Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93361 Case Number: LCR14233 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RATHFREDAGH CHESHIRE HOME - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim by part-time nurses and care assistants for parity of working conditions with their Health Board equivalent.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the
parties. The Court has noted that phase 3 of P.E.S.P. has been
implemented.
The Court is sympathetic to the situation in which the workers
find themselves. However the claim is cost increasing and
accordingly debarred under the terms of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress.
The Court accordingly recommends that, at the termination of the
P.E.S.P., the parties further give consideration to the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93361 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14233
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RATHFREDAGH CHESHIRE HOME
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim by part-time nurses and care
assistants for parity of working conditions with their Health
Board equivalent.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Organisation provides a permanent home for 28 disabled
residents (details supplied) near Newcastlewest, Co. Limerick.
The Home employs 35 workers, most of whom are part-time. The
Home's income is derived from a subvention from the Mid
Western Health Board (59%), residents and fund-raising
activities.
2. The Union made a claim on the Organisation for parity of
working conditions with the workers' Health Board equivalents.
Local meetings were held and the claim was rejected as the
Organisation was not in a position to negotiate due to a lack
of funding.
3. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 23rd April, 1993.
No progress was possible and the claim was referred to the
Labour Court on 16th June, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place in Limerick on 2nd September, 1993 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Of the 9 Cheshire Homes in Ireland, the Rathfredagh Home
has the lowest wage rates and is the least funded. 4 Cheshire
Homes have parity with their respective Health Boards. The
existence of the Home is a substantial cost-saver to the Mid
Western Health Board.
2. There is no argument between the parties that the pay
rates at the Home are very low. Even the minimum wage rates
set by the Joint Labour Committees are far in excess of that
of the claimants (details supplied). While the workers are
not employees of the state, they work on behalf of the state
providing an excellent service to a very high standard. Their
wages and conditions do not reflect their commitment and hard
work.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The majority of the Home's income (59%) comes from the
Mid-Western Health Board. The rest of its income comes from
fund-raising and from the residents themselves. The Health
Board subvention does not cover the wages bill and there is no
question of the Home being able to afford any substantial
increase in excess of the third phase of the P.E.S.P. The
Home is in a difficult financial position (details supplied).
In a situation where the only reliable source of funds does
not even cover the wage bill, it is not possible to consider
increasing that bill.
2. The Home would like to negotiate on the issues of overtime
and weekend premia but concessions are not affordable. The
claim for parity with Health Board pay and conditions of
employment is unrealistic. The Home is funded on a different
basis and its pay rates are favourable comparable to those of
similar private Homes in the area. The Home's wage rates are
appropriate to the sector. The Union's claim is
cost-increasing and outside the terms of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the
parties. The Court has noted that phase 3 of P.E.S.P. has been
implemented.
The Court is sympathetic to the situation in which the workers
find themselves. However the claim is cost increasing and
accordingly debarred under the terms of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress.
The Court accordingly recommends that, at the termination of the
P.E.S.P., the parties further give consideration to the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
29th October, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.