FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & CHILDREN & HEALTH AGENCIES (REPRESENTED BY HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS AGENCY) - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Elimination of the pay anomaly between Childcare Workers and Registered Nurses working in the Intellectual Disability sector.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Department of Health and Children and Health Agencies employ Registered Mental Health Nurses (RMHN), Assistant Houseparent/Childcare Workers and Care Assistants in the provision of services to intellectually disabled persons.
Following the report of the Benchmarking Body the Department and the Health Agencies implemented pay increases to the social care professional grades in the intellectually disabled sector in February, 2002.
The dispute before the Court concerns the pay differentials between the RMHN grade and the social care grades arising from the implementation of the pay increase.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of February, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the awarding of pay increases to the social care grades there was a pay differential of 9.25% between these grades and the RMHN, at the top of the scale.
2. Since the awarding of the Benchmarking increases, the differential has become a minus differential of 1.25%.
3. The previous pay differential which existed between the RMHN and social care grades for 44 years should be restored.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim before the Court is cost increasing and therefore precluded under Section 19.6 of Sustaining Progress.
2. The Public Service Benchmarking Body determined the pay position of nurses and social care professionals.
3. Concession of this claim would undermine the public service benchmarking process and lead to follow on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is forthe removal of the pay anomaly and the restoration of the pay differential between the Registered Mental Handicap Nurse and the Assistant Houseparent (with qualification/ Childcare Worker (with qualification) grade.An increase of 10.55% is sought (at the max of the scale) to restore the previous differential. The Unions are also seeking the application of a similar pay increase to all other line management nursing grades, working in the intellectual disability sector.
The Unions state that this anomaly arose due to the granting of pay increases to the Assistant Houseparent/Childcare Worker grade and that these increases have eroded "a long standing, well established and understood pay differential" which previously existed. They maintain that these increases contradict the standard approach to grading structures within the public sector. The Unions take the view that not withstanding the terms of the current national agreements, that this claim warrants special attention.
Having examined the oral and written submissions, the Court is satisfied that a formal pay "differential" did not exist between the two grades. However, the Court is satisfied that the RMHN grade had traditionally been paid more than the Assistant Houseparent/Childcare Worker grade and is now paid less than this grade. The Unions submit that the registered mentally handicapped nurses see this development as demoralising, insulting and belittling and as seriously undermining their position.
The Court notes the argument made by the HSEA relating to the report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body and the social partnership agreement Sustaining Progress, and appreciates their concern regarding the wider implications of this claim.
The Court notes that in the understanding reached between the parties at the conciliation conference on 3rd September 2003 both sides accepted that the report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body severed all pay links and established new absolute levels of pay of benchmarked grades. There was also an acceptance that any future benchmarking exercise (or whatever subsequent arrangements are put in place for determining public service pay) is the appropriate forum to examine the full position of the RMHN grade vis-�-vis other social care professionals. The Court also notes however, that this approach was rejected by the members of the three unions, and resulted in this claim, for the restoration of the pay differential, being referred to the Court.
Having given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions put forward by both sides, the Court is of the view that this claim cannot be dealt with outside of the established agreements and can see no other way in which this claim can be pursued other than in accordance with the terms of the understanding reached at the conciliation conference.
The Court does not believe that the matter in dispute can be dealt with outside of this process. However, the Court can appreciate that the individuals in this category feel very strongly that their position has been undermined by this development, whereby those who were paid less than them, are now paid more.
Accordingly, given the circumstances, the Court recommends that this matter be dealt with in accordance with the understanding reached between the parties at the conciliation conference on 3rd September 2003 and that it be given priority in this exercise.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st April, 2004______________________
MGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.