Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93119 Case Number: LCR14086 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MADONNA HOUSE - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
A dispute concerning the rate of pay and premium payments for night staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the written submissions of the
parties and verbal arguments made during the hearing does not
consider that the Union's claims are well founded and does not
recommend their concession other than as set out below.
The issue of a salary scale for the claimants as opposed to a
fixed hourly rate of pay has merit given the nature of the work
involved and even though the Court does not accept that the night
jobs are precisely the same as the day jobs.
The Court believes that a pay scale as set out below, and which is
inclusive of Phase 3 of P.E.S.P., is appropriate to the claimants.
YEAR 1 #12,672 PER ANNUM
YEAR 2 #13,010 " "
YEAR 3 #13,347 " "
YEAR 4 #13,686 " "
YEAR 5 #14,024 " "
Assimilation for full-time and part-time staff should be based on
years of of continuous service and should be phased in with one
third of the increase applicable from 1/1/93 and an additional one
third on both 1/1/94 and 1/1/95.
Relief staff should be paid at point one of the scale.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93119 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14086
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MADONNA HOUSE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the rate of pay and premium payments for
night staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Madonna House is a residential child care unit located in
Blackrock, Co Dublin, and employs approximately 50 people.
Throughout the 1970's, they developed their village style
residential units which cater for 50 to 60 children. Within the
village there are 5 individual units and each unit houses between
10 to 12 children. There is one member of the night staff on duty
in each house covering 12 hours every night from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00
a.m.
3. On the 25th April, 1991, the Union sought the payment of
double time for nights staff in respect of Sunday working.
Management replied on the 26th April, 1991, indicating that they
would take the matter up with the Eastern Health Board. A meeting
took place on 4th November, 1991, at which the Union raised the
question of incremental progression on the Assistant Houseparent
scale, for the night staff. Management argued that the rate for
all night staff was based on the seventh point of the Assistant
Houseparent scale being the maximum payable to unqualified child
care workers, and therefore, no incremental progression was
appropriate. They also stated that the Eastern Health Board did
not recognise the provision of "live cover" night staff and
consequently they would not pay it.
4. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
the 6th October, 1992 and conciliation conferences took place on
the 15th December, 1992 and the 26th January, 1993. Agreement
could not be reached and the dispute was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 16th February,
1993. The Court investigated the matter on the 15th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers want equal treatment with day staff in
relation to pay and premium rates.
2. Their skills, responsibilities and experience are of at
least as high a level as their day time colleagues.
3. The nature of the work is isolated and unsocial.
4. The Eastern Health Board is well aware of the system
operating.
5. The cost of "live cover" provision would continue to be
relatively inexpensive.
6. The current funding arrangement is grossly unfair to the
night workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The alignment of night staff to the Assistant
Houseparent's scale, which applies to day care staff, is
inappropriate as there is a significant difference between the
two jobs.
2. The children are asleep for the majority of the night
staffs' shift.
3. In the evening times children are usually all in one
house and therefore easier to control.
4. It is very rare for homework to go beyond 9.00 p.m. and
because of the age profile of the houses, there will only be a
maximum of 2 to 3 children up beyond 9.00 p.m.
5. There is a very strong back-up system in operation for
all night staff.
6. Night staff do not carry the main responsibility for any
of the duties of the day care staff.
7. The rate of pay which applies to the job of night care
staff is a composite rate which was originally agreed with
staff themselves and is explained to staff when they join the
organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the written submissions of the
parties and verbal arguments made during the hearing does not
consider that the Union's claims are well founded and does not
recommend their concession other than as set out below.
The issue of a salary scale for the claimants as opposed to a
fixed hourly rate of pay has merit given the nature of the work
involved and even though the Court does not accept that the night
jobs are precisely the same as the day jobs.
The Court believes that a pay scale as set out below, and which is
inclusive of Phase 3 of P.E.S.P., is appropriate to the claimants.
YEAR 1 #12,672 PER ANNUM
YEAR 2 #13,010 " "
YEAR 3 #13,347 " "
YEAR 4 #13,686 " "
YEAR 5 #14,024 " "
Assimilation for full-time and part-time staff should be based on
years of of continuous service and should be phased in with one
third of the increase applicable from 1/1/93 and an additional one
third on both 1/1/94 and 1/1/95.
Relief staff should be paid at point one of the scale.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th May, 1993 ----------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.