FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARAS GHAOTH DOBHAIR (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay and conditions
BACKGROUND:
2. Aras Ghaoth Dobhair (the Company) is a 41-bed care-of-the-elderly community nursing unit established in 2004. It is 50% funded by the HSE and also by contributions from Udaras na Gaeltachta and local contributions. The Union is seeking an improvement in the pay and conditions for its members and cited Nazareth House in Sligo as a suitable comparator, stating that staff there enjoyed HSE terms and conditions of employment. The Company's case is that it is a private, not-for-profit enterprise and cannot be compared to the HSE.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th June, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th May, 2009, in Donegal, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since its inception beds and services have been funded solely by the HSE. The HSE indicated that the model for the Company is the same as Nazareth House. LCR16299, which concerns Nazareth House, is clearly an indicator that terms and conditions for its staff follow those of the HSE.
2. Members concerned carry out identical duties as support staff in similar facilities run by the HSE. The Union believes that staff from other HSE locations who provided cover at the Company retain their terms and conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is registered as a private nursing home with the HSE. It is dependent on beds being contracted on a named-patient basis by HSE and private patients. Any claim for parity of pay with the HSE is not reasonable as the claimants are not HSE employees.
2. The Company compares favourably to other private nursing homes in the region in terms of pay and conditions (the Company provided details to the Court). The claim is basically cost-increasing and is in breach of various National Pay Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU on behalf of non-nursing grades for the application of HSE pay and terms and conditions of employment payable to comparable grades within the public health sector.
To substantiate its claim, the Union stated that the nursing home caters exclusively for HSE patients, is funded by the HSE, has two HSE nominees on the Board and the Director of Nursing is seconded from the HSE. It submitted that it was intended from its inception to be a HSE-run facility.
Management on the other hand stated that the nursing home is privately-run, on a not-for-profit basis, set up by a voluntary care group, with a special focus on providing services for native Irish-speaking patients. It said that in terms of financial activities it is dependent upon beds being contracted on a named-patient basis by HSE and by private patients.
Having examined the oral and written submissions of the parties the Court does not recommend in favour of concession of the Union’s claim for the application of HSE rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment for non-nursing grades, however, it does recommend improvement to the following conditions of employment:
Premium Pay:
The Court recommends that the existing premium payment of 10% should be increased to 20% with immediate effect.
Sick Pay:
The Court recommends the introduction of a sick pay scheme providing four weeks' sick pay benefit per year less social welfare for those employees who have completed their probationary period. All sick leave to be covered by a medical certificate with no payment for the first three days of illness.
Pension Scheme:
The Court recommends that the employer should introduce a defined contribution pension scheme with a contribution of 4% of salary payable by the employer and a matching 4% payable by the employee for those wishing to be members of the scheme.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th June, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.