Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95440 Case Number: LCR14991 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COPE FOUNDATION (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for a review of pay and status of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
Based on the information before it, the Court, while conscious of
the dedication and professionalism of the claimant in doing her
job, does not find grounds for recommending a review of salary and
status, given the current grading structures.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95440 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14991
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
COPE FOUNDATION
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Claim for a review of pay and status of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned is employed as a textile supervisor in
the H.E.L.P. Industries Sheltered Workshop of Cope
Foundation.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of the worker, for parity with senior supervisors
employed in the Vocational Training Centre (VTC) of Cope
Foundation.
The Union claims that the work of the supervisor concerned is
similar to the work of the senior supervisor and warrants a
similar rate of pay. Management rejected the Union's claim.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place but agreement could not
be reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on 26th July, 1995. A Labour Court hearing took place in
Cork on 9th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker is a qualified tailoress. On commencement of her
employment she was responsible for between 10 to 15 clients.
Her duties were restricted to supervising clients in repairs
and a small element of production.
2. In recent years H.E.L.P. Industries has expanded its
operations, providing a full service to industry in general.
This service includes the manufacture of various items such
as, aprons, bed-linen, curtains etc.
3. The duties and responsibilities of the worker have increased
considerably as a result of this expansion. The number of
clients under her supervision has also increased to
approximately 25.
4. Due to the worker's own initiative H.E.L.P. now manufacture
disposable theatre gowns, pillow cases for hospitals and
special orders for export to Germany.
5. Management has treated the worker unfairly. She was
responsible for the expansion of services which entailed
meeting with potential customers and selling the services of
H.E.L.P. She was never employed for this task. In the
circumstances the Union's claim is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The senior supervisors have a higher level of responsibility
because of their involvement in training clients for open
employment. The training programme specifications in the VTC
are ratified and approved by the National Rehabilitation
Board. This approved training is supported by a European
Union scheme through which certain funding is obtained. The
supervisors therefore have to work to exacting standards.
The expectations on clients is that they will be placeable in
open employment. The Foundation supports this work with a
job coach scheme to support the actual placement.
2. Unlike senior supervisors, the supervisor concerned is
dealing with people in a long term sheltered employment
environment. While the service provided is very beneficial
and effective, the clients in sheltered employment do not
have and are not capable of independent employee status.
3. While the commitment and ability of the supervisor is
unquestionably excellent, the job does not equal the value of
the senior supervisor positions. On a job content basis the
jobs are not equal or the same. Therefore there is no merit
in the Union's claim.
4. The Department of Health does not consider these posts to be
in the same grade and therefore neither funds or approves
salary levels on a parity basis.
5. This is a cost increasing claim and is in breach of the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Concession of the
Union's claim would have dramatic repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
Based on the information before it, the Court, while conscious of
the dedication and professionalism of the claimant in doing her
job, does not find grounds for recommending a review of salary and
status, given the current grading structures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.