FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BANDON GRAMMAR SCHOOL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay of one worker
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned is employed as a matron at the school. She has held this position since 1993. At the time she applied for the position nursing experience was a requirement. The Union argue that the Worker has not been given a contract of employment or a job description. The Union is seeking an hourly rate of pay and an on call rate of pay in line with the Department of Health rates as the Worker fulfils the identical role as a nurse working in an Occupational Health Department. The School did not attend the Labour Court Hearing but did forward a letter outlining its position to the Court. The school is not a Department of Health institution and being a private body pays wages and sets terms and conditions in negotiation with its employees across various grades, operating relevant legislation.
On the 4th December, 2007 the Union 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 13th May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Worker was required to hold a nursing qualification to apply for the position. Her duties included health promotion, active management of clinical emergencies, management of medication and illness in the school population and 24 hour nursing cover for the school.
2 The Worker's conditions have fallen well behind the public sector yet she fulfils the identical role as a nurse working in an Occupational Health Department. The fact that she is resident and on call as a nurse is a more onerous burden.
3 The Union is seeking pay parity with the public sector on salary, on call and calls out with retrospection to the date of the claim. Pension access for the worker is also sought.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Worker is employed with the school since 1993. She was not engaged as nor was she ever paid the rate of a registered nurse. In 2007 management reviewed the terms and conditions of its team of school matrons with a view to enhancement. The worker chose not to participate fully in this review.
2 The job title "school matron" does not in any way reflect a requirement that the holder of this position needs a nursing qualification in order to hold the position.
3 Regarding the school's nearest equivalents, while some workers employed by these schools as matrons have training as nurses, they are not employed by the schools as nurses per se. Their role is to take care of First Aid emergencies, minor illnesses and administer prescribed medicines among the school population.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the hearing to investigate this dispute but did forward a submission to the Court. Following the hearing both the Union and the School made further submissions and provided additional information in the case.
The Court has evaluated all of the information with which it was provided and has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. Having done so the Court is not convinced that the Union's claim for parity of pay and conditions with nurses employed in the mainstream health service is justified on the basis of fair comparison with analogous employments.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th September, 2008______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.