Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94665 Case Number: LCR14746 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS - and - I M P A C T |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 7 clinical photographers employed in the Health Services, for parity of pay with 'photographer' grades in the Public Sector.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions finds that there is an
anomalous situation which requires to be addressed.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the tardy manner in which the
claim has been dealt with to date.
In some four years during the period of two national programmes
normal industrial relations procedures have been frustrated to the
extent that it has been necessary for the Union to refer the issue
to Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
in order to have some consideration given to the claim.
The Court finds this is not conducive to the development of good
and harmonious industrial relations and contrary to the spirit and
intent of recent industrial relations legislation.
It is the view of the Court that the parties should immediately
enter meaningful negotiations with a view to addressing the
anomalous situation which currently exists.
To assist in finding a basis for a resolution to the dispute the
parties should seek the assistance of an Industrial Relations
Officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94665 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14746
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
I M P A C T
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 7 clinical photographers
employed in the Health Services, for parity of pay with
'photographer' grades in the Public Sector.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim, first submitted in April, 1991, sought
parity with photographers in the Public Service with effect
from 1st October, 1990. Following numerous meetings and
correspondence between the parties, at which no agreement was
reached, the Union referred the dispute to the Labour
Relations Commission in February, 1993. The Hospitals did
not respond to an invitation to attend a conciliation
conference and in March, 1994 the Union referred the dispute
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The hearing was postponed in order that the
parties engage in further local discussions. As agreement
was not possible the dispute was referred by the Union, to
the Labour Court in November, 1994 under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 25th April, 1995 (the earliest date suitable
to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no difference in the range or quality of the
duties and responsibilities of the clinical
photographers in the Hospitals and those of
photographers in the Civil Service. (Details supplied
to the Court). Management has accepted the position in
relation to the broad similarity of duties and
responsibilities. The Hospitals have also accepted that
the comparison is valid when the work of photographers
is examined under a variety of headings.
2. There is a very serious anomaly, which must be
addressed, whereby under the present situation
the pay scale of the basic Photographer Grade in the
Civil Service is 10% higher than the Senior Photographer
Grade in the Health Services. (Details supplied to the
Court).
3. With reference to negotiations under Clause 2 of the
P.C.W. Management's proposal to negotiate under Option B
is not acceptable as the increase involved would amount
to 3% and does not address the parity issue. If Option
A is to be considered as a basis for finding a solution
the achievement of pay parity must be negotiated.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim would involve increases far in excess
of 20% and is precluded under the terms of the P.C.W..
Concession of the claim would clearly have serious
knock-on implications within the Health Services
specifically, and within the wider Public Sector.
2. Clinical photographers as a group have always received
national pay awards in line with all other grades of
paramedic groups and their pay is not out of line with
the group.
3. Management is willing to negotiate the Union's claim in
accordance with either Option A or B under the terms of
Clause 2 of the P.C.W..
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions finds that there is an
anomalous situation which requires to be addressed.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the tardy manner in which the
claim has been dealt with to date.
In some four years during the period of two national programmes
normal industrial relations procedures have been frustrated to the
extent that it has been necessary for the Union to refer the issue
to Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
in order to have some consideration given to the claim.
The Court finds this is not conducive to the development of good
and harmonious industrial relations and contrary to the spirit and
intent of recent industrial relations legislation.
It is the view of the Court that the parties should immediately
enter meaningful negotiations with a view to addressing the
anomalous situation which currently exists.
To assist in finding a basis for a resolution to the dispute the
parties should seek the assistance of an Industrial Relations
Officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 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.