FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROTHERS OF CHARITY, WATERFORD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Parity claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned (16) are employed by the Bothers of Charity as Care Assistants at Belmont, Waterford and are on a fixed rate of pay of approximately £12,000 per annum. The Union is seeking the same rate of pay as currently operates for Care Assistants employed by the Brothers of Charity at their centre in Galway, who have a salary scale with a maximum of £14,000. The salaries for all Care Assistants are funded by the Department of Health.
Management rejected the Union's claim on the basis that it was debarred under national pay agreements and because it was cost increasing. It also argued that a similar type of claim which was before the Court (LCR15880 and LCR15927 refers) recommended that the matter be dealt with at national level.
The Union claims that there is no justification for the Brothers of Charity paying different rates of pay for the same type of work. Furthermore, it argues, that this case is different from that presented in LCR15880 and LCR15927.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 24th of April, 1998 and the 14th of July, 1998, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of August, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Kilkenny on the 23rd of September.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned should be paid the same rate of pay as currently operates for other Care Assistants employed by the Brothers of Charity.
2. The rate of pay being sought by the Union on behalf of its members is currently being paid at four other centres which are managed by the Brothers of Charity.
3. There is no justification for paying Care Assistants at Belmont different rates of pay to their colleagues employed at other care centres.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The care centres operated by the Brothers of Charity are stand alone units. The terms and conditions of employment are different in each case.
2. The claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, barred under the terms of Partnership 2000.
3. Concession of the claim would have national implications.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court can not see any material difference between the issues arising in the present case and those arising in the centres which were the subject of LCR15880 and LCR15927.
The present claim should, therefore, be processed in the same manner as that recommended by the Court in LCR15927. As in that case, if the matter is not resolved nationally by the end of 1998, the Court will make a definitive recommendation in respect of this particular employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st October, 1998______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.