FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS' AGENCY (HSEA) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Labour Relations Commission held parallel talks with the HSEA, SIPTU and IMPACT on Saturday, the 19th January, 2002. However, no agreement was reached.
The Labour Court invited the parties to preliminary discussions on Sunday, 20th January, 2002 under Section 26 (5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Following these preliminary discussions SIPTU agreed to defer industrial action and agreed to attend a full hearing of the Court on Wednesday, 23rd January, 2002.
SIPTU is seeking the full application of the terms of Department of Health and Children circular 39/2001 which issued on the 11th April, 2001, to apply to Houseparents and Assistant Houseparents in the Intellectual Disability Sector and the maintenance of pay relativity for the Care Assistant grade with that of the Assistant Houseparent grade.
SIPTU claims that following discussions under the auspices of the National Implementation Board (N.I.B.) management acknowledged that there was an historical pay relationship between the grades of Care Assistants and Assistant Houseparent.
Management's position is that the "Child Care Workers" agreement did not apply to those working in the Intellectual Disability sector. It has indicated that Care Assistants while not one of the groups being directly examined, are covered by the benchmarking process since they will benefit from any increase recommended by the Benchmarking Body for the Assistant Houseparent in the intellectual disability sector.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the application of the Department of Health and Children Circular 39/2001 to Houseparents and Assistant Houseparents in the
Intellectual Disability Sector and the maintenance of the pay relativity for the Care Assistant grade with the Assistant Houseparent grade.
2. There has never been a separation or difference between the Child Care,
Sensory and Intellectual Disability Sections in terms of salary and qualifications.
3. The Labour Court and the Expert Group did not differentiate between the grades and sectors.
4. No valid reasons have been put forward by Management as to why the full terms of the Department of Health and Children circular have not been applied on an
equal basis.
5. Management has acknowledged the historical pay relationship between Houseparents and Assistant Houseparents in the Intellectual Disability Area
and those in the Child Care area and as between Care Assistants and Assistant Houseparents in the Intellectual Disability Area.
6. Following a job evaluation in 1993, a new rate of pay was agreed and this established a salary relationship with the Assistant Houseparent grade. The agreement was ratified under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The salary and restructuring package agreed with IMPACT is exclusive to those staff working in the Child Care sector. It does not apply to the
Intellectual Disability Sector.
2. All new entrants to the grade of Child Care worker must now possess a relevant third level qualification.
3. Management's position is that the Benchmarking Body should be allowed to conclude its business and issue its report on the grades concerned.
4. Concession of the claim to Care Assistants would lead to immediate pressure for pay adjustments from the nursing unions.
5. There is no legitimate reason which can be put forward that can justify and sustain the need or validity to extend such a substantial pay increase to Care
Assistants particularly given that this claim flows from the implementation of the professionalisation agenda for Child Care workers detailed in the Expert
Group Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background:
Labour Court Recommendation No.15515 included a proposal, subsequently implemented, to have an Expert Group established to examine in more detail a number of outstanding issues that had arisen during the Court’s investigation.
The Court recommended that the Expert Group should “examine and report on the changes that have taken place in the relevant professions and in this context to address the anomalies within the group.” It is also recommended that the terms of reference should include such items as problems relating to recruitment and retention, training and educational requirements, management structure and development within each profession and for delivery of service.
The Expert Group’s report was published in April 2000. In its report, in addition to making recommendations on payments and conditions, the Expert Group recommended that “Child Care workers be awarded formal professional status and as a consequence recruitment of non qualified personnel must eventually cease.” The Expert Group further recommended that a Joint Committee be established with terms of reference “to deal with issues arising from recognition of the autonomy of the Child Care workers' profession.”
The dispute before the Court to a large extent centres around the discussions that took place subsequent to the publishing of the Expert Report and the issuing of Health Care Circular Letter 39/2001.
It would appear that little if any discussions took place with SIPTU.
The Management case is that the Child Care workers agreement arose as a result of “severe and intense difficulties being experienced by this sector in late 2000 and early 2001. The Child Care Service was at crisis point with public confidence eroded.” Action was taken on an "exceptional interim basis in advance of the completion of the work of the Joint Committee in order to prevent a collapse of the Child Care services and accelerate its professionalism.” This resulted in a new interim staffing structure.
Management's position is that this new staffing structure does not apply in the Intellectual Disability sector.
Their position is that they negotiated an agreement with the Union that has the negotiating rights for the Houseparents, Assistant Houseparents and that this agreement was clearly only to apply to the Child Care Workers. They argue that the forum to pursue a claim for an extension of the deal is the benchmarking process.
In relation to maintaining the historic pay linkage between the Care Assistants and the Assistant Houseparents, they argue "that there is no legitimate reason which can be put forward that can justify and sustain the need or validity to extend such a substantial pay increase to Care Assistants, particularly given that this claim flows from the implementation of the professionalism agenda for Child Care workers detailed in the Expert Group Report."
It is clear that the issues in dispute arise as a result of the introduction of the restructuring of the Child Care Services, following the decision to professionalise the service.
However, it would appear that a similar examination with a view to the professionalisation of the Intellectual Disability Area was not undertaken.
The Expert Group in its report recommended that a Joint Committee be established whose terms of reference should be “to deal with issues arising from recognition of the autonomy of the Child Care workers' profession.”
The Court believes that the dispute falls into this category.
Recommendation
The Court, therefore, having considered all of the issues involved in this case, recommends that the Joint Committee be requested to examine the role of Intellectual Disability workers, in the same manner as it did the group it recommended for change, with a view to deciding if the same process of professionalisation is appropiate.
As the outcome of the Joint Committee's deliberations will have a major effect on the issues currently in dispute, the Court recommends that the Union await the outcome of this review. If the parties at that stage fail to reach an agreement they can refer back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
1st February, 2002______________________
LW/BR.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.