FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TALLAGHT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS AGENCY) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay Claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a ward attendant employed at Tallaght Hospital. She is claiming payment of €2,750 as a result of undertaking a Core Caring Skills Training course. As a result of the Commission on Nursing recommendations a care attendants training course was constructed in conjunction with the National Council for Vocational Awards (NCVA). This programme was piloted in 14 sites nationally, including Tallaght Hospital during the period November, 2001 and April, 2002. Prior to the roll-out of the programme it was agreed between Management and the relevant Union that the "rewarding" of employees who successfully completed the course would be dealt with by way of independent arbitration.The Arbitrator's Report was issued in August, 2002 and decided that:-
"Each person who completed the accredited programme would receive €2,750. The above payment shall also be payable to those whose participation in the Pilot Programme was prevented by the Southern Health Board and who had already participated in a similar programme run by that Health Board. This payment to be made to those who participated in a similar programme in St Mary's Hospital, Dublin........... ."
The claimant contends that she is entitled to the payment of €2,750 in respect of completion of the Core Caring Skills Training course. Management rejected the claim on the basis that she is not covered by the Arbitration Report. On the 24th March, 2003 worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 7th May, 2003.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1998, all the ward attendants at Tallaght Hospital agreed to a change of job description in return for a pay increase of 8%. Completion of the Core Caring Skills Training course was mandatory. Care attendants understood that it was an NCVA course, which is universally recognised. However it was only recognised in Tallaght Hospital.
2. Care attendants in St Mary's Hospital, Dublin were paid for doing various courses including the Core Caring Skills Training course.
3. Ward attendants who completed the Pilot Training Course were paid on foot of the Arbitration award while those who completed the Core Caring Skills Training course did not receive payment. A case was not made in respect of ward attendants who completed this course, unlike those who did the Pilot Training Course which was the subject of the Arbitration award of €2,750.
4. A divide has been created between ward attendants who have completed different courses. The claimant feels that she was treated in an unfair manner.Those ward attendants who received the payment of €2,750 feel superior to those who were not paid, even though all undertake the same duties.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was clearly understood and agreed that the outcome of Arbitration would be binding and that no further claims would be made subsequently.
2. The Employer has paid the €2,750 to all care attendants at Tallaght Hospital covered by the Arbitration Report.
3. No payment can be made to any individual not covered by the Arbitration Report.
4. Concession of the claim would mean a significant immediate financial liability for Tallaght Hospital.
5. The Hospital is not in a position to finance such an award and additional funding will not be forthcoming from any source.
6. The extension of the payment to any individual outside the scope of the Arbitration Report will lead to repercussive claims from a very significant number of care attendants countrywide.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has been asked to give an interpretation of a report, which was completed in August, 2002 for SIPTU and HSEA by an independent adjudicator on the issue of the payment for those who participated in a Pilot Training Programme. The Court has considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute and is mindful of the fact that there are other similar cases in the system. The Court notes that the adjudicator's report is binding on the parties.
In the best interest of the parties, the Court is of the view that this issue should be taken up with the independent adjudicator, and recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd June, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.