FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHILDREN'S MEDICAL & RESEARCH FOUNDATION (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Foundation is a privately run charity organisation which fund-raises for research into paediatric illnesses. It has its premises in the grounds of Our Lady's Hospital, Crumlin. The Union's claim is for the implementation of Health Service rates of pay for the workers concerned.
The Union claims that up to 1997, payment to the workers was not structured. In 1997, a number of the workers joined the Union, and a new chief executive was appointed to the Foundation. The Union made its pay claim in late 1997 and various increases were made across the board. In 1998, the Foundation agreed to pay the remaining phases of Partnership 2000.
The Union is seeking a clear structured pay scale with progression, and that the following Health Service grades should apply to the 3 grades of staff involved:-
Clerical staff - clerical grades III and V should apply
Developments officer - grade VII should apply
Regional manager - management rates should apply
In March 1999, management made an offer to increase the salaries of the 3 grades (details supplied to the Court) based on figures obtained regarding small (profit making) companies in the Dublin area, and years of service of individuals. The offer was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Two conciliation conferences took place, on the 6th and 12th of July, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of August, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of November, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All aspects of the Foundation work and fund-raising are associated with the Hospital. Therefore, pay rates at the Foundation should also be on a par with Health Service rates.
2. The workers received no national agreement payment until Partnership 2000 in 1998. Had they done so, the increases applied by the Foundation in late 1997 would have been considerably greater.
3. The rates applied by the Foundation have left the majority of the staff with no progression. Most of the clerical staff are already on the top rate of pay.
4. The Foundation has been extremely successful in recent years and much of this is due to the hard work of the staff. They deserve to be fairly rewarded.
FOUNDATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Foundation is 100% financed by fund-raising and has no links with either the Department of Health or any other Government agency. It receives no government subvention or grant. Staff salaries are paid out of the fund-raising monies.
2. Shortly after the new chief executive was appointed in late 1997, all staff members were given pay increases of approximately 20% across the board. The Foundation also agreed to pay the reminder of Partnership 2000.
3. The claim is cost-increasing under Partnership 2000. If the full claim was conceded it would lead to cost increases of over 50%.
4. The voluntary sector is totally heterogeneous While some organisations are funded by the government and pay public sector rates, others do not. The Foundation's rates are competitive within the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, does not find merit in the Union claim for Health Board rates of pay in this case.
The Court recommends that a settlement be found within the parameters of the management proposal of March, 1999.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
25th November, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.