FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 5th Bar Point/Senior Medical Scientist
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court arises from a dispute between the Medical Laboratory Scientists’ Association (MLSA) and the Health Service Executive – Employers Agency (HSE-EA) regarding the removal of a salary bar point (5th point) for Senior Medical Scientists.
- A report of the Expert Group on Medical Laboratory Technician/Technologist Grades recommended the elimination of the scales currently (February 2001) applying to the grades of Technologists and Senior Technician and the introduction of a Senior Medical Scientists' scale equal to that applying to Senior Biochemists. The Expert Group further recommended that this scale be modified by the introduction of a bar point at the 5th point of the new scale to apply to Senior Medical Scientists who do not currently hold the obligatory minimum qualification required for Technologists. The MSLA were mandated at the 2006 AGM to seek the removal of the bar point as members feel it is unnecessary, unfair and without precedence in the paramedical and medical fields.
Having failed to reach agreement following engagement with the HSE – Employers Agency the MSLA referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 3rd January, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th April, 2007.
3.1 The Union contends that the bar point is unnecessary as it was introduced to encourage Senior Medical Scientists to seek additional qualifications. The majority of Senior Medical Scientists already have this higher qualification. From an independent membership survey there are less than forty (40) who do not have the higher qualification and so remain on the bar point.
2. The Union further contends that the bar point is unfair. The Union was unaware of any other grade in the allied health professionals group that had a bar point on their salary scale. Following the Expert Group Report, Senior Medical Scientists were assimilated onto the Senior Biochemists pay scale on the basis that the Expert Group "....could see no reason to retain the existing separate salary structures for Medical Scientists and Biochemists".Senior Biochemists have no bar point on their pay scale.
3. The bar point is doubly unfair in that the majority of Senior Medical Scientists at the bar point are females who have been at the bar point for a considerable amount of time. These Senior Medical Scientists will in a large number of cases be in charge of Departments and the delivery of a high quality service to the customer base depends on their long years of experience.
4. The Union argues that it is reasonable to suggest that such responsibility should at least be rewarded by allowing those Senior Medical Scientists to move beyond the bar point and be able to look forward to retiring at the top of the pay scale of their grade.
5. Senior Medical Scientists do the same job and have the same responsibilities whether they are on the top or bottom of the pay scale. Incremental advancement is on the basis of years of experience and the imposition of a bar point denies those Senior Medical Scientists, at the bar point, the advantage of their justifiable salary increase to reflect their greater experience.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management are of the view that the Expert Group recommended the introduction of the bar point to the 5th point of the Senior Medical Scientists' pay scale in order to ensure consistent high standards of professional qualifications for all Medical Scientists in the light of their recommendation to equalise payment at the higher rate.
2. The revised salary scale and bar point was introduced with effect from April 2000. At that juncture, Senior Medical Scientists who did not hold the minimum qualifications i.e possession of the Fellowship of the Academy of Medical Laboratory Scientists (FAMLS) were assimilated to the 5th point of the new scale irrespective of their previous incremental position. These arrangements were agreed with the MLSA on foot of the Expert Group recommendations.
3. Management contend that the issue primarily relates to those appointed to Senior Medical Scientist positions who do not hold the requisite qualification but have access to the Senior post by way of the moratorium arrangements. The recent extension to the moratorium from 7 to 9 years, now extended to October 2009, which gives all those appointed without the requisite qualifications ample opportunity to obtain the qualifications specified.
4.The Expert Group is a total package which has been accepted in full by both parties . It is not open to either side to seek to unpick recommendations already agreed by both parties in good faith.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties to this case and recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis.
Those associated with the claim should be provided with every reasonable accommodation to obtain the requisite qualification. Accordingly the Court believes that in the case of any of the Claimants who undertake the necessary course of study all fees and other costs involved should be met by the employer. They should also be accommodated with reasonable time off over the duration of the course to undertake study without loss of pay. This may involve adjusting the Claimants' workloads appropriately.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
_19th_April, 2007______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.