FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. A claim for assimilation on to the Dental Hygiene Tutor pay-scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for assimilation on to the Dental Hygiene Tutor pay-scale.
- The Union said that the Worker is a registered Dental Hygienist and her responsibilities, duties, qualifications and role are not reflected in her current salary structure.
- The Employer said the Lansdowne Road Agreement reaffirmed that there would be no cost-increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions or employees during the period of the Agreement.
On the 9th June 2016, the Union on behalf of the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th November 2016.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This claim is not a cost-increasing claim, rather it is asking for the appropriate rate of pay for the job to be applied.
2. The difference between the UCC scale for Dental Nurse Tutors and the UCC scale for Dental Hygiene Tutors is €7,503 over an additional five points.
3. Dental Nurse Tutors and Dental Hygiene Tutors are all employed as educators/tutors within the School. Other teaching categories within UCC have the same pay-scales regardless of their area of expertise.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Given that Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 precludes a Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer from investigating a trade dispute that is connected with the rates of pay of a body of workers and on the basis that the rate of pay concerned is not confined to one individual, UCC objected to these referrals.
2. In Recommendation No. LCR 19856 the Labour Court found that “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 why the rate for the same post in Cork should be differently remunerated.”
3. Any concession of this claim has the potential to lead to knock-on or repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union referred claims to the Court, separately, in respect of two of its members under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (“the 1969 Act”). The Respondent had declined to attend hearings before an Adjudication Officer in respect of each of the claims.
Both of the Workers are currently employed in the Respondent’s Dental School and Hospital as Dental Nurse Tutors. Both are exceptionally well qualified and experienced in their chosen field. The claim advanced on their behalf by their Union (IFUT) is that they are essentially performing the same work as that performed by a Dental Hygiene Tutor. The latter grade is remunerated on a higher pay scale than that applied to Dental Nurse Tutors. The difference between the top points on the respective pay scales is currently €7,503.00.
At the outset of the hearing the Court queried why the claims had been referred to it as two separate claims and under section 20(1) of the 1969 Act. Ms Donegan of IFUT agreed with the Court’s observation that the matters before the Court in the within set of proceedings are in reality a collective issue whereby the Union is seeking to have the grade of Dental Nurse Tutor in the Respondent’s Dental School and Hospital assimilated to that of Dental Hygiene Tutor Salary. The Court is firmly of the view that a claim of this nature is more properly referred to the Court by agreement between the Parties once they have availed themselves of the Conciliation Service of the WRC.
The Court is also mindful of its earlier Recommendation in LCR 19856 which concerned a dispute between the Respondent and one of the Workers in the within proceedings. In that case, the Court made a recommendation in respect of the pay scale to be applied to Dental Nurse Tutors employed by the Respondent. The Respondent accepted and implemented that Recommendation. The Worker, likewise, accepted that Recommendation.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the claims before it in the within proceedings are not well-founded.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
29th November, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.