FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AOIBHNEAS LIMITED - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as crisis counsellors by Aoibhneas, a women's refuge located in Coolock and funded by the Eastern Health Board (EHB). Prior to 1996, the refuge was based in Ballymun. At the time of the transfer to Coolock, the pay and conditions of the staff were in dispute between the Management Committee and the Union. Following conciliation, the Labour Court investigated the dispute and in February, 1997 issued LCR15467.
As part of the Labour Court recommendation, agreement was reached on the basis of a 39-hour week to run a full operation and that a job evaluation by a mutually agreed assessor could commence after three months trial. The job evaluation took place and the assessor's report was submitted in April, 1998. The report recommended that a single salary scale should apply to all nine crisis counsellors and that the EHB's Assistant House Parent pay scale (£15,130 to £19,707) by ten increments should apply.
The EHB had difficulties regarding the recommended pay scales and refused to countenance the assessor's recommendation pending receipt of detailed restructuring proposals. In September, 1998 discussions took place between the Management Committee and the EHB following which restructuring proposals put forward by the EHB were rejected by the Union.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 22nd of March, 1999. At conciliation the Management Committee made the following offer:-
- Three assistant manager positions on a scale from £15,434 to £16,221 (3 points) with an annual allowance of £652.
- Two dedicated counsellor positions on a scale from £15,074 to £19,068 (8 points).
- One children's worker on a scale from £14,723 to £18,458 (7 points).
- One outreach worker on a scale from £15,282 to £19,066 (5 points).
- The two "redcircled" employees to remain on their existing salaries.
- All future refuge workers/crisis counsellors to be employed on the EHB scale of £11,000 to £15,000.
- The EHB would review the operation of the refuge as part of a larger review.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job evaluation was carried out as part of LCR15467 and both sides participated in the process. The cost of implementing the scale is not excessive - approximately £17,000 in a full year (management's figures).
2. The staff participated in the evaluation process in good faith and only became aware in January, 1999 that there were problems with the implementation of the report. In the intervening period, the Union was under the impression that payment was imminent.
3. This claim has been processed through all the normal channels, and the only outstanding issue is the implementation of the report, on which the crisis counsellors believe they have an agreement with the Board of Management. The Union is seeking the immediate honouring of the agreement. The crisis counsellors have shown extreme patience and it is unfair for management, at this late stage, to refuse to implement the terms of the report.
AOIBHNEAS'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management's position, which has not been agreed with the EHB, is that it wishes to pursue the restructuring process and redefine the services to be offered by Aoibhneas to the client group. It is of the view that the current structure is not giving value for money and that with a small amount of additional resources could offer both a crisis accommodation service and a development service offering women pre and post refuge services and educational and outreach services. This is the kind of service model which is proposed in the recent report on Violence against Women sponsored by the Minister Mary Wallace, TD.
2. While the job evaluation recommendation has merit it is now not pertinent to where management believes the organisation needs to go. Aoibhneas needs further time, not under the threat of industrial action, to pursue these negotiations with the EHB and to come back with a concrete proposal for staff to consider. This current impasse is making it extremely difficult to function as a voluntary management group. It will undo all the good work and progress made on both sides to restore trust and it will mean that the goodwill of patrons and supporters could be in jeopardy. If agreement is not reached the EHB have put it on record that it will consider revoking the service agreement with Aoibhneas, which could put the whole operation under threat.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court arises from the recommendations in LCR15467, made to resolve a number of problems at that time.
Subsequent to this recommendation the Court recommended and the parties agreed to a job evaluation, which was carried out by Mr. Des Casey, the exercise being completed in April, 1998.
The employer has made it clear that it is totally reliant on the Eastern Health Board for 91% of its budget. It cannot implement Mr. Casey’s recommendations unless the Eastern Health Board agree the recommendation, and consequently increase the funding.
The Court is satisfied that the Eastern Health Board was aware of the previous Court hearing, LCR15467 and the proposed Casey evaluation.
It is also clear, given the detailed analysis in the Eastern Health Board's letter of February 8th, 1999 that the Board was involved, albeit in the background, in those proceedings.
Given the fact that the Eastern Health Board was aware of the proposed job evaluation and did not object, and that it knew the outcome from May, 1998, the Court is surprised that it did not clarify its refusal to accept the outcome until industrial action had taken place in early 1999. The Court finds the employer in this case has been placed in an impossible position.
It is the Court’s view that;
- the parties involved directly and indirectly in early 1997 were aware of the
proposed evaluation and did not object.
- an unreasonable amount of time lapsed between the report being finalised in April, 1998, before the employees were made aware it was not going to be accepted.
- the reorganisation proposals that emerged following the report are a separate issue and do not form part of the solution to the 1997 problems.
The Court having considered all the information before it recommends that the outcome of the job evaluation be honoured, ring fenced for these employees, and that the employees enter into discussions immediately with the employer on the reorganisation proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th May, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.