Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93472 Case Number: LCR14321 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD / VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims for full pay parity for non-nursing personnel in E.H.B/Voluntary Hospitals, with Dublin Corporation.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the views of the parties as expressed in
their oral and written submissions and has reviewed the progress
of negotiations to date.
The Court finds that a case has been made on behalf of the
employees which requires to be meaningfully addressed.
However, the negotiations between the parties to date have been
inadequate and consequently do not allow the Court in the current
circumstances to make a definitive recommendation. Accordingly
the Court recommends that both parties immediately enter
meaningful negotiations in respect of the claim ; these
negotiations to be completed in a period of eight weeks.
In the event that the negotiations do not resolve the issue the
parties should refer the matter to the Court where the progress of
negotiations will be reviewed and the Court will give
consideration to the issuing of a definitive recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93472 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14321
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD / VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS
(REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD AND
IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for full pay parity for non-nursing personnel in
E.H.B/Voluntary Hospitals, with Dublin Corporation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union for pay parity
for approximately 6,000 of its members in the Dublin area
with general operatives in Dublin Corporation. The claim is
for a #17.53 per week pay increase. A working party
involving employer organisations, the Department of Health
and the Union was set up in January, 1992, to deal with a
wide range of issues, including the Union's claim. The party
terminated its operation at the end of December, 1992 as
agreement could not be reached on any issue.
2. In January, 1993, the employers offered an increase of
#16.04 per week to all general operatives in the local
authorities and health boards outside the Dublin area. The
Union then lodged its claim of a #17.53 per week increase on
behalf of its members in the Dublin area. Management
rejected the claim stating that pay rates should be made on a
nation-wide basis in the future.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A number of conciliation conferences took place
but no agreement was reached. On 10th August, 1993, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 12th October, 1993 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is based on linkage between general operatives
in Dublin Corporation and porters in the Eastern Health Board
and Voluntary Hospitals, in respect of basic pay plus
allowance for a normal rostered week. General Operatives in
Dublin Corporation work a normal day from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30
p.m., Monday to Friday. Any work carried out after 4.30 p.m.
is paid at an overtime rate and staff are in receipt of shift
payments or grade differentials. Staff in the health
services work between 8.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. with early and
late starts each week on a rostered basis. There is no
additional payment for shift-work. Staff are also required
to work week-ends.
2. If employers are willing to pay health service employees
outside Dublin on an equal basis with their Dublin
colleagues, they should do the same for health service
employees in the Dublin area. Dublin health service workers
now earn considerably less than health service workers
outside the Dublin area.
3. General operatives in Government Departments receive
higher increments than health service workers (details
supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is willing to consider the Union's claim if
the Union is prepared to make changes to offset the cost of
the claim (e.g., roster changes).
2. Comparison with Dublin Corporation is not a valid reason
for a pay increase for the grades concerned.
3. Hospital workers earn an average of 15% to 20% per week
more than general operatives because of premium payments
earned while working a 39 hour rostered week.
4. The outcome of any pay negotiations should be to
equalise wages for workers in all parts of the country.
Dublin should not be treated separately concerning wage
negotiation. Concession of the Union's claim would lead to
further claims outside the Dublin area.
5. The cost of the claim to the Exchequer would be #8m
annually. The Government has already indicated its
reluctance to grant any special pay increase in 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views of the parties as expressed in
their oral and written submissions and has reviewed the progress
of negotiations to date.
The Court finds that a case has been made on behalf of the
employees which requires to be meaningfully addressed.
However, the negotiations between the parties to date have been
inadequate and consequently do not allow the Court in the current
circumstances to make a definitive recommendation. Accordingly
the Court recommends that both parties immediately enter
meaningful negotiations in respect of the claim ; these
negotiations to be completed in a period of eight weeks.
In the event that the negotiations do not resolve the issue the
parties should refer the matter to the Court where the progress of
negotiations will be reviewed and the Court will give
consideration to the issuing of a definitive recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd December, 1993 Tom McGrath
C.O.N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.