Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94282 Case Number: LCR14596 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MEATH SHELTERED WORKSHOP - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning improvements in Pay and Annual Leave.
Recommendation:
14031
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94282 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14596
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MEATH SHELTERED WORKSHOP
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning improvements in Pay and Annual Leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The workshop is a community training facility funded by
the North Western Health Board and voluntary
subscriptions, caring for 92 mildly mentally handicapped
clients and employing 15 workers.
2. In June, 1993, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of
10 attendant workers for a revised 9 point pay scale of
#195 to #255 per week, together with a new annual leave
level of 25 days per annum. The employer rejected the
claim.
3. The workers' rates of pay are set by reference to the
salary scales of non-nursing staff employed by Health
Boards (outside Dublin). Eight attendant staff are on
1st point of the group I scale (#176.07 per week). Two
driver attendant staff are on the 3rd point of the grade
III scale (#182.61 per week). The workers are employed
for 35 hours per week and have benefited from the
various wage round and special pay increases which have
applied to non-nursing personnel in Health Boards
(outside Dublin).
4. The claims were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on
10th February, and 18th April, 1994. Following the
first conciliation conference, both sides agreed to
recommend the following proposal of the Industrial
Relation Officer:-
"PAY
1. Rates of pay to be increased by #6 per week with
effect from 1/1/'93 in accordance with Labour Court
Recommendation LCR 14031.
2. Employees to be placed on the appropriate point of
the incremental scale with effect from 1/1/'93.
3. An additional #4 per week to be added to the rates
of pay with effect from 1/1/'94.
4. The balance of #10.04 which is also the subject of
LCR 14031 would be applied to rates of pay on the
same date that it is applied in the Health Boards
provided that there is agreement on the introduction
of Pay Path and fortnightly pay.
5. The pay increases provided for in recent National
Agreement will apply from the due dates.
6. A review of pay rates will take place under the
auspices of the Labour Relations Commission after a
period of 6 months has expired.
ANNUAL LEAVE
7. The annual leave entitlement for staff included in
this claim will be 21 days.
OTHER MATTERS
8. Management is to give consideration to the
introduction of a promotions policy/career structure
for their employees.
9. If this proposal is not accepted by either party it
is withdrawn and is deemed not to have been tabled".
5. The proposals were rejected by the Employer on the basis
of cost and because the Union was seeking a further
review after 6 months. No further progress was possible
at conciliation and on 11th May, 1994, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court
investigated the dispute on 6th October,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Labour Relations Commission (LRC) proposals are a
dramatic compromise by the workers. The claim for
additional leave was withdrawn and the workers would be
paid #4 per week above the Health Board domestic rate.
The workers' positive approach was not reciprocated by
the Employer.
2. The LRC proposals are the absolute minimum which are
acceptable. Their duties are more onerous, they have
more responsibility than workers on the Health Board
Domestic rate. Since the workshop opened in 1986,
client numbers have increased from 25 to 92. The
workers have not been compensated for the increased
responsibility.
3. The workers do not have a pension scheme or a career
structure. In comparison with other workshops, the
ratio of trainers to clients is high and their rates of
pay are lower (details supplied). The workers have wide
ranging responsibilities in stressful conditions. The
workforce is newly organised and therefore excluded from
the terms of the PESP.
WORKSHOP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) applies
to the workers and if the Union wishes to pursue a pay
claim, the terms of Clause 2(iii) B of Annex 1 of the
PCW would have to apply (details supplied). As the
Union's claims exceed "3% of the basic pay cost of the
group of workers concerned" they are clearly
incompatible with the PCW criteria.
2. The claimants have always benefited from the wage rounds
and special increases which applied to non-nursing staff
employed by Health Boards (outside Dublin). The
Workshop is still prepared to apply the most recent
special increase to the claimants. This would represent
a pay increase of #16.04 per week. In addition the
Management would be prepared to enter into meaningful
discussions on the progression up the incremental scale
of all workers. A reorganisation could result in the
introduction of some promotional opportunities.
3. The duties and responsibilities performed by the
claimants do not justify the salary scale claimed. The
Labour Court rejected a similar claim in 1984 (details
supplied). The workers have already more favourable
annual leave entitlements and attendance
responsibilities than their Health Board comparators.
Any improvement in annual leave for attendant workers
would have both internal and external implications. The
Workshop is not in a financial position to entertain the
workers' claims and it believes that its response to the
Union is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views of all the parties
recommends that the following proposals be accepted as a basis for
a resolution of the claim.
(1) Rates of pay be increased by #6 per week with effect from 1st
January, 1993 in accordance with Labour Court Recommendation
14031.
(2) Employees be placed on the appropriate point of the
incremental scale with effect from 1st January, 1993.
(3) The balance of #10.04 which is the subject of Labour Court
Recommendation 14031 be applied to rates of pay on the same
date that it is applied in the Health Boards, subject to
agreement on the introduction of such
productivity/flexibility measures as may be agreed between
the parties.
(4) The pay increases in the National Pay Agreements to apply
from the due dates.
(5) An additional #4 per week to be added to the pay rates with
effect from 1st January, 1994.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.