FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS AGENCY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION, MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTIST'S ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Expert group implementation problems.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May 1997 the Labour Relations Commission recommended the establishment of an Expert Group for Medical Laboratory Technicians/Technologists as part of a set of proposals to settle pay claims under the PCW. The report of the Expert Group issued in February 2001 and amongst its recommendations were the creation of the post of Specialist Medical Scientist. Whilst agreement on many of the issues requiring action was agreed between the parties, the two issues before the Court are amongst the matters that remain to be resolved.
The issues involved relate to a) the creation of the post of Specialist Medical Scientist and b) a claim for the payment of a charge allowance to former Technologist grade staff.
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 29th September 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd August 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Creation of post of Specialist Medical Scientist
3. 1. The grade of Specialist Medical Scientist be created, as set out in the Expert Group Report, and should be superior to the senior medical scientist grade in recognition of the specialist nature of the grade.
2. The grade should be remunerated in line with the differential between Senior Therapist Grades and Clinical Specialist (Therapy) Grade.
3. The grade be used to recognise specialised functions within medical laboratories.
Payment of charge allowance
4.The nature of hospital laboratory reporting / management structures requires that a designated medical scientist is 'in charge' of a Department. The Union is seeking an additional emolument in recognition of this role as the duties and responsibilities are above the normal contractual duties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
Creation of post of Specialist Medical Scientist
4. 1. The Expert Group made a recommendation in respect of the introduction of the post of Specialist Medical Scientist.
2. Management has proposed the application of a pensionable allowance to those accessing these posts.
3. Management are satisfied that its approach in respect of the Specialist Medical Scientist issue is fair and reasonable and in accordance with the spirit of the Expert Group Report.
Payment of charge allowance
4. The Expert Group recommended the elimination of the scales previously applying to the grades of Technologist and Senior Laboratory Technician and recommended the introduction of a Senior Medical Scientist grade, involving amalgamation of the two grades.
5. Management are opposed to the Union's claim in this regard as it is seeking to what amounts to a restoration of the arrangements previously existing via another route.
6. Such an arrangement would be contrary to the provision of the expert Group which have been accepted in full by both parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim 1 - Specialist Medical Scientist
The Court is, in effect, being asked to interpret an aspect of the report of the Expert Group on Medical Scientist grades. The net issue between the parties on this claim is whether it was intended that the proposed position of Specialist Medical Scientist be constituted as a post attracting a pensionable allowance or whether it should be established as a separate distinct grade.
Having regard to all the circumstances the Court considers that the establishment of the new position as a distinct grade would be more in keeping with what was intended by the Expert Group. It therefore recommends that the Union's claim be conceded and that the parties agree an appropriate salary level for the grade.
Claim 2 - Charge Allowance
No provision is made in the Expert Group Report for the payment of the charge allowance now being claimed. In these circumstances the Court does not consider it appropriate to recommend that the employers go beyond what was recommended by the Expert Group. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th August, 2005______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.