FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK UNIVERSITY DENTAL SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the pay rate for the worker who is a Dental Nurse Tutor (DNT) in the Hospital. Her claim is for parity with a colleague, who is also a DNT, in Dublin Dental Hospital. She commenced employment as a Dental Nurse in September, 2001, and became a DNT following a competition in March, 2007. She was advised that her salary would be €34,129 per annum which is based on the Dental Nurse salary plus 15%. The worker asked to have her salary reviewed in February, 2008, when she realised that her colleague in Dublin was on a considerably higher wage. The Hospital's case is that the Dublin DNT's salary was as a result of human error and that the worker concerned is earning the correct wage.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th May, 2010, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is doing exactly the same duties as her colleague in Dublin but is earning considerably less. As of 1st January, 2010, the salary scale in Cork is €27,687 - €48,860 while the Dublin scale is €55,599 - €62,514.
2. The work of the DNT is highly responsible (details supplied to the Court) and is deserving of an adequate salary. The circumstances surrounding the worker's case are most unfair.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The salary of the DNT in Dublin is as a result of human error when she was incorrectly put on the higher salary scale of a General Nurse Tutor. Management agreed with SIPTU that the position in Dublin Dental Hospital would be red-circled.
2. It is unrealistic and inappropriate that the Union should seek a salary increase for its member due to an administrative error.
3. The claim is cost increasing and its concession could have knock-on effects both locally and nationally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following the hearing in this case the Court received further correspondence and information from the parties concerning the circumstances in which the pay of a similar post in Dublin was determined.
It is now clear to the Court that the established correct rate applicable to the post of Dental Nurse Tutor in Dublin is that of a Clinical Nurse Manager 1.
There is no logical or justifiable reason as to why the rate for the same post in Cork should be differently remunerated. Moreover, at all times the University maintained that it was paying the Claimant at the rate established in the Dublin Dental School (excluding those on a red-circled arrangement). It is now clear, however, that the University was mistaken in its understanding of what the established rate in Dublin actually was.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Claimant rate be brought into line with that of CNM1 with effect from the date on which her claim was formally served, namely 31st October, 2008.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th July, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.