INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Application of 8% differential and an additional 8% for staff working in specialised areas.
2. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of its members for payment of 8% differential to the ward attendant staff in Dublin Hospital's who were excluded from the initial deal awarded to the seven training hospitals in January 2000, and is also submitting a claim for an additional 8% differential for staff working in specialised areas.
As a consequence of the 1998 non-nursing analogue agreement, it was agreed that discussions would commence in relation to the formal regularisation of the grade of ward attendant within an agreed list of named hospitals. These discussion were concluded in 2000 and were accepted by S.I.P.T.U.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of January, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of April, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1)(a),(b), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd of July 2001.
3. 1. Staff are anxious to have this claim settled immediately as management have clearly violated the terms of the Ward Attendants Agreement.
2. Management have settled claims in number of hospitals outside the initial seven and some are actively negotiating the introduction of both the 8%
differential and an additional 8% for staff working in specialised areas.
3. Management have acted contrary to their agreements of working within the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and its structures.
4. Since the agreement was reached in 2000, Management settled Leopardstown Park Hospital on the eve of strike action by IMPACT.
4. 1. As a consequence of the 1998 Non-Nursing analogue agreement it was agreed that discussions would commence in relation to the formal regularisation of the grade of ward attendants within the agreed list of named hospitals, these discussions were concluded in early 2000 and were accepted by S.I.P.T.U.
2 Any attempt to settle this claim would be contrary to the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and would be viewed as cost increasing.
3. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness has within it a mechanism to deal with such claims i.e. benchmarking/profiling.
4. Concession of this claim would create knock on claims throughout the state.
The Court is conscious that there appears to be no consistency and no co-ordinated position in relation to how various Hospitals have dealt with this issue.
However, the agreement reached in early 2000 was specific in relation to the Hospital in which the 8% differential was to be applied.
The P.P.F. provides that any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay will be subsumed within the benchmarking exercise.
Given the above, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th, July, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.