LCR22264

3. 1. The Union claims that subsequent to the introduction of new pay bands in 2005 the workers were placed on the incorrect Pay Band.

2. The Union maintain that the HSE has taken some responsibility for the error by regrading them along with some retrospection..

3. The Workers believe they have suffered a significant loss due to them being paid inappropriately for 12 years plus..

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer claims that circular 017/2013 provided an opportunity for employees to apply to have their roles regularised.

2. The Employer also states that none of the respective workers applied for the HCA and MTA recruitment campaign in 2016.

3. The Employer maintains that it has made great efforts to recognise and correct the grading issue as well as applying retrospection beyond the date of the claim.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 10 Multi Task Attendants for retrospection of pay following an upgrade. The Claimants work in Breffni Care Centre, a care of older persons facility in Co Cavan. The Union claimed that when the Claimants were moved to a new banding structure in 2005, management wrongly placed them on Band 4 when they should have been placed on Band 3 as was appropriate to Care Assistants. This came to light in 2017 by the Union. Management responded by carrying out a check to confirm eligibility for re-grading to the role of Multi Task Attendant/Health Care Attendants.

In June 2017, Management confirmed that eight workers who worked full time in caring duties and who had completed FETAC Level 5 training would be graded as Health Care Assistants going forward. Their pay was adjusted from 1st June 2017. Management stated that those who had not yet completed their FETAC Level 5 training and proceed to do so would also be regraded to Band 3. The Union sought retrospection back to 2005.

At the WRC, both parties agreed on a proposal to resolve the issue, this proposed to pay retrospection back to 1^stJune 2016. This offer was rejected.

Management stated that staff had been redeployed from St Felim’s Hospital between 2001 and 2007 into Breffni Care Centre and were given a choice in the role they took in Breffni Care Centre. It stated that there was no evidence that this group of staff were rostered full time into care duties for the years prior to 2016. From the information available on the rosters back to August 2016, it was verified that eight of the group of ten were on rosters for duties in “care”. Two Attendants on Band 4 who were not working in “care” but who claimed to have done care duties on occasions in the past were seeking to be regraded to the role of Multi-Task Attendant. It was not possible to verify any occasion when they worked in “care”, so they were not regraded. Management stated that due to the significant costs accrued due to the Covid -19 pandemic and the budgetary constraints, the HSE is no longer in a position to extend retrospection to June 2016.

The Court has given careful consideration to the position of both parties. It appears that the decision to regrade eight of the Claimants was made following an examination of their rosters, however, such data was only available post 2016. The proposal put forward by the WRC on 19^thJuly 2019 proposed to regrade these Claimants back to June 2016. This offer has been rejected by both sides.

It appears to the Court that it was recognised by HSE that eight of the Claimants were carrying out care duties when the claim was made and accordingly regraded them with immediate effect, on a ‘red circle’ basis. Having considered the matter, the Court has been presented with a dilemma as there is no proof to determine whether or not the Claimants were carrying out care duties as alleged since 2005.

In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the WRC proposal dated 19^thJuly 2019 should be amended to substitute June 2016 for June 2014 and the word “regularisation” should be substituted for the word “retrospection”. In all other aspects the proposal should remain. The Court recommends that both parties should accept the amended proposal in full and final settlement of the claim before it.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Caroline Jenkinson
DC	______________________
6 October 2020	Deputy Chairman