Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 6 May 2004
153 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children if his attention has been drawn to the anomaly between child care workers and registered nurses in the intellectual disability sector; the plans he has to overcome the anomaly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13021/04]
View answer154 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding benchmarking for child care workers and registered nurses in the intellectual disability sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13022/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 153 and 154 together.
The Labour Court recently considered a claim from the Alliance of Nursing Unions for a 10.55% pay increase for nurses working in the intellectual disability sector, to restore a 'differential' they asserted existed between nurses and social care professionals prior to the determination of the Public Sector Benchmarking Body. The Labour Court hearing took place on 25 March 2004.
While the Labour Court accepted that registered mental handicap nurses, RMHN, had traditionally been paid more than social care professionals, it stated that no formal pay 'differential' existed between the two grades. The court noted that an understanding had been reached at the Labour Relations Commission on 3 September 2003 between the employers and the Alliance of Nursing Unions, and that both parties had accepted that the report of the PSBB severed all pay links and established new absolute levels of pay for benchmarked grades. There was also an acceptance that any future benchmarking exercise, or whatever subsequent arrangements are put in place for determining public service pay, is the appropriate forum to examine the position of RMHNs vis-à-vis other social care professionals. The court also noted that this understanding was rejected by members of the Alliance of Nursing Unions leading to the referral of the matter to the court.
The court issued its recommendation on 1 April 2004. Having considered the written and oral submissions, the court was of the view that the claim could not be dealt with outside of the established agreements. Accordingly, the court recommended that the matter be dealt with in accordance with the understanding reached between the parties at the conciliation conference on 3 September 2003, and that it be given priority in this exercise.
