Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94126 Case Number: LCR14453 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CLAIDHE MOR FAMILY CENTRE - and - IMPACT |
Implementation of an agreement to upgrade staff at Centre.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the very detailed
submission made on behalf of the claimants and also to the events
which led to the claim being lodged with the Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
On the basis of the evidence supplied the Court is satisfied that
the case was well made for a re-assessment of the claimants'
grading.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union's claim for the
regrading of the claimants' jobs be immediately submitted by the
parties to an agreed independent third party for the purpose of
carrying out such an evaluation.
(The Court understands the parties are aware of the existence of a
suitable party).
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94126 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14453
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CLAIDHE MOR FAMILY CENTRE
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Implementation of an agreement to upgrade staff at Centre.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Centre is a therapeutic unit situated in North
Dublin. The aim of the Centre is to assess family problems,
particularly those of children, and to provide counselling and
guidelines to help families deal with those problems. The
Centre is funded by the Eastern Health Board.
2. The Centre has two family therapists, two counsellors, two
social care workers, two Marta Meo therapists and one
consultant psychologist. The dispute concerns an attempt by
the Union to have staff at the Centre regraded to Social
Worker scales.
3. At a meeting of 19th December, 1991, agreement between
Management and the Union was reached to regrade the workers'
jobs to those of Therapist, Senior Therapist and Manager and
that they would be placed on the Social Worker Scales.
However, agreement with the Eastern Health Board to fund the
new grades could not be reached. The Union suggested an
independent evaluation of the jobs but, again, no agreement
was reached.
4. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 28th
February, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th May,
1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work being done at the Centre is unique and this is
acknowledged by Management and the Eastern Health Board. It
differs significantly from normal child care work.
2. Because of the unique nature of the work, there would be
no repercussive effects if staff at the Centre were regraded
onto Social Worker scales.
3. Agreement was reached with Management in December, 1991
to regrade the staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Implementation of the agreement would increase costs
and, as such is precluded under the terms of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). It is also precluded
under the terms of the current Programme for Competitiveness
and Work (P.C.W.).
2. The Centre is funded by the Eastern Health Board and it
has indicated that no additional funding will be provided
except for increases provided for under P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
3. The Centre does not have the financial resources to fund
an independent evaluation as requested by the Union.
4. Staff at the Centre are paid in line with the Eastern
Health Board's House Parents' and Assistant House Parents' pay
scale. Granting the Union's claim could have serious
repercussive effects for the child care sector as a whole and
House Parents' in particular.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the very detailed
submission made on behalf of the claimants and also to the events
which led to the claim being lodged with the Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
On the basis of the evidence supplied the Court is satisfied that
the case was well made for a re-assessment of the claimants'
grading.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union's claim for the
regrading of the claimants' jobs be immediately submitted by the
parties to an agreed independent third party for the purpose of
carrying out such an evaluation.
(The Court understands the parties are aware of the existence of a
suitable party).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
30th May, 1994 __________________
C O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairperson
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
TO MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.