FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND - AND - CPSU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Head And Senior Attendants Pay Scales
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the appropriate pay scales for the Head and Senior Attendants at the National Museum of Ireland. An independent report conducted under instruction from the Civil Service Arbitration Board recommended, inter alia, that the Head Attendant be placed on the Higher Executive Officer (HEO) scale and the Senior Attendants be placed on the Executive Officer (EO) scale. The Department of Finance is of the view that a lower grading is more appropriate.
This 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 4th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th July, 2009, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This dispute has been ongoing for a number of years.
2. The Union accepted the recommendations of both the Civil Service Arbitraion Board and the subsequent independent report.
3.The National Museum of Ireland should accept the recommendations of the independent report that the Head Attendant be placed on the HEO scale and the Senior Attendants be placed on the EO scale.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The duties of the Head Attendant and the Senior Attendants are not analogous to the grade recommended by the independent report.
2. The duties of the Head Attendant are more analogous to those carried out by the Staff Officer and the duties of the Senior Attendants are more analogous to those of the Head Service Officer.
3.The concession of this claim would be prohibitive and could not be funded by the National Museum of Ireland.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that in response to the position put forward by the Department of Finance dated 6th August 2008, the Union made a counter-proposal, details of which are set out in its submission to the Court.
The Court considers that the position put forward by the Union is reasonable and should be accepted. The Court recommends that the pay of those associated with this claim should be adjusted in line with the proposal made by the Union and set out in the appendix to its submission. The Court further recommends that in the circumstances of this particular case the normal guidelines on assimilation apply in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th July, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.