Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95632 Case Number: LCR15109 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL REMEDIAL CLINIC (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - IRISH PRINT UNION;IMPACT |
Claim for an evaluation of instructor posts.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties does
not recommend concession of the claim as it related to F.A.S.
Instructors.
The Court further does not recommend concession of a job
evaluation in isolation as would be the situation in this case.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95632 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15109
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CENTRAL REMEDIAL CLINIC
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an evaluation of instructor posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. The six workers concerned are employed by the Clinic as
training instructors. There are two categories of
instructor, the instructor/supervisor of the sheltered
workshop and the instructor/supervisor level 11, with
specific responsibility for training in desk-top publishing
and in-plant printing. The instructors have been paid the
same salary since 1987.
The clinic is 67% funded by the Department of Health with the
remainder coming from fund raising and other sources.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for
an evaluation of the instructors work. The Unions argue that
the work and responsibilities of the instructors compare
favourably with that of FAS instructors whose rates of pay
are considerably higher than that of the workers concerned.
Local level discussions took place following which Management
sought the guidance of the Department of Health on a scheme
for the evaluation of such posts. The Department indicated
that it considered that the instructors were on the correct
rate of pay and that no evaluation should take place.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 28th August, 1995.
The conference was adjourned to enable Management to pursue
the matter further with the Department of Health. The
Department decided that there was no merit in the request for
an evaluation.
As no agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 7th November, 1995 under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 19th February, 1996 (the earliest suitable date
to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Unions are confident that an evaluation of the
instructors' posts would establish a genuine case for
the upgrading of these posts.
2 The duties and responsibilities of the instructors
compares favourably with that of FAS instructors. The
instructors must ensure that the level of training is
equal to the standard required for outside employment.
Part-time FAS instructors employed by the CRC are paid a
higher rate than the workers concerned.
The trainees in the CRC experience physical, sometimes
emotional and psychological difficulties. The
instructors not only require a high level of teaching
skills but must also deal with behavioural and other
problems which may arise.
3. The London City and Guilds Syllabus is used for the
course and FAS instructors cover the theory while
in-house instructors cover the practical. Due to the
high quality of production and teaching it would not be
practical for the CRC instructors to cover both the
theory and practical. Level 11 is the level of
instructor within FAS for the teaching of desk top
publishing.
4. The Unions are seeking that the evaluation be undertaken
on a joint basis as is the norm in the Health Boards.
CLINIC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Department of Health, having examined the job
descriptions, has decided that there is no merit in the
request for an evaluation. Management must abide by
that decision.
2. The work carried out by the instructors is not the same
as that carried out by FAS instructors and is more
appropriately comparable to instructors in the Health
Boards, in that the client group are people with
disabilities.
3. The rates of pay for the staff concerned is higher than
that paid to instructors in the Western Health Board,
whose claim for an increase in pay was recently rejected
by the Labour Court.
4. Concession of this claim would have serious
cost-increasing implications for both the Clinic itself
and, ultimately for the Department, and therefore it is
outside the terms of Clause 6 of the pay agreement of
the programme for competitiveness and work (PCW).
5. The Clinic has co-operated with both unions since 1994
with regard to the processing of this claim. However,
the Clinic has no alternative but to accept that the
Department does not regard it as a valid claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties does
not recommend concession of the claim as it related to F.A.S.
Instructors.
The Court further does not recommend concession of a job
evaluation in isolation as would be the situation in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. ______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.