LCR16303

BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of workers employed as donor attendants and team leaders for:-

(1) Retrospection for team leaders.

(2) Regrading of team leaders from Grade 4 to Grade 5, and for donor attendants from Grade 3 to Grade 4.

Prior to July, 1996, donor attendants were Grade 2 and team leaders were Grade 3.

Local level discussions failed to resolve the issues and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 2nd and 17th of February, 1999. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of July, 1999, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of August, 1999. Both sides made written submissions which were expanded upon orally at the hearing. Following the hearing, both sides submitted further information to the Court in relation to the dispute.

Retrospection For Team Leaders
In July, 1996, under the terms of a Health Board restructuring agreement, Grades 2 and 3 were amalgamated. The Union lodged a claim for regrading on behalf of team leaders, which was conceded in July, 1998. The Union is seeking retrospection to 1996.

Regrading of Team Leaders from Grade 4 to Grade 5 and for Donor Attendants from Grade 3 to Grade 4
The Union is seeking the regrading of donor attendants to Grade 4 and team leaders to Grade 5. It argues that functions and duties have increased in responsibility over the years, and a move to a higher grade is justified.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect staff to take on the responsibilities associated with the team leaders post.

2. The principle of the Union's argument has been accepted and there is no valid reason why retrospection should not apply to July, 1996.

3. The duties and responsibilities of team leaders and donor attendants have changed dramatically over the years. Team leaders are responsible for training, supervision and management of a considerable proportion of Pelican House staff in the nursing department. They instruct donor attendants in accordance with current guidelines on all aspects of blood donation and are responsible for the care of the donor and clinic hygiene. They must possess the interpersonal skills to motivate staff to work as a team and facilitate the routine smooth running of the operation.

4. Donor attendants are "front line staff". Their duties involve a high degree of responsibility and dedication. They spend a large proportion of the time working away from home, travelling to mobile clinics throughout the country performing tasks that are vital to the general public's welfare. Excellent interpersonal skills are a requirement of their work as they play an important public relations role within the organisation.

5. Senior donor attendants are regularly required to supervise newly trained donor attendants and supervise donors in the absence of team leaders.

6. It is the Union's view that the workers concerned are wrongly graded and that no account has been taken of the job they perform or the changes that have evolved in work practices over the years. If necessary, a job evaluation should be carried out and the Union is confident that such an evaluation would justify the Union's claim.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. With reference to the claim for retrospection, as far as the Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) is concerned, when the Department sanctioned a special concession realignment of the team leader grade in July of 1998, this was done as a special concession in advance of the Department dealing with national anomalies. Had the terms of this Agreement been unacceptable to the AGEMOU, surely they would not have accepted it and sought full retrospection at this time. However, what they subsequently did was to accept the regrading and then submit a claim for full retrospection and regrading of the recently regraded post and the subsequent regrading of the donor attendant post to Grade 4. This position is unsustainable, unjustifiable and totally in breach of the spirit and terms of the agreement accorded in July of 1998.

2. The two regrading claims before the Court are of a cost increasing nature and are debarred under the terms of Partnership 2000. The BTSB has honoured in full all of the terms of Partnership 2000, and the claim is clearly unjustified on this basis and cannot be countenanced.

3. Concession of either the regrading claims would have far-reaching implications, not only for the BTSB in terms of potential knock-on claims but for the Department nationally.

4. Where posts are upgraded in the health services, the implementation date is more often than not the date of approval. With reference to the claim for retrospection in this case, the same logic, therefore, should clearly apply.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered the written and oral submissions in respect of the two claims before the Court, and recommends as follows:


Retrospection
The Court is of the view that there is no evidence to support the claim that implementation of changes in grading structures within the health service are from a date other than the date of agreement. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.

Regrading
The Court is not satisfied that a case has been made for the regrading of team leaders from Grade 4 to Grade 5, and the regrading of donor attendants from Grade 3 to Grade 4. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
12th October, 1999.______________________
FB/BCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.