FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY ATHLONE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2001, the Nursing Education Forum recommended the establishment of Nursing Allocation Officer posts within the educational institutions. The role of those officers is to plan and co-ordinate strategically the placement of nursing students in order to maximise their clinical learning.
- The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of its members employed as Nursing Allocation Officers within the Institutes of Technology in Athlone, Tralee, Galway/Mayo, Letterkenny, Dundalk and Waterford, for a review of their pay and terms and conditions of employment. The post is at a level equivalent to Grade 7 on the Clerical/Administrative scale and the Union contends that this is not the appropriate level.
The Institutes reject the Union's claim on the basis that the post is appropriately graded and it is not appropriate to submit the post for review.- 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 2nd March, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- 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 2nd March, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June, 2006.
3. 1. As a new grouping and post within the Higher Education Sector, the post was not part of the "Mazar, Chapman report". As a newly organised group of workers, the terms of Sustaining Progress relating to any potential cost increasing claim, does not apply in this instance. The current pay scale and terms were effectively imposed by management of the Institutes of Technology rather than being the subject of negotiation. The current pay scale is that of Clerical Grade Seven, which does not relate in anyway to the post of Nursing Allocation Officer.
2. The grade rate is €36,403 to €47,649 as of the 1st March, 2003, with eleven annual increments inclusive of two long service increments. By comparison, the salary scale in the University Sector for the same post of Nursing Allocation Officer has a grade/scale equivalent to the post of Assistant Director of Nursing. The scale is €26,985 to €68,193, depending on qualifications and experience. A similar post within the Health Sector, that of Allocations Liaison Officer has a pay scale equal to that of Clinical Nurse Manager 3.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The post is correctly positioned within the Institute of Technology sector. The post was positioned within the sector in the context of a review of administrative , library and management post carried out by Mazars Consulting in 1999. Had the post been created before that review it would have been positioned at a much lower level. The post is in line with the general duties attaching to a Grade 7 post.
2. There is no pay link between grades in the University sector and the Institutes and this position has been upheld in previous cases before the Court. New posts are created on an on-going basis in the sector and are not reviewed within a year of so of establishment. It is inconsistent with the Benchmarking Process. It is approximately two to three years in to the first cycle of nurse education and any review at this stage would not give an accurate reflection of the work involved. A number of cycles would have to have taken place in order to give an accurate view.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that a case exists for an independent review of the post at issue in this case. However the Court believes that such a review should be deferred until the second cycle of nurse education which, as the Court understands it, is due to commence in June/August 2007.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th June, 2006______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.