SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
BON SECOURS MOUNT DESERT
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
APPROX 45 HEALTH CARE ASSISTANTS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
|Employer Member:||Mr Marie|
|Worker Member:||Mr Hall|
2.The Claim before the Court today relates to 52 staff employed as Healthcare Assistants who are on a particular pay band for the last 10 years.
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 Courton the 12 November 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9 December 2020.
The Bon Secours Group is very profitable and can afford to pay the increase involved in this claim.
The CEO has stated that in order to retain staff in the Bon Secours that the appropriate HSE rates of Pay will apply.
The link with the HSE rates of pay is well established throughout the group and the Union have made it quite clear in all our dealings with the company that the rates should be honoured.
The site is operating at a loss. Previously, this had been a Section 39 funded entity. This is no longer the case, and the funding ended with the passing of the last Section 39 resident in early 2019.
Fair deal funding does not cover the operating costs of a nursing home.
Efforts to reduce costs are underway with the aim of securing the sustainability of the Care Village.
The Nursing Home is consistent or ahead in respect of pay and benefits versus others in the sector and compares favourably to other private nursing homes.
The issue in dispute between the parties concern the Union claim that the Health care Assistants that they represent in this employment are linked to the wrong band on the HSE scales. They are currently linked to Band 4 and it is the Union’s claim that they should have been linked to Band 3 stretching back over ten years. They are also seeking to have the outcome of the HSE job evaluation of HCA’s applied to the grade.
It is the Union’s submission that the HCA’s in this employment are linked to the wrong pay rate. They point to the fact that HCA’s employed in the Bon Secours Hospital are paid a higher rate and are more on par with the HSE rate. The Union first lodged the claim with the Employer in February 2019 but are seeking that the claim be back dated ten years.
The Employer submitted that the workers are on the correct rate of pay. Initially the role was a mixture of duties involving the provision of personal care and non-personal care. However, the role has evolved to predominantly personal care services. The Employer submitted that the HCA’s employed in a hospital setting can be required to carry out a range of clinical duties which ae not carried out by the HCA’s in the nursing home setting. The Employer informed the Court that SIPTU at Bon Secours Group level had submitted a claim seeking to have the outcome of the HSE job evaluation process applied to all HCA’s in the Bon Secours Group. This claim included the staff in Mount Desert nursing home .
The Union confirmed to the Court that such a claim had been submitted and did indeed cover the Workers who were the subject of the claim before the Court.
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties believes it would be inappropriate for the Court to consider this matter while there is a claim at group level in being. The Court recommends that this issue be addressed as part of the group claim.
The Court so recommends.
|Signed on behalf of the Labour Court|
|29 December 2020||Deputy Chairman|
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary.