FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - EMPLOYERS AGENCY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Family Therapists - Partnership Working Group on Psychological Therapies.
BACKGROUND:
2. Psychotherapy, and in particular the Family Therapy Service, has evolved in an ad hoc manner over the years to the extent that now the Family Therapy Service would require a separate promotional structure. In the past the service was provided by Psychotherapists whose pay scale could either be linked to that of a Clinical Psychologists or to that of a Senior Clinical Psychologist. The Labour Court in its Recommendations LCR17738 and LCR18326 pointed out that a decision must be taken as to whether the role of Family Therapists/Psychotherapists can be viewed as a stand-alone profession requiring its own pay and condition structure. The Health and Social Care Professionals Council was established to set up a regulatory system and is currently examining 12 other professions. When this is completed it can then address the issues posed by Family Therapists, but the ensuing delay has caused frustration within the profession.
The issues could not be resolved at local level and as agreement was not reached the dispute was jointly referred to the Labour Court on the 5th April, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th September, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Currently two hospitals employ Psychotherapists and pay them on a par with Clinical Psychologists while another proposes to pay them on a par with Senior Clinical Psychologist's level. A common rate of pay is imperative to avoid discrepancies.
2. As a recently recognised profession whatever rate is struck, it cannot be regarded as a cost-increasing claim under "Towards 2016" guidelines.
3.Further delay must be avoided as this could jeopardise the future development of the profession in this country.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Senior Social Worker pay scale is the most appropriate comparator for the role of Family Therapists' purposes.
2. An independent evaluation should be carried out and the recently formed Health and Social Care Professional Council should be called upon to establish a regulatory system and registration board for Family Therapists
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court arises from Labour Court Recommendation No: 17738, which dealt with a claim by the Union for formal recognition of the profession of Family Therapist and the introduction of a pay and grading structure for the staff concerned. In that Recommendation the Court noted that a review of psychotherapy services was underway and was due for completion within two months. It recommended that when the review was completed a working group comprising Union and Management representatives should be established for the purpose of carrying out a detailed study of Family Therapy services so as to establish whether it should be designated as a separate profession within the Health Service.
The Court recommended that this process should be commenced not later than the end of June, 2004. However, the review was not completed within the period of time envisaged and the working group has still not got off the ground. The Union, frustrated with the delays, referred the matter back to the Court. The HSE-EA, also acutely conscious of the delays, agreed to the referral. In the meantime, in order to address the lacuna, the HSE-EA reached an interim agreement on establishing a limited number of de-facto positions, under certain conditions.
Both parties put their positions to the Court seeking guidance on a mechanism to evaluate the position of Family Therapists for the future. The Union contended that Psychotherapy (including Family Therapy) is at least on a par with Clinical Psychology in terms of qualifications, knowledge, experience, complexity, accountability and the normal components of job sizing and, therefore, should be paid in line with that grade. Management on the other hand submitted that the most appropriate comparator for evaluation purposes is the post of Senior Social Worker.
The Court is not in a position to decide on the appropriate grade (if any currently exists) which may be the appropriate grade for Family Therapists. Therefore, the Court recommends that an independent expert should be appointed to carry out an evaluation exercise and make a recommendation. The Court should be provided with the outcome of that report by no later than the end of January, 2008, when it expects to be in a position to make a definitive recommendation on the issue, with the benefit of the report.
In the meantime, the Court recommends that the Partnership Working Group should be set up without any further delay and should complete its business expeditiously.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th October 2007______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.