LCR16786

SUBJECT:
1. Application of location allowances to non-nursing staff In the voluntary hospitals, health boards and nominated health agencies.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Union has submitted a pay claim on behalf of its members. It is seeking the same location allowances as that paid to nursing staff.

The Union claims that in November, 1999 agreement was reached with management for the payment of a location allowance of £1,102 to nursing staff with effect from the 1st October, 2000. It states that non-nursing staff who are located in the same departments should also receive a similar payment.

Management rejected the Union's claim. It states that the location allowance was unique to nurses. An agreement was concluded with the Unions in November, 2000 which stipulated that no further cost increasing claims would be entertained, other than those provided for in Clause 4 of Annex 11 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).





As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 1st January,
2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th January, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th April, 2001.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3 1. The Union is seeking payment of the location allowance for its members on the same basis as that paid to the nursing staff.

2. Non-nursing staff work along side their nursing colleagues and should be paid this allowance.

3. There is no justifiable reason why the location allowance should not be applied to the claimants.

4. Care staff have been employed to cope with the shortage of nurses, particularly in the specialist departments.


MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS

4. 1. Management does not accept that there is any requirement to pay this allowance to non-nursing staff.

2. The location allowance was unique to nurses and therefore should not have any consequential application.

3. The claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, precluded under the terms of the PPF.

4. Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects.


RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered all aspects of this claim the Court is of the view that this claim should be processed through the agreed procedures set up in November 2000. This agreement was concluded on behalf of the Department of Finance and the Union, to cater for the application of the provisions of the Benchmarking Process to non-nursing staff.

Paragraph 5(B) of that agreements states that:

"the profiling/fact-finding study which is already underway will, as already agreed, examine the existing roles, duties responsibilities, qualifications, training requirements, etc. of non-nursing personnel, and all aspects of their pay/reward structure and conditions of employment."





The Court is satisfied that this is the appropriate mechanism for processing the claim and thereby recommends that the Union should pursue its claim accordingly.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
24th April, 2001______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.