FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : YOUGHAL FAMILY RESOURCE CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY EUGENE O' CONNOR, HOLLYHILL YOUTH PROJECT) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Cr�che Supervisor rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Centre is community based and run by a Board of Management and funded by the Southern Health Board. It is registered with the Childcare Section of the Health Board. It operates on the basis of two sessions per day and caters for forty two children per day from all backgrounds including children with physical and learning disabilities.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member employed by the Centre as a Cr�che Supervisor for the same rate of pay applicable to Cr�che Supervisors in comparable organisations retrospective to March, 2002, and the application of national pay agreements retrospective to the commencement of her employment. The worker concerned is currently receiving the Cr�che Assistant rate of pay.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of January, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of February, 2003.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is the only person working at the Centre with the required qualification.
2. The rate of pay for the Cr�che Supervisor at the Centre is not in line with that paid to Cr�che Supervisors in comparable organisations.
3. The worker concerned is extremely dedicated to her profession. Her knowledge, skills, expertise and qualifications are the same as those of Cr�che Supervisors in comparable organisations. Therefore, she should receive the appropriate rate of pay.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At present the staff at the Centre work less than thirty five hours per week and they receive seventy five days paid holidays plus the statutory public holidays per year.
2. The current pay structure is just and fair given the circumstances and the conditions enjoyed by the staff.
3. Funding for community based childcare is limited and at present it is not possible to obtain extra funding from the Health Board for 2003, and raising funds is not an option.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for the application of Cr�che Supervisors rates of pay as applied in the "Border Counties Childcare Network" instead of the Cr�che Assistants rates, which is currently paid to the claimant. An indication was given by the employer representative that the claim is not based on a "like for like" comparison. It is clear to the Court that there is a conflict between the parties on the role of the claimant within the organisation and on the comparator organisation used to justify her claim. The Court is cognisant of the fact that due to a refusal to attend a conciliation conference, this case has been referred under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the parties should engage in discussions under the auspices of an industrial relations officer under Section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. At these discussions the parties should explore the basis of the claim and examine the comparisons made.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th March, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.