Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/95/396 Case Number: LCR14891 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OBERSTOWN BOYS' CENTRE (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) - and - IMPACT |
Allowance for dealing with disturbed adolescents.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the parties had agreed prior to the hearing,
that the claim could be considered as a "Green field" situation
and, accordingly, could be processed outside the constraints of
the P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
Having considered the case, the Court is satisfied that there is
merit in the claim, but does not accept that the amount claimed
should be conceded.
The Court recommends payment of an allowance of #1,150 to the
workers involved in the claim (pro rata rate to be applied if
part-time work is involved) from 1/1/95.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95396 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14891
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
OBERSTOWN BOYS' CENTRE
AND
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Allowance for dealing with disturbed adolescents.
BACKGROUND:
2.1 Oberstown Boys' Centre was opened in 1991 for difficult and
disturbed adolescents. It is managed by a Board and is
funded by the Department of Education. There are
approximately eighty staff employed at the Centre.
2 The Centre caters for up to thirty male offenders. It is
certified as both a reformatory school and as a place of
detention under the 1908 Children's Act. It is licensed to
cater for twenty boys aged between 12 and 16 and also
provides ten remand places.
3 The Union submitted a claim for a "disturbed adolescent
allowance" of #2,000 per year on behalf of staff working at
the Centre. Management rejected the claim.
4 As no agreement could be reached between the parties, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 12th October, 1994.
5 Agreement could not be reached at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 4th July, 1995
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on 29th August, 1995 (the
earliest date suitable to both sides).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The allowance claimed is warranted by all staff working in
Oberstown Boys' Centre. The staff work in dangerous and
stressful conditions of employment. The allowance is paid in
similar institutions in Britain and Northern Ireland.
2 The Union is claiming the same allowance for its members as
that granted by the Labour Court (LCR9467 refers) to members
employed in Trinity House.
3 The staff at Oberstown Boys' Centre are similarly exposed to
threats and assaults as those employed at Trinity House.
Both Management and the Department of Education accept that
there is a genuine risk of assault from the very disturbed
nature of those in detention. The Department has accepted
liability in cases where there is injury arising from
assault.
4 The Union met both the Departments of Education and Finance
and it was agreed that this claim could be dealt with on its
merits and that it would not be excluded under the terms of
the P.C.W
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Care Staff in Oberstown Centre are in receipt of a salary
scale which fully reflects the onerous duties which are
placed upon them. The salary scale ranges from #12,499 to a
maximum of #20,232. This is #2,400 (at the maximum) greater
than that paid to Residential Care Staff employed in centres
under the aegis of the Health Boards who cater for similar
type offenders.
2 The differential of #2,400 will increase to #6,300 on the
implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 13078, for
payment of long service increments to care staff.
3 The demands placed on care staff can be stressful, but they
are given full and adequate training to cope with the duties
which they are required to perform.
4 The claim, if conceded, would encourage repercussive claims,
not only from other care workers, but also from those working
in health and educational institutions. It could also
involve claims from the Prison Service and the Garda
Siochana.
5 Management rejects the claim on the basis that personnel
employed in Oberstown Boys' Centre are not exposed to the same
risk as personnel employed in Trinity House.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the parties had agreed prior to the hearing,
that the claim could be considered as a "Green field" situation
and, accordingly, could be processed outside the constraints of
the P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
Having considered the case, the Court is satisfied that there is
merit in the claim, but does not accept that the amount claimed
should be conceded.
The Court recommends payment of an allowance of #1,150 to the
workers involved in the claim (pro rata rate to be applied if
part-time work is involved) from 1/1/95.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.