is a voluntary body involved in the provision of
services for the needy within the city and is mainly funded by the
Western Health Board. The worker concerned has been employed as a
supervisor by the Council for eleven years. She is currently
responsible for the running of two hostels and reports directly to
the Director of the Council. The worker's salary is #16,167 and
is not linked to any public service grade. In 1986 the worker met
with the then Director and sought a revision of her salary. As a
result of this meeting the Director issued a minute (copy
furnished to the Court) which indicated that the worker's salary
would be fixed at the sixth point of the Senior Social Worker
scale. The agreement was never implemented. The Union claims
that the worker's salary should have been adjusted in line with
the Senior Social Worker scale and should have enjoyed both the
special and general increases appropriate to that grade. The
Council rejects this claim
The Union referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's
investigation took place on 27th April, 1992 and the following
recommendation issued on 14th may, 1992;
"In the light of the above it is my conviction that the
implementation now of the terms of the 1986 parity agreement
would create insuperable problems - financially and in
organisation terms - for the Galway Social Services Council.
Equity, however, demands that the worker be given some
tangible compensation by the Council for the expinging of
this agreement.
I, therefore, recommend that she be paid an ex gratia sum of
#800 in full and final settlement of this claim."
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court, by the Union, in accordance with Section 36(2) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place in Galway on 12th August, 1992.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1986 any increases the worker has received have
been restricted to those applicable under National Wage
Agreements. She has never benefitted from special increases
awarded to Social Workers. As a result of the Council's
failure to honour the 1986 parity agreement and to link her to
a public service grade the worker lost out on a 25% increase
award, in 1989, to Health Board Social Workers. The worker's
salary fails to recognise the many duties and responsibilities
attached to her post.
2. As a result of a conciliation conference it has been
agreed that pay parity will be established and be phased in
between the grades of Assistant Supervisor (the grade for
which the worker has supervisory responsibility) and of
Assistant Houseparent employed by the Western Health Board.
This will mean a direct link will be established between the
assistant supervisor grade and nursing grades and will result
in the Assistant Supervisor grade automatically benefiting
from special increases awarded to nurses. Consequently the
differential between the worker's salary, and that of
Assistant Supervisors will steadily be eroded as the worker
will again benefit from general pay increases only. In order
for the worker to retain the differential her salary scale
must be aligned to that of another Public Service Grade i.e.
Senior Social Worker.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council strongly rejects the claim that the worker
should receive the pay rates of the Senior Social Worker
grade. If this were to happen it would mean the worker would
be on the same pay scale as the Director who is her immediate
superior. This would result in a totally unacceptable
situation. The Council cannot accept that this was the
intention of the then Director when he drafted the minute in
1986. Moreover, the details in the minute would appear to be
inconsistent in that the salary quoted does not reflect any
point of the Senior Social Worker scale at that time.
4. 2. The Council contends that in 1987 a fixed rate was
agreed for the worker's job which was not linked in any way to
any Social Worker grade. In order for the worker to obtain
such a grade it would be necessary for her to hold some form
of qualification which she does not.
3. The Union's claim is in fact a cost increasing one and
is prohibited under the terms of P.E.S.P.
DECISION:
Having considered the written submissions and the oral evidence
presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that the
precise intent and the authority of the minute of the 16th June,
1986 concerning the salary of the worker concerned is
questionable. There is no doubt however that it was intended to
improve her salary position.
Having regard to this fact, to the structure of the organisation
and to the salary relationship of the worker's superior and
subordinates with salaries in the Health Boards, the Court
considers it appropriate and equitable that the worker should have
a similar relationship.
Accordingly the Court considers that the worker's salary should be
related to that of a social worker in the Health Board i.e. scale
#14746-#18782. Her placement on the appropriate point of the
scale having regard to her service should be on a phased basis
similar to that which will apply to assistant supervisors going
onto Assistant House Parent scale as has been agreed in principle
between the parties.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th September, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
A O'S/U.S. ---------------
Chairman