FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE JEWISH HOME OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR17149.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns the Union's claim for the application of the Department of Health and Children's Pay and Terms and Conditions of Employment to Nursing Staff at the Jewish Home of Ireland as they apply to their colleagues in the Public Sector.
The case was previously the subject of LCR 17149. In it, the Court recommended as follows:-
"The Court is satisfied that the rates of pay and other conditions applicable to nurses employed by the Health Boards provide an appropriate comparator in the case of those associated with the present claim".
The Court also recommended that the parties should meet to discuss ways in which the cost of the claim could be met. Failing agreement, the dispute could be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
In August, 2002, the Home made an offer (details supplied to the Court) which the Union rejected for the following reasons:
-It failed to recognise that the nurses have a dual qualification incremental scale.
-Payment of location allowance was not addressed
-Payment of unsocial hours premium was not addressed
-Retrospection of parity and commitment to conduct salary reviews were not addressed.
As a result, the Union's original claim still stands. The Home rejected the claim due to its financial position. The parties met again but agreement could not be reached and the case was referred back to the Labour Court. Hearings took place on the 12th of August, the 8th of September and the 29th of September, 2003. The main problem was for the parties to agree the cost of conceding the claim. The Home initially claimed it would cost approximately €188,000 whilst the Union stated that it could be as low as €10,000, although the Home did reduce its estimate over the course of the hearings.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Home's estimate of the cost of the claim is totally unrealistic. The largest element would be the location allowance and only 4 people receive this.
2. The Public Sector rates of pay are the appropriate ones for the workers concerned as they have the same qualifications as Public Sector nurses.
3. The Home is having problems recruiting staff because of the low rates being paid.
HOME'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Home has suffered considerable losses in the years 2000/2001 and concession of the claim would greatly affect its future viability. There has been a severe reduction in the amount of funds donated to the Home in recent years.
2. The claim is cost increasing under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
3. The Home does not receive direct funding from the Government. There is no logical reason why it should be linked to Public Sector rates of pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the financial information provided, the Court is satisfied that the Home is not currently in a position to absorb the costs involved in conceding the Union's claim.
It is noted, however, that the Home did make an offer to settle the claim on terms set out in a letter from IBEC dated 29th August 2002. Whilst this offer was rejected and subsequently withdrawn, the Court recommends that it should now be reinstated and accepted by the Union. In so far as night premium, Sunday premium and annual leave are concerned, the adjustments offered should apply from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. The other adjustments should apply from the dates originally proposed.
The Court further recommends that the parties should cooperate in identifying savings and improved efficiencies which might contribute to offsetting the additional costs involved in implementing this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th October, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.