Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD941 Case Number: LCR14565 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IMPACT |
Dispute concerning a pay increase for full and part-time training instructors.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions together with the subsequent
correspondence. The Court does not find grounds have been
addressed to warrant concession of the Union's claim, and
accordingly rejects it.
The Court recommends that the Instructors involved in skill base
only (level 1) be paid the craft rate + 12.50% and those involved in
vocational training (level 2) be paid craft rate + 25%.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD941 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14565
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD
AND
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a pay increase for full and part-time
training instructors.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claimants are employed as training instructors in
ten training centres run by the Board to train the
handicapped. The workers are paid at the Board's
Assistant Foreman's rate which is the craft rate plus
12.50%. There are thirty-five full-time and sixteen
part-time instructors employed by the Board. The
instructors are claiming a pay increase which would
give them parity with instructors employed in the
Midland and North Western Health Boards.
2. The claim was previously pursued by another Union on
behalf of four instructors in one of the Board's
training centres in 1990. Agreed proposals of the craft
rate plus 30% emerged at conciliation but it was
rejected by the instructors. The Labour Court
subsequently recommended against concession of the claim
(LCR 13480 refers).
3. The Union presented its claim and it was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on 9th September, 1993. The Union argued that
there had been substantial changes in the job in the
last two years and that, in any event, the Court had
reached the wrong conclusion.
4. The Board's argument was that there had been no change
in the job and that the reason for differing rates of
pay in the various Health Boards was because of the
nature of the training provided. Level 1 training which
was what was done by the instructors was skill based and
mainly provided simple social training for people
discharged from psychiatric hospitals. Level 2 training
for which the higher rate was paid, was vocational
training aimed at equiping trainees to compete in the
open jobs market.
5. The Union's position was that there was no distinction
between the two types of training as all training was
aimed at open employment. The Union argued that the
existence of two levels of training was a device to
maximise EC funding.
6. A negotiated solution was not possible and the claim was
referred to the Labour Court on 4th January, 1994, under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 15th March,
1994, the earliest date suitable to both parities.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. To qualify for ESF funding, all health boards have to
comply with the same criteria. Consequently the
training provided in the Board's region must equate with
that provided by the North Western and Midland Health
Boards. All health boards comply with the same criteria
with regard to training for open employment. This can
be seen by examining the operational manuals and
guidelines devised by the National Rehabilitation Board
which are used in the Western, North Western and Midland
Health Boards.
2. The pay relationship of instructors in the Board to the
craft rate is inappropriate. The assistant foreman
grade is assigned to maintenance or construction work
which is unrelated to training. The workers are at a
disadvantage compared to their colleagues in the Midland
and North Western Health Boards. It should be noted
that the entry requirements to the Board are higher than
those required by the North Western Health Board
(details supplied).
3. The Board has already conceded the merit of the claim by
its concession of an increase of #40 per week in 1990.
The Court should address the claim on the merits of the
case and outside of centralised agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The higher rates paid to instructors in the Midland and
North Western health boards was conceded on the basis
that the instructors trained handicapped persons for
open employment. The instructors employed by the Board
in nine out of ten training centres are involved
exclusively in level 1 skill base training which does
not involve training for open employment.
2. The level of training provided by the workers and the
objectives of the centres is different from the other
Board's areas. The Court recognised this fact when it
rejected the Union's claim in 1991 (LCR 13480 refers).
The situation has not changed in the interim.
3. The Union's claim can only be considered under the terms
of Clause 2(iii) A or B of Annex 1 of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW). Concession of the claim
could result in consequential claims from other grades
both within the Health Boards and the wider health
service. The existing rates were accepted by the Union
as appropriate in the Mid-Western Health Board (details
supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions together with the subsequent
correspondence. The Court does not find grounds have been
addressed to warrant concession of the Union's claim, and
accordingly rejects it.
The Court recommends that the Instructors involved in skill base
only (level 1) be paid the craft rate + 12.50% and those involved in
vocational training (level 2) be paid craft rate + 25%.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.