FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE - WEST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for regrading
BACKGROUND:
2. The Complainant commenced employment with the Western Health Board in 1995 at a basic grade level within the Psychology Department of Mayo Community Care Services. After a couple of years he accepted an offer of secondment to the Family Life Service in the role of Coordinator of Counselling and was remunerated on the Senior Psychologist's pay scale in recognition of the additional duties and responsibilities. The Health Board agreed to pay the Claimant at the higher level and recoup the extra cost from the Family Life Service, this practice continued until a review was commissioned in 2001 which concluded that this 'top-up' arrangement was not 'best practice' and it was discontinued. The HSE-West in 2005 invited external consultants to evaluate the post and they recommended that the role be upgraded to that of Senior Psychology grade, this despite numerous Union attempts has never been implemented.
On the 25th July, 2007 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd July, 2008 in Westport.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The post of the Complainant is functioning at the level of Senior Clinical Psychologist and all parties agreed this to be the case. The independent external consultants commissioned to evaluate the post in 2005 by the HSE-West also recommend that role be upgraded.
2.It is an unacceptable injustice to the Complainant as this matter should have been resolved several years ago, the post should be immediately upgraded and retrospection should be applied with effect from 1st April, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. To allow a Worker to avail of secondment to another organisation where the post is graded at a higher position or remuneration and for them then to return at that higher level, would undermine the recruitment and job evaluation system within the HSE.
2. If this were to be allowed to happen and the Worker did not return to his substantive post it could have national implications for the HSE. In any case this practice would be prohibited under Section 27(7) of T16 as it is clearly a cost increasing claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
There is no real dispute on the fact that the Claimant is preforming a role which should, more properly, be graded as Senior Psychologist. The real issue relates to who should be responsible for funding the upgrade.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded. The Court further recommends that retrospection apply to 1st January, 2005.
For the avoidance of doubt it should be understood that should the Claimant return to the HSE, he will revert to his substantive basic grade.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th August, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.