FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Upgrading – Family Development Nurses
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of twelve of its members currently employed as Family Development Nurses in relation to upgrading. The Union asserts that although these employees are remunerated on a Public Health Nurse scale, the role and function of this group is unique and does not exist elsewhere in the Organisation. The Union is seeking the creation of a grade to reflect the work carried out by the group and is seeking an appropriate pay scale in accordance with the Assistant Director of Nurses grade. The Employer disputes the Union's claim and contends that they are not in a financial position to concede to any cost-increasing claim. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. In 2007 both parties agreed to engage in an independent third party review of the grade. The review concluded with a recommendation of the creation of a new scale for the group, based on a combination of the Public Health Nurse and Assistant Director of Nurses pay scales. The Employer did not accept the findings of the review and did not implement the recommended pay scale. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25th May 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th November, 2010 and on the 29th April, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The group is currently based on a Public Health Nurse pay scale however the duties and responsibilities of this group of employees far exceed the role of the Public Health Nurse.
2. The Union is seeking the creation of a new grade and pay scale to reflect the work of this unique group of employees and maintains that there is no potential for knock-on pay claims given the individuality of the group of employees concerned.
3. The Employer agreed to an independent review of the group however has chosen not to recognise the findings of the report and is refusing to implement the recommended pay scales for the group.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that there are similar roles carried out within the Health Service that are paid at a lesser rate than this group of employees. The Employer maintains that the group of employees are appropriately renumerated for the role they carry out.
2. The Employer is bound by the terms of thePublic Service Agreement 2010-2014 and is not in a position to create a new nursing grade and pay scale.
3. As a result of the financial downturn the Employer is not in a financial position to concede to the Union's claim. The Employer further contends that concession of the claim could potentially lead to similar pay claims and so rejects the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union’s claim is meritorious in itself. However the Court is required to consider it having regard to the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
Paragraph 1.27 of that Agreement provides that no cost increasing claims by trade unions or employers for improvements in pay or conditions of employment will be made or processed during the currency of the Agreement. There is an exception to this prohibition in the case of minor claims.
Consequently two questions arise for consideration in this case, namely: -
1. Is the claim for an improvement in pay?
2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the claim properly classified as minor?
In respect to the first question the Union contends that the claim is for the establishment of an appropriate rate for the duties undertaken by the grade in question rather than for an improvement in an established rate. The Court cannot accept that submission. The grade in question has existed since 1988 and the current grading structure has been in place since that time. Consequently the Court must hold that the claim is in effect for an improvement in the pay of the claimants.
The notion of a minor claim is not formally defined but it has generally been understood as referring to a claim which is of little significance both in terms of its cost to the employer, including any consequential costs, and its value to the individual. In this case the cost to the employer may not be significant when measured against the overall payroll cost of the employer. However, if conceded, it would provide the claimants with an increase in pay of €5,400 pa or approximately 10% above their existing rate of pay. The Court cannot accept that a claim for an increase of this magnitude could be classified as minor in terms of its value or significance to the individuals affected.
At the request of the parties to the Agreement the Court has given a commitment to uphold its terms in its recommendations. Having concluded that the claim is precluded by the Agreement the Court cannot recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd May 2011______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.