Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95331 Case Number: LCR14867 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - IRISH HOSPITAL CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION |
Claim by 8 consultants employed in the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland for parity with other medical schools.
Recommendation:
Whilst it does not concede the claim for parity with other medical
schools the Court, given the clinical and academic requirements of
the claimants does not find it unreasonable to expect that they
should enjoy benefits comparable to their colleagues in other
medical schools.
The Court fully recognises that the College is a private
institution, and is operating under financial constraints.
However, it is the view of the Court that if the present high
standards, and the goodwill of the staff are to be maintained this
issue needs to be meaningfully addressed.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the management and the
Association discuss the matter further and seek to put in place
acceptable arrangements to resolve the issue.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95331 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14867
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
IRISH HOSPITAL CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by 8 consultants employed in the Royal College of
Surgeons in Ireland for parity with other medical schools.
BACKGROUND:
2. The eight consultants concerned (two associate professors and
six senior lecturers) are attached to the Royal College of
Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) and its associated hospitals.
They are employed partly in the College and partly in its
associated hospitals. Consultants, employed in the RCSI and
the other four medical schools (UCD, TCD, UCC and UCG) are
employed under the `common contract' which lays down common
conditions and common salaries for hospital consultants. The
RCSI pays its consultants a lower rate of remuneration than
their counterparts in the other four medical schools. The
Association's claim for parity of pay and conditions with the
other four medical schools was rejected by the RCSI. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 14th November, 1994.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the
1st June, 1995. A Court hearing was held on the 24th July,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The consultants concerned come from highly qualified
backgrounds. They are involved in like work with their
counterparts in the four colleges (details supplied to
the Court). Indeed interchangeability would also apply
if the employers were the same.
2. The negotiations on salaries involving hospital
consultants, their representative organisations,
Department of Health and the employing authorities
arising from Report No. 32 of the Review Body on Higher
Remuneration in the Public Sector specifically provided
that a single national rate of remuneration for all
full-time academic consultants. All national agreements
in the profession have been implemented at local level,
irrespective of whether the employing local authority is
a public or private institution, with the exception of
the RCSI and the claimants.
3. The RCSI has not adopted the Department's proposals
which have been implemented in full by the four medical
schools. The RCSI claims that financial constraints are
the reason yet the college is involved in two capital
projects involving substantial costs.
4. Other consultants are RCSI have parity with their
counterparts in the four medical schools and the
claimants cannot understand the difference in approach
to these salaries.
5. The Association seeks implementation of its claim for
parity with effect from 1st June, 1991 the date on which
the revised common contract and salaries came into
operation.
RCSI'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The RCSI does not have parity with the NUI Colleges
generally and has always opposed the principle of
accepting automatic linkage with the public sector. In
1990 the College refuted a Union's claim of relativity
between the RCSI and the public sector colleges. The
Court upheld the College's position (LCR13091 refers).
The College seeks to match relevant external pay
movement. It is in its interest to do so to ensure a
high calibre of staff but the College must reserve the
right to be flexible as regards individual salaries.
2. The RCSI pays the claimants for sessions worked in the
College. Each employee receives a total salary
inclusive of College sessions. These posts were offered
and accepted on the basis of the College paying the
sessions worked only. The additional allowance sought
by the Association equates to between 22.5% and 42.5% of
the claimants salaries and would cost the College
#120,000 per annum in additional payments. The RCSI is
an independent college and could not obtain this
additional funding from the public sector.
3. The College places no restriction on the amount of
private practice which the claimants can engage in.
This allows them to earn more than their counterparts in
NUI colleges.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
terms of the P.C.W.
RECOMMENDATION:
Whilst it does not concede the claim for parity with other medical
schools the Court, given the clinical and academic requirements of
the claimants does not find it unreasonable to expect that they
should enjoy benefits comparable to their colleagues in other
medical schools.
The Court fully recognises that the College is a private
institution, and is operating under financial constraints.
However, it is the view of the Court that if the present high
standards, and the goodwill of the staff are to be maintained this
issue needs to be meaningfully addressed.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the management and the
Association discuss the matter further and seek to put in place
acceptable arrangements to resolve the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th August, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.