The INO says it has no faith in the terms of reference provided to the body charged with reviewing pay rates for its members, writes Martin Wall
The objections raised by the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) to participating in the public-service benchmarking process, as it is currently structured, is one of the main difficulties that will have to be overcome in any resolution of the current dispute.
The INO says it has no faith in the terms of reference provided to the current benchmarking body and argues that they are virtually the same as those set out for the previous process five years ago, which left members extremely disillusioned.
Benchmarking, in essence, sets pay rates on a periodic basis for the civil and public service by making comparisons with jobs in the private sector. Benchmarking ended the controversial system of cross-sectoral relativities between groups in the public sector.
This effectively meant that when one category of public sector workers received an award that changed the traditional pay link with another, the Government would have to deal almost immediately with a follow-on claim from the second group seeking to restore the previous relationship.
Under benchmarking, the various public service groups, such as civil servants, teachers and gardaí, make submissions to an independent body that assesses their case, compares it with pay scales in the private sector and sets out awards for each.
The first benchmarking body, chaired by High Court judge Mr Justice John Quirk, recommended average pay increases of 8.9 per cent.
The INO was extremely unhappy with the outcome of the process for its members in relation to pay and conditions.
The main body of nurses were awarded increases of eight per cent, just under the overall average.
However, other groups such as the therapeutic grades in the health sector - occupational therapists, physiotherapists, etc - did better and received about 12 per cent. The INO wanted to discover the basis on which the therapeutic grade staff received higher increases, but this was never provided due to the conditions of secrecy that surrounded the body.
In its submission to the first benchmarking body, the INO had also raised the issue of the 35-hour week for nurses. However, the benchmarking report was silent on this issue.
Shortly before the report in 2002, the Government had concluded a deal with social care workers that resulted in some staff being paid more than nurses, to whom they reported. This is the pay anomaly that the INO has highlighted consistently in recent times. It has maintained that as part of the mid-term review of the previous national agreement, Sustaining Progress, it received a commitment that the pay anomaly and the 35-hour week claim would be addressed as part of the next benchmarking process.
The INO sought to have written into the terms of reference of the second benchmarking body that it would produce an interim report on these issues within six months. But this was not accepted by the Government.
The INO also proposed amendments to the terms of reference to the effect that all recommendations from the benchmarking body would be "equality proofed" and would meet the principle of equal pay for equal work.
It believed this was very important for a profession that was more than 90 per cent female. The union also sought greater transparency in the process and an assurance that all material would be made available subject to the Official Secrets Act and confidentiality agreements with the private sector on information secured for pay comparisons.
The union has said it submitted 14 proposed amendments to the terms of reference on these three themes, but all were rejected. It consequently decided not to co-operate with the current benchmarking body, which is due to report in the summer.