Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94676 Case Number: LCR14663 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a) basic pay and b) premium payments.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that
the Institute's offer to increase the sleepover allowance be
amended to #15 and the Union accept the revised offer in
settlement of the claim.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
an increase in basic pay as in the Court's view such an increase
is contrary to the terms of the PCW and the PESP.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94676 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14663
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a) basic pay and b) premium payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Institute is a voluntary private organisation
founded in 1949 which provides a range of vocational
training and employment for people with disabilities.
It employs 600 workers and provides hostel accommodation
for up to 147 people with disabilities in training, in
12 hostels/grouphouses. Seven of the
hostels/grouphouses have a housemother service.
Trainees pay for their board and lodgings. Housemothers
provide breakfast and an evening meal, perform household
duties, encourage residents and are responsible for
house regulations.
2. Some hostels are open 7 days a week and the others are
open 5 days a week. In the 7 day hostels, housemothers
work a 7 day on 7 day off shift. In the 5 day hostels
housemothers work 5 days on 2 days off per week. The
trainees attend training centres from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30
p.m. each day (Mon - Fri).
3. In October, 1992, the Union submitted a claim on behalf
of the housemothers for an increase in basic pay and
premium payments. Following local discussions the claim
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Four
conciliation conferences were held between the 20th
August, 1993 and the 23rd September, 1994.
4. At conciliation, the Institute refused to consider an
increase in basic pay as the PESP/PCW rule out increases
in basic pay. The Institute was prepared to consider
some movement on premium payments. On 23rd September,
the Institute's final offer of an increase in the
sleep-over allowance to #11 was put to the Union.
5. The Institute's offer was rejected and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on 16th November, 1994.
The Court investigated the dispute on 11th January, 1995
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is not debarred under the terms of the
PESP/PCW as the workers are effectively newly organised.
No specific negotiations on housemothers' pay rates have
taken place or been agreed. This is due to the fact
that the workers are so few in number and are isolated
from each other. The workers have never been in a
position to frame a common claim.
2. The houseparents are paid very badly by any comparison
(details supplied). The workers perform a very
responsible job which includes certain care elements.
The claim involves 5 - 6 workers and it will not lead to
follow-on claims.
3. The workers get no evening premium or Saturday premium
payments. There is no reward or recognition for
additional duties such as dealing with late passes or
remaining in the hostel continuously while awaiting
appointed visits (details supplied). The annual leave
allowance is also low by any comparison. The Union can
quote many other "voluntary" organisations where similar
workers receive a much higher salary (details supplied).
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's pay scales have been freely negotiated with
the Union over many years and are addressed at annual
pay negotiations. The Institute paid the terms of
Clause 3 of the PESP in full and under the terms of the
PESP/PCW, it is not open to the Union to process further
pay adjustments for groups of workers.
2. The trainees using hostel services do not require care
services and hostels do not provide care services. The
majority of people with disabilities do not require care
services. For those who do, agencies with the relevant
skills are available to provide these services.
Houseparents do not have a work or pay relationship with
care staff in the health care services.
3. The housemothers perform household tasks and are
required to be present while there are trainees in the
hostel. They are not trained for and are not required
to perform care services. The trainees could be
accommodated by landladies who offer economical bed and
board.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that
the Institute's offer to increase the sleepover allowance be
amended to #15 and the Union accept the revised offer in
settlement of the claim.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
an increase in basic pay as in the Court's view such an increase
is contrary to the terms of the PCW and the PESP.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th January, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.