FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS' AGENCY (HSEA) - AND - MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTIST'S ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. On-call payment link with Medical Scientist pay scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim arises from the HSEA's implementation of the Report of the Expert Group on Medical Laboratory Technicians/Technologist Grades (now known as Medical Scientists) with regard to payment for out-of-hours/on-call payments. The Union claims that the HSEA has broken with a long-established method of calculation of these payments which, in the short term, has deprived the Medical Scientists of expected pay increases.
The Medical Scientists provide an on-call service within the Pathology service. Previously, the employer calculated the on-call payment with reference to the 7th point on the basic grade scale, and this was accepted by the Union. In May 1997, the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) recommended the establishment of an Expert Group for the Medical Scientists as part of a set of proposals to settle this pay claim under the Programme for Competitivness and Work (PCW). The report issued in February, 2001. The Expert Group recommended an increase of 5.72% on the 7th point of the basic grade but, the Union claims, the HSEA did not extend this increase to the on-call payments.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The HSEA, contrary to established practice, refused to transfer the increase on the basic rate to the on-call payment. No reason was given for this decision.
2. Any change in the method of calculation should come about through the normal industrial relations practice of discussion, conciliation or a Labour Court recommendation, not by a unilateral decision.
3. The HSEA did not made any submission to the Expert Group asking for the changes it has since made.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is cost increasing and is precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress.
2. The claim, if conceded, would give to Medical Scientists an increase in on-call fees that has not been given to any other grade of staff who have concluded restructuring deals under the PCW.
3. The position of the Medical Scientists is identical to that of Radiographers. Both groups had an Expert Group report stemming from the LRC proposals in 1997. In LCR 17463, the Labour Court rejected an identical claim for an increase in on-call rates for Radiographers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union has argued that the HSEA has broken a long established method of calculating on-call and sessional rates.
It was further argued that the fact that the Expert Group made no reference to the recommended pay increases not transferring to allowances, as it had done in the case of Radiographers, was significant.
The Management's position was that this group had been treated in an identical fashion to how the Radiographers had been treated. The claim, if conceded, would give this group an increase in on-call and sessional fees that had not been given to any other group of staff who had concluded restructuring agreements under the PCW.
The Court is not in a position to know whether the Expert Group intended that the claimant's salary increase should not transfer to allowances, as indicated for the Radiographers.
However, conscious that a number of people sat on both Expert Groups, it is necessary to clarify this position.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties seek clarification from the Expert Group on whether the non reference to salary increases not transferring to allowances was omitted from the report for Medical Scientists by error, or signified a different approach for the claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd March, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.