FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application of agreement pay terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two Vocational Training Tutors paid as Assistant House Parents and a Training and Research Coordinator paid as a Houseparent. The Union is seeking the application of the payments of an April, 2001 Agreement to the claimants. The 2001 Agreement abolished the grades of Houseparent and Assistant House parent, revised the applicable salary scales and made provision for the once-off upgrading of qualified Assistant Houseparents. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. On the 23rd June, 2004 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 24th September, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no dispute that the claimants are entitled to benefit from the public sector pay agreements including Benchmarking.
2. For their marker grades of House Parent and Assistant Houseparent the version of Benchmarking applicable is the 2001 Agreement. Although the Public Service Benchmarking Body made no specific award for the grades, it is clear that the April, 2001 agreement was regarded by the PSBB as an appropriate award for their purposes.
3. Because Management has stated that the application of Benchmarking and the Sustaining Progress agreement are the only awards applicable, the full application of the April, 2001 Agreement is the only course of action consistent with the protection of the Benchmarking and SP Agreements.
4. A recent agreement on Benchmarking for Instructors, negotiated under the auspices of the LRC, in the Intellectual Disability Services has clearly established this principle in that increases now due to workers in this sector derive from the awards to the core grades.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants are not employed as care staff, they are employed as Vocational Tutors. The 2001 Agreement was red-circled to qualified care staff. The application of this award to vocational training staff is not provided for in the agreement.
2. The School has applied the terms of National Wage Agreements to the grade of Vocational Training Tutor. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the Sustaining Progress agreement.
3. Any increase awarded to this grade would have to be sanctioned by the Northern Area Health Board. The School cannot afford to pay any increases without funding.
4. Concession of this claim would lead to 'knock on claims' across the residential child care sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim to the Court on behalf of three vocational training tutors employed in the School, seeking application of the Houseparent /Assistant Houseparent pay terms as agreed in 2001. This agreement seeks to abolish the Houseparent /Assistant Houseparent grades and to merge grades into a more formal structure. The Tutors in this dispute have traditionally been aligned to the Houseparent /Assistant Houseparent grades and accordingly the Union maintains that the 2001 agreement should apply to the claimants.
The Court was made aware of a recent agreement reached in relation to Instructor Grades in the Intellectual Disability Sector, whereby Houseparent linked grades in the Brothers of Charity will be paid an increase of 27% in accordance with Benchmarking implementation dates.
Given the historical link to Houseparent / Assistant Houseparent grades, the Court recommends that the claimants in this case should similarly be paid an increase of 27% in accordance with Benchmarking implementation dates. This should be applied on a strictly redcircled basis to the three claimants involved in this claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th November, 2004______________________
TOD/BRCaroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.