FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEEN COUNSELLING / CROSSCARE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim to have Secretatial Grades (Diocesan) aligned to that of Grade IV in the Health Services.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between Teen Counselling-Mater Dei and IMPACT in relation to the applicable rate of pay for Secretarial Staff employed by the Service. The Union's position is that the staff in question are paid on a Diocesan pay scale which is not the correct scale. The Union is claiming that the Secreatarial Staff be aligned to Grade IV in the Health Service on the basis of the responsibility attached to the posts. The Employer Representative's position is that the posts do not bear the same levels of responsibility to that of Grade IV in the Health Service and the Service cannot sustain the cost increases associated with such a 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 16th December, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A job evaluation excercise was carried out on the positions of the Claimants and was found that the posts were comparable to Grade IV in the Health Service. The claim to have the staff in question aligned to the appropriate level is fair and reasonable in the cirumstances
2. The duties of the Claimants require direct involvement with potential crisis situations which requires additional skills not normally required by Secretarial Staff.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Secretarial Staff are paid in accordance with a Diocesan payscale which is alighned to Grade III in the Health Service. The level of responsibility of the posts does not equal that of Grade IV in the Health Service.
2. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under Sustaining Progress. If conceded, it will have repercussions for other Secretarial Staff employed by the service.
3. The Service has applied wage increases to its staff in line with National Wage Agreements and has also applied increases due under Benchmarking.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, noting that the Employer has complied with the terms of successive National Agreements and paid Benchmarking payments to the staff, finds that the claim as presented is contrary to the provisions of Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress and does not recommend that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
11th April 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.