FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Care assistant rate plus 25%
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim for a 25% pay increase on behalf of eleven staff employed by the Midland Health Board at its Resource Centre, a day-care centre for mentally handicapped adults.
In May, 1998 the Union negotiated the Group 1 non-nursing rate of pay plus 25% for these staff to compensate them for increased responsibilities and for the loss of premium payments. These workers were regraded as Level 1 Instructor.
In January, 2001, SIPTU secured a national agreement for an increase in basic pay for Care Assistants through an independent adjudicator which gave them more than the Group 1 rate of pay. This increase was not applied to the Level 1 Instructor grade employed in the Resource Centre. Management claims that these staff were no longer classified as Care Assistants.
The Union argues that the substantive grade for staff in the Resource Centre was that of Care Assistant and their rate of pay should always be that of Care Assistant plus 25%.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 29th May, 2001 and the 26th July, 2001 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st August, 2001 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17 January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants work independently and are not under the supervision of nursing staff. They report directly to the manager at the Resource Centre.
2. The workers' earnings are reduced by loss of access to premium payments, which is available to Care Assistants.
3. The claimants should be paid at their original substantive grade of Care Assistant plus 25% with retrospection.
4. They are responsible for devising ongoing Rehabilitation/Sheltered Workshop programs for those under their care.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers involved in this claim are included in the Union's submission to the Parallel Benchmarking Process. It would be inappropriate at this time to conclude a local deal or to pre-empt the outcome of the Benchmarking Process.
2. The duties and responsibilities of the post of Level 1 Instructor is broadly similar and no more onerous than that of Care Assistant.
3. Management has given SIPTU the option of either retaining its existing pay relationship i.e. Group 1 plus 25% or alternatively to move to the Care Assistants' salary scale.
4. The Board believes that it has responded in a reasonable way to the Union's claim and urges the Court to endorse its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties is of the view that this claim should be considered by the independent adjudicator who obviously has a wider knowledge of the posts involved in this dispute.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties refer the issue to Mr Des Casey, for adjudication.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th February, 2002______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.