FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for parity with Senior Technicians employed in Public Analyst Laboratory
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Health Service Executive (HSE) West and SIPTU in relation to a claim for pay parity between Senior Laboratory Technicians employed in the Galway and Cork regions with the comparable grade employed in the Dublin region. The Union's position is that those employed in Galway and Cork are subject to only the first five points on the appropriate payscale whereas those based in Dublin are paid up to the ninth and final point on the payscale. Management's position is that the final four points on the payscale are based on qualifications at Masters level and having attained membership of the Fellows of the Academy of Medical Laboratory Scientists (FAMLS). It further contends that staff without the relevant qualifications should not have been permitted to move beyond the fifth point of the scale and any sanction for payment in the Dublin area was in error.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st January, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th April, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The claimants in this case cannot progress to the final points of the scale on the basis that attaining the required qualifications is not an option for them. The Union is seeking that the claimants progress on the payscale in line with the staff located in Dublin.
2 It is unacceptable that the claimants are limited in their earnings capacity despite their seniority and experience within their profession.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The staff cannot progress beyond the fifth point of the payscale as progression is based on attaining the required qualifications.
2 The progression that applied in Dublin was an error that had occurred prior to the existence of the Health Service Executive. Management cannot compound the error by applying it to this group.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Court notes that the comparator group in this case, the Medical Laboratory Scientists have, together with hospital management, undertaken a comprehensive review of the public health service medical laboratory needs and agreed an appropriate revised academic qualification structure that was accompanied by proportionate alterations to the pay scales of the staff affected. No such comparable review has taken place in the Public Analyst Laboratories. The absence of such a joint review hinders the Court’s capacity to deal with this claim in a sensible and meaningful way.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties undertake a comprehensive review of the service and determine what qualifications and career structure are necessary to meet the demands it will face into the future.
The Court further notes that the difference in pay between staff employed in the Dublin and Galway laboratories is neither justified nor sustainable.
However a claim for a simple adjustment in pay to eliminate the difference outside of a comprehensive review of the future structure and operation of the laboratories is not appropriate at this time. Such a claim would also be incompatible with the terms of the Public Service Agreement.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties re-engage to deal with the matter in a more holistic manner.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th May 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.