FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CRANNOG NUA HIGH SUPPORT UNIT (REPRESENTED BY HSE NORTHERN AREA) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment of a "High Support" Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between Crannog Nua High Suport Unit, (represented by the HSE-Northern Area) and IMPACT in relation to the payment of a "High Support Allowance" to support staff employed at the Unit. The Unit is a residential care facility providing specialist therapeutic high support for young people experiencing a broad range of emotional and behavioural difficulties. The Union is claiming payment of the allowance on the basis that it was offered by the HSE when support staff posts were advertised and on the basis that the dangerous nature and complexity of the positions warrants the payment of the allowance.
The HSE rejects the claim on the basis that the support staff do not have a dangerous role and that contact with users of the service is minimal. The allowance is paid to care staff who receive Dept of Education/Science pay rates but is not payable to support staff as Health Service pay rates apply to these workers. The HSE accepts that the allowance was advertiesd when support staff were being sought but that this was done in error and had not been intended.
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 theLabourCourt on 7th November 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 10th February 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The allowance was advertised as being applicable to the post. It is unacceptable that the HSE refuse to pay the allowance to support staff on the basis that it had been advertised in error.
2. The payment of the allowance is appropriate on the basis of the complexity of the post and the dangerous nature of working in the Unit.
3. The claim as presented will have no repercussive effects for other grades throughout the Health Service.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The support staff have minimal contact with residents of the facility. The support staff's duties do not warrant payment of the allowance as they are neither dangerous nor complex. The allowance was advertised as being applicable to the post but this had been done in error.
2. In an effort to resolve the dispute the HSE offered the allowance to existing support staff on a red circled basis but this was refused by the Union.
3. Concession of the claim will have repercussions for both Clerical/Admisitrative staff and other support staff throughout the Health Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought the payment of a High Support Allowance to a number of grades – campus assistants, domestics, clerical administration and chefs, working in Crannog Nua High Support Unit. It held that the allowance was paid in Ballydowd Residential Unit, which was an identical unit in design and operation.
Before the Unit opened, an advertisement placed to recruit staff stated that the High Support Allowance would be paid to these grades. HSE explained to the Court that this was an error; management never intended to apply a percentage allowance to support staff at the Unit.
HSE stated that the allowance is generally paid in institutions where the Department of Education pay rates apply, and in Crannog Nua these rates only apply to Child care staff, whereas the support staff are all paid health service rates.
HSE explained that the allowance is paid to staff working in institutions with secure settings for children sent by the Courts in relation to criminal offences. Crannog Nua High Support Unit can be distinguished from these Units (including Ballydowd) on the basis that it is a residential open centre for offending children and the level of interaction is not as dangerous.
To resolve the difficulties, HSE offered to pay the allowance, on a strictly personal to holder basis, to those recruited from the above mentioned advertised positions. The Union rejected the offer as it was confined to certain staff and claimed that the allowance should apply by right to the claimant grades as they are interacting with clients who are experiencing complex emotional and behavioural difficulties.
The Court sought information on the position in other High Support Units across the country. This information states that the allowance is only paid where Department of Education pay scales apply in similar type establishments. The Union dispute the information stating that none of the units referred to have an operational regime similar to Crannog Nua or to Ballydowd.
The Court is of the view that due to the established link to Department of Education pay scales, it is not in a position to recommend concession of the Union’s claim. However, the Court has formed the view that the established link seems somewhat arbitrary to decide on the application of an allowance based on contact with disturbed adolescent children/high support units. In this regard, the Court recommends that the appropriate forum for consideration of the Union’s claim is at the parallel benchmarking forum. The Court recommends accordingly.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that the HSE’s offer to pay the allowance on a red-circled basis should be accepted and paid retrospectively to their respective commencement dates of employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th April 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.