Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95602 Case Number: LCR15017 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of pay/conditions of employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes with some disquiet the period of time this issue
has been in dispute without resolution.
The Court finds that in 1992 there was an agreement between the
claimant and representatives of the Eastern Health Board on a job
description and a rate of pay to apply.
The Court recognises that because of the lack of development of
certain programmes the full job description could not be
implemented. However, the Court finds that the work undertaken by
the claimant was consistent with what was required of him.
The Court finds the claimant had a commitment regarding inputs to
nurse training and, whilst recognising the views expressed by the
representatives of the Board, considers that arrangements should
be put in place which will honour that commitment, given the
unique circumstances of this case.
The arrangements regarding training inputs, together with Clause 1
of the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer should
constitute the job description of the claimant. Commensurate with
the duties which have been carried out since 1992 and with the job
specification drawn up in accordance with the above the claimant
should be paid as follows:-
1. From 1992 to the date of issue of this recommendation a rate
of £13,000 per annum exclusive of allowances and adjusted in
accordance with pay adjustments in the Board.
2. From the date of issue of this recommendation the claimant be
placed on the Grade IV scale at a rate of payment of £16,406
per annum.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95602 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15017
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay/conditions of employment
of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves a claim by the Union for a
grading/salary appropriate to the level of work performed by
the employee concerned. The worker is a medical doctor
originally employed in 1987 as an attendant at an Eastern
Health Board Centre in Ballyboden. In 1991 the worker was
transferred to St. Brendans Nurse Education Centre where he
has performed duties in the library and lectured on nurse
training courses. He is paid as an attendant. The Union
claims that the worker should be paid a rate of pay which
reflects his duties and responsibilities. Management
rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held
in February, March and June 1995. No agreement was possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 20th October, 1995. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 24th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In February, 1992 agreement was reached between the
parties on a job description and the salary to be paid
to the claimant. Management did not adhere to this
agreement. The worker was invited, encouraged and
subsequently directed by the Board to take up duties as
a lecturer/librarian in the Nurse Education Centre and
thereby relinquish his duties at Ballyboden. The Board
sought out the claimant because of his medical expertise
and because of a shortage of Nurse Tutors in the Centre.
2. The Union accepts that because of regulations the
claimant cannot be graded as a Nurse/Tutor, however, the
Union believes that the most appropriate scale in his
case would be that of Clinical Instructor or,
alternatively, in view of his library function, that he
be appointed to the Grade 5 Officer scale.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the claimant has been
carrying out these professional duties for the past four
years, he is still paid at the attentand's rate of pay,
the lowest paid employee within the Nurse Education
Centre. As well as attending to his scheduled teaching
and library functions he has taken part in scheduled
staff teaching members meetings, and Education Committee
meetings. He fulfils a highly professional role within
the context of the Nurse Education Centre which bears no
relationship with the attendant grade on which he is
placed. The Union seeks, that the worker be treated in
a fair equitable way, the 1992 job description be upheld
and that he be placed on the appropriate salary scale,
retrospective to 1992.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board accepts that the claimant was assigned to and
carried out lecturing duties following his reassignment
to the Nurse Education Centre. The tutoring element has
now ceased and has been replaced by mainly library
duties.
2. It is accepted by both parties that the worker cannot be
viewed as a tutor as he does not hold the necessary
qualifications. The Board now has a full complement of
tutors and cannot give a commitment to include tutoring
as part of his duties. The focus now is on the
development of the library service and in this context
the Board is prepared to offer the claimant a salary
equating to that of a Library Assistant which management
considers is fair and reasonable. The Board was also
prepared to offer the worker a lump sum payment in
recognition of his tutorial work at the Nurse Education
Centre.
3. The worker will be eligible to apply for any position
advertised within any revised grading structure in the
library area. He would not be excluded from educational
inputs where such are compatible with the needs of the
Centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes with some disquiet the period of time this issue
has been in dispute without resolution.
The Court finds that in 1992 there was an agreement between the
claimant and representatives of the Eastern Health Board on a job
description and a rate of pay to apply.
The Court recognises that because of the lack of development of
certain programmes the full job description could not be
implemented. However, the Court finds that the work undertaken by
the claimant was consistent with what was required of him.
The Court finds the claimant had a commitment regarding inputs to
nurse training and, whilst recognising the views expressed by the
representatives of the Board, considers that arrangements should
be put in place which will honour that commitment, given the
unique circumstances of this case.
The arrangements regarding training inputs, together with Clause 1
of the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer should
constitute the job description of the claimant. Commensurate with
the duties which have been carried out since 1992 and with the job
specification drawn up in accordance with the above the claimant
should be paid as follows:-
1. From 1992 to the date of issue of this recommendation a rate
of £13,000 per annum exclusive of allowances and adjusted in
accordance with pay adjustments in the Board.
2. From the date of issue of this recommendation the claimant be
placed on the Grade IV scale at a rate of payment of £16,406
per annum.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th December, 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.