FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - 20 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY FORSA) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Senior Counsellor Therapist Payscale. 1. When the National Counselling Service was established, it was agreed that the pay scales of the Psychology profession would be used as a reference point. This was further affirmed during negotiations on the Director of Counselling pay scale. 2. In November 2021, the Union was taken aback to discover that a pay scale for the Senior Counsellor Therapist grade was published without any consultation with the Union. 3. The proposed pay scale is not acceptable as it breaks a link that has existed for 20 years. The Union set out a proposed pay scale that illustrates the historical connection. 4. There is a failure to understand the complex nature of the work of the people concerned and the proposed pay scale provides minimum financial reward for current staff promoted to Senior Counsellor Therapist. 5. The Employer has refused to engage on what should be the appropriate pay scale. 6. Prior to the submission to the Court, no reference had ever been made by the Employer to any restrictions on this claim under the ‘Building Momentum’ agreement. There is no suggestion that the creation of these posts and associated funding are considered a cost increasing claim under that agreement. Summary of Employer arguments
2. There is no evidence to support the claimed pay linkage. 3. The claimed linkage is based on what is said to be 85% of salary for equivalent Psychology grades. The approved max. point of scale for the Senior Counsellor Therapist is 86% of the max. point of the Senior Clinical Psychologist salary scale. 4. The Employer is willing to adjust starting pay on promotion rules for existing Counsellor Therapists who are promoted to the new salary scale. 5. S. 5.6 of ‘Building Momentum’ prohibits cost increasing claims. This is a cost increasing claim. 6. The Employer is satisfied that the salary scale proposed is a significant one and that it is appropriate for the level and role. RECOMMENDATION: This claim arises because the Employer presented the Union with a new pay scale which had not been discussed between the parties. While the Court does not believe that it should devise or prescribe a scale to be put in place and must, therefore, decline to recommend acceptance of the Union’s claim, the Court is strongly of the view that engagement between the parties is required, with a view to reaching agreement. The Court does not seek to be prescriptive as to the outcome of any such engagement but, clearly, a maintenance of the suggested scale put forward by the Employer will not resolve this issue and a resolution will require compromise on both sides. In this regard, the Court believes that it is useful to note that it is satisfied, on the basis of the hearing, that there is no risk of follow-on claims, should adjustments to the scale proposed be agreed, and that the impact of any scale adjustments will be confined exclusively to the relatively small number of Senior Counsellor Therapist posts. In the event that direct discussions do not achieve a resolution to this issue within a period of 4 months from the date of this Recommendation, the parties should avail of the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Shane Lyons, Court Secretary. |