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 Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Up grading for Care Assistants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Midland Health Board (the Board) is currently engaged in a comprehensive programme of transferring people with intellectual difficulties from a hospital centre setting to a modern community based setting. The case before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of 80 members who are employed as care assistants in this area for upgrading to assistant houseparents when they are transferred to work in the community houses, similar to their counterparts in the state sponsored voluntary sector.
The Board reject the claim.
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 12th December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th April, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The members will have to take on the duties of Assistant Houseparent, without qualification, as in the voluntary sector. They will be performing duties which they previously would not have had to take in the Centres.
2. The claim is not a national claim but a claim for an existing practice and grade that is in place in the state sponsored voluntary sector, which the Board already funds. The practice and grade should be extended to our members in the Board performing the same duties.
3. Care assistants in the Board will have the same reporting structures as the voluntary sector in that instead of reporting to a Houseparent they will report to a nurse.
4. There is a grade of Social Care worker, without qualification, which is contrary to what the Health Board claims.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Care Assistants in the Board work in accordance with a nationally agreed job description. The issue cannot be dealt with at local level and any concession of this claim would have major national implications.
2. The grade of Assistant Houseparent no longer exists. It has been replaced by the grade of Social Care worker, which is a professional grade with third level qualification. Care assistants do not require any professional qualifications.
3. The intellectual disability service is nurse led with support from care assistants. Concession of the Union claim would result in care assistants receiving higher pay than the nurse in charge.
4. This is a cost increasing claim which is precluded by Clause 19.6 of Sustaining Progress
RECOMMENDATION:
It would appear from the job description (appendix 3) supplied by the Health Board that the claimants' role includes the duties that the Union are claiming to be over and above their role. Management claim that they have already been paid for the proposed changes.
However, the Court is concerned that this claim has much wider implications across the Care Assistants category nationally.
The Court, having considered all the issues involved in this case, recommends that this matter be raised as a National issue by the Union and the Employers to respond at that level.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th April, 2004______________________
JOC/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.