FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS AGENCY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay movement of residential childcare workers paid as project workers
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union to have its members, who are employed as residential childcare workers and paid as project workers in four units in the Eastern Regional Health Authority area run by three separate agencies, paid on the same rate as social care workers in the Health Boards and Intellectual Disability Sector. In 2001 an agreement was concluded resulting in pay increases and the regrading of houseparent/assistant houseparent grade to social care worker/social care leader. Before the agreement project workers and assistant houseparents were on approximately the same pay. The claim relates only to project workers in the residential child care sector and seeks to address the anomaly whereby all other residential childcare workers in the country are paid on agreed national payscales.
Management 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 15th April, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd June, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has never argued that there is a historic linkage, the argument is that the members do exactly the same job as their social care professional colleagues and recent pay movements have unfairly disadvantaged them.
2. The full application of benchmarking will still leave the members at a serious pay disadvantage leaving them at 16% behind the minimum point to 8% behind the maximum. Those with relevant qualifications have also been denied the once off qualification based upgrade featured in the houseparent/assistant houseparent deal.
3. The three employing bodies report that there is serious recruitment and retention problems and identify the pay issue as being at the centre of these problems. The Union is asking the Court to recommend that the structures, qualification based upgrades and rates of pay contained in the houseparent/assistant houseparent agreement be applied and that the same date of application apply.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has never been any pay link between residential project workers and houseparent grades in the past.They were, by agreement, a B listed group under benchmarking with a link to social workers. They will be given all increases accruing to social workers under this agreement.
2. The claim has serious implications for the entire benchmarking process. The claim amounts to a group seeking to alter its position subsequent to the issuing of the benchmarking report when it discovered that they would fare better has they been linked to another grade.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is thus prohibited by the terms of Clause 19.6 of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
Whilst the claim before the Court may have some merit, it is cost increasing in nature and could not be properly classified as a minor claim.
The Court must have regard to Clause 19.6 of the Public Service Pay Agreement associated with Sustaining Progress and the finality of the Report of the Public Sector Benchmarking Body. Accordingly the Court cannot recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th July, 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.