Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93197 Case Number: LCR14093 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRE-SCHOOL PLAYGROUPS ASSOCIATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Salary scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions does not concede the
Union's claim for Senior Social Worker and Social Worker pay
scales be applied to these employees.
The Association however has not shown to the Court's satisfaction
that the pay terms of the Programme for National Recovery or the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress have been applied to
the rates of pay.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the increases in accordance
with the terms of the P.N.R. and the first and second phases of
the P.E.S.P. be applied to the offer made to the workers
concerned. The Court would recommend the Association's offer so
adjusted be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93197 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PRE-SCHOOL PLAYGROUPS ASSOCIATION
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Salary scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Association which is a voluntary organisation was founded
in 1969, to give help and support to parents and play-leaders in
the setting up of playgroups and parent and toddler groups. It is
funded from health board grants and membership subscriptions. The
workers here concerned are employed by the Association as a
national advisor and regional advisors.
In 1989, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the workers
concerned for rates of pay similar to the rates of pay of workers
in similar employment in the health boards and other voluntary
organisations. In the period 1990/1991, discussions took place
between the parties in relation to the Union's claim. In April,
1991, social workers employed by local authorities, health boards,
and voluntary hospitals were awarded a pay increase of 25%. The
workers concerned were paid the increase with effect from 1st
January, 1992. In early 1992, further local discussions took
place at which the Union sought to establish the principle of
parity with social workers in the health boards and other
voluntary organisations but no progress was made and the matter
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 1st October, 1992, and 7th January, 1993
but no progress was made and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court on 23rd March, 1993. The Labour Court hearing took place on
14th April, 1993.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim for parity with social workers is not
consistant with the reality of the situation. The Association
does not employ social workers, nor does it require its
playgroup advisers to have either the qualifications or
experience of social workers.
2. I.M.P.A.C.T., formerly L.G.P.S.U. stated in its
submission, regarding the claim by social workers employed in
health boards and local authorities that the minimum
qualification required for employment as a social worker was a
primary degree or diploma in social science or equivalent. In
its findings the arbitration board accepted that a university
degree is now required for entry into the basic social worker
grade.
3. The Association's advisers do not have social science
degrees nor are they required to have social work experience.
The only qualification required for the position of playgroup
adviser is a background in childcare and a knowledge of the
needs of playgroups. Training courses are provided and paid
for by the Association to keep advisors up-to-date with
current needs and developments.
4. The Union has stated that project workers in Barnardos who
have parity with social workers do similar work to the workers
concerned. The Association refutes this claim. A project
worker in Barnardos is involved in community work and works
closely with the Community and the environment department of
Dublin Corporation and with local schools. For such work they
receive funding from Dublin Corporation, the Department of
Education and the health boards. No such work is done or
required to be done by the workers concerned, neither is
public funding available to the Association from sources other
than the health boards.
5. Barnardos are aligned to social workers' scales because of
historical factors, which relate to their former U.K. origins.
The workers concerned were not employed on the basis of parity
with social workers, neither is there established parity with
social workers in the organisation. If the Association was to
consider parity with workers, then playgroup advisors in its
sister organisation in Northern Ireland, Pre-School Playgroups
Association, would provide a more realistic comparator. They
do identical work and are funded by membership subscription
and the Social Services. Their rate of pay is considerably
lower than the scale the Association has already proposed to
the Union e.g. #11,000 minimum to #14,500 maximum.
6. The Association is funded through Health Board grants and
members' subscriptions. The Association has consistently and
continuously requested an increase in funding from the health
Boards to meet its existing requirements. In all cases, the
level of funding requested has not been met by the health
boards. The level of funding has not been adequate to meet
either existing salaries or increases under the P.E.S.P. and
the Association has had to make up the shortfall from fund
raising activities. This is an unacceptable and precarious
method of permanent financing.
7. In 1992 the total grant received from the Health Board was
#63,650. This was needed to cover training, administration
expenses, rent and all salaries. The total requirement for
1993 if a claim for parity is conceded would be #99,943 for
advisors' salaries and expenses alone with further expenses
for the year of #61,911.
8. The Association has tried for increases in its funding to
meet current salaries. It is obvious that increased grant aid
from the Health Boards would not be forthcoming should this
claim for parity be conceded. Indeed, Barnardo's experience
has been that since they ceded parity with social workers they
have had considerable difficulties in obtaining grants from
the Health Boards to maintain these increases and have had to
find funding elsewhere.
9. The Association is a voluntary body and has to work within
constraints, the rates of pay of the workers concerned can
best be addressed through an overall review of the whole pay
structure within the Association. It is the Association's
intention to pay competitive wage rates without setting
precedents and to link these rates of pay to national pay
agreements.
10. At all stages of discussions since 1989 the Association
has refused the Union's claim for parity. This claim would
have significant cost increasing effects, and is not permitted
under the terms of the P.E.S.P.
11. In January, 1992, a 25% increase in pay was implemented
to cover outstanding pay increases due to advisors under
previous national pay agreements. Phase 3 of P.E.S.P. was due
to be applied in January, 1993 and will be back-dated to 1st
January once this issue has been settled.
12. The Association cannot agree to set its wage levels at a
rate that would ultimately put them out of business or force
them to reduce its service. The fact that some similarities
exist between the job done in different organisations cannot
realistically be sufficient to warrant parity.
13. The Association's terms and conditions of employment must
be linked with its ability to pay.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The only adjustment made to the pay scales of the workers
concerned since March, 1989, has been the application of the
25% increase with effect from 1st January, 1992. No increases
under the Programme for National Recovery or the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress have been paid.
2. The rates of pay of the workers concerned are out of line
with the rates of pay of other workers in similar employment.
3. The Eastern Health Board employs staff as project workers,
who are paid on the basis of social worker scales. Barnardos,
the voluntary organisation, also employ a number of project
workers who are paid on the basis of social worker scales.
These workers are playgroup advisors with a community
development role. They advise on the setting up of playgroups
and support those already in existence. They do work similar
to the work of the workers concerned.
4. The enactment of the Child Care Bill in 1991, has focused
attention on services for children. The pre-school area is no
exception. Section 7 of the Act requires that health boards
establish a child care advisory committee and provides for
directions by the Minister for Health in relation to the
committees. The standing of the regional advisers in the eyes
of the authorities is reflected in their appointment.
5. The post of national adviser, compares favourably with the
position of term/project leader in Barnardos. The national
advisor's duties include dealing with statutory bodies, public
relations, media, liaison, co-ordination and support to the
National Committee.
6. The Association commissioned a management consultancy firm
to undertake a study of the Association. That report dated
3rd February, 1989, recommended the importance of salary
provision for advisers on scales comparable to equivalent jobs
and skills in the Public Service. This appeared to be the
position of the Association until recently and the application
of the 25% increase in 1992 confirms the acceptance at that
time of the connection with social workers.
7. During discussions with the Association in 1990/1991, the
Union understood that there was no objection in principle to
what the Union's claim sought to achieve.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions does not concede the
Union's claim for Senior Social Worker and Social Worker pay
scales be applied to these employees.
The Association however has not shown to the Court's satisfaction
that the pay terms of the Programme for National Recovery or the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress have been applied to
the rates of pay.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the increases in accordance
with the terms of the P.N.R. and the first and second phases of
the P.E.S.P. be applied to the offer made to the workers
concerned. The Court would recommend the Association's offer so
adjusted be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
31st May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.