FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARUS GAOTH DOBHAIR (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Pay and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 13th April, 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th July, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Health Care Assistants have not had a pay increase since 2008.
2.They have no access to a sick pay scheme while Nurses, working in the same facility, have a sick pay scheme. Owing to the nature of the work the Health Care Assistants come into contact with patients who suffer from infectious diseases. It is unacceptable that they do not have access to a sick pay scheme.
3.They all speak the Irish language which is incredibly important to the patients in a Gaeltacht area.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The facility is privately-run and is a not-for-profit organisation. It does not have access to funds to finance the Union's claim.
2.The current terms and conditions of employment measure up well to both national and regional comparators.
3.The Employer has already explored the possibility of getting additional funding from the HSE and the NTPF in order to finance some level of improvement of pay and conditions for staff but it has not been successful in doing so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU on behalf of Health Care Assistants for a (i) 5% increase in basic pay; (ii) premium pay for unsocial hours i.e. Saturday/Sunday and night working; (iii) introduction of a sick pay scheme and (iv) introduction of a pension scheme. The Union stated that the Claimants had not received a pay increase since 2008.
Management stated that the nursing home which is privately-run on a not-for-profit basis does not have access to funds to finance the Union’s claim and an increase in labour costs would have serious financial implications for it.
Having examined the oral and written submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the rate of pay for the Claimants should be increased by 2% with effect from 1stJuly 2016 and by a further 2% with effect from 1stJuly 2017 for a period of twelve months. The Court does not recommend in favour of the remainder of the Union’s claims at this time.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th July, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.