Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95259 Case Number: LCR14773 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ST. PATRICK'S CHESHIRE HOME (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for parity of pay with Health Board employees.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions and finds the rates of pay
applicable to these workers is substantially below the levels
appropriate to such workers in the health sector.
Further the Court considers that it is unacceptable that the
employees here concerned should be expected to deliver such
necessary services at rates of pay far below comparable workers in
the Health Board.
The Court is fully aware of the financial constraints on Health
Boards, however, given the specific circumstances of this case the
Court considers that within the mechanisms provided for under the
P.C.W. the parties should address the problem in accordance with
the recommendations of the Industrial Relations Officer as quickly
as possible.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95259 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14773
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ST. PATRICK'S CHESHIRE HOME
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for parity of pay with Health Board employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The home is run under the auspices of the Cheshire
Foundation. The day-to-day running of the home is undertaken
by a voluntary board of management. It is located in Tullow
County Carlow and has 20 residents. The home is funded by
the South Eastern Health Board (S.E.H.B.) (80%) and the
remainder of the running costs are raised through residents'
contibutions and local fund-raising.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of 26 workers for pay parity with workers in similar
employment in the S.E.H.B.. The workers concerned are
employed by the home in nursing, domestic, care assistant,
and driving positions.
Local level discussions took place but no agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on 4th
August, 1994 and 9th August, 1994. At the conciliation
conference on 9th August, 1994 the Industrial Relations
Officer put forward the following proposal:-
"1. A link should be established to the S.E.H.B. rates
for staff in the following areas:-
Kitchen, Cleaning and Laundry Staff - Group I
rates
Care Staff - Group IV rates
Nursing staff - SRN rates
2. This link should be established at 90% of the
S.E.H.B. rates, to be achieved on a phased basis, as
follows:-
1 October, 1994 - 85%
1 October, 1995 - 90%
Appropriate Sunday and night shift premiums should
also be applied.
3. In establishing, this link and given the current
irregular pay structure, the parties should also
address the question of pay scales for the groups
concerned.
4. Staff working less than full-time hours should be
paid on a pro-rata basis.
5. Local discussions should take place concerning the
part-time weekend working in the laundry area.
6. No other cost increasing claim of any kind may be
submitted during the duration of the PCW.
In the event of this proposal being rejected by either
party it is automatically withdrawn".
While this proposal was acceptable to both parties,
management was unable to secure the additional funding
required to implement the proposal.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 13th April,
1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are seeking pay rates and premium
payments which have already been established for the
category of work they perform.
2. The workers perform similar work to workers in similar
employment in the S.E.H.B.. They should be paid similar
rates of pay.
3. The care and service provided by the workers is carried
out on behalf of the S.E.H.B.. The residents of the
home are severely handicapped and the care provided is
not available at any Health Board hospital in the
region.
4. The rates of pay and conditions of employment of the
workers are considerably less than workers in similar
employment with the S.E.H.B. and management has
acknowledged this.
HOME'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board of Management of St. Patrick's Cheshire Home
would like to pay an increase to staff which would
establish a relationship with their counterparts in the
S.E.H.B. and proper pay scales for the future. However,
with the S.E.H.B.'s contribution at present only
covering 80% of salary costs, it is not feasible for the
Board to consider additional fund-raising activities in
order to meet the cost of this claim.
2. Management of the home has lobbied the S.E.H.B. on an
ongoing basis over the past year to appraise it of the
inconsistencies with regard to the rates of pay at St.
Patrick's and the increasing disquiet among staff with
regard to the lack of response to their claim.
3. The S.E.H.B. indicated that this is a cost-increasing
claim and thus debarred by the terms of the PCW. While
this is accepted by management, if the funding was made
available, management feel that the claim is a valid one
and would use any additional funding to attempt to go
some way towards meeting the proposals outlined in the
document from the Labour Relations Commission.
4. Management cannot consider any amendment of salaries
without the S.E.H.B.'s assistance. Therefore, it is with
regret that the Home is not in a position to make any
concession to the Union's claim at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions and finds the rates of pay
applicable to these workers is substantially below the levels
appropriate to such workers in the health sector.
Further the Court considers that it is unacceptable that the
employees here concerned should be expected to deliver such
necessary services at rates of pay far below comparable workers in
the Health Board.
The Court is fully aware of the financial constraints on Health
Boards, however, given the specific circumstances of this case the
Court considers that within the mechanisms provided for under the
P.C.W. the parties should address the problem in accordance with
the recommendations of the Industrial Relations Officer as quickly
as possible.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B../D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.