Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8770 Case Number: LCR11081 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HOLLES STREET HOSPITAL - and - ITGWU(NATIONAL NURSING COUNCIL |
Dispute concerning: (i) Recognition of the Union. (ii) Night and day duty rosters for trainee nurses. (iii) Arrangements for Public Holidays.
Recommendation:
5. The Court acknowledges that ideally a single organisation of
workers makes for better industrial relations but in the case
before it there can be no doubt that significant numbers of the
trainee midwives are members of the I.T.G.W.U., and therefore
recommends that the Hospital accord that Union recognition without
further delay.
On the specific issue of the trainees roster the Court is of the
opinion that even given the constraints which debar additional
expenditure it should be possible for the parties to agree between
themselves on at least some of the amendments sought by the
trainees. It seems clear that proper discussion of this matter
has until now been hindered by confusion on issues of
organisation and recognition.
The Court therefore, on the basis of the recommendation above
further recommends that negotiations take place, involving all
parties directly concerned to introduce a roster which to the
extent organisationally and financially possible meets the claims
of the trainees.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8770 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11081
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11081
Parties: HOLLES STREET HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning:
(i) Recognition of the Union.
(ii) Night and day duty rosters for trainee nurses.
(iii) Arrangements for Public Holidays.
Background:
2. The nurses concerned in this dispute have completed their
general training, and are now engaged on a two year post
registration course as midwives at Holles Street Hospital. Since
1985, the Irish Nurses Organisation (I.N.O.) has been engaged in
negotiations with the Hospital in order to arrive at a
satisfactory roster from the point of view of the trainees. In
1986 the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union was approached
by a group of the nurses' with a view to obtaining a
resolution of the problem. The I.T.G.W.U. claim that since then a
substantial number of the members of the claimant grade have
transferred to it. In November, 1986, the Hospital advised the
Union that the I.N.O. had stated that it was continuing to
represent the Nurses in the Hospital. It was stated inter alia
that: "the Hospital must continue to recognise the I.N.O. until
we (the Hospital) are advised that an agreement has been reached
between your Union and the Organisation that you have
representation rights." (Copy of correspondence supplied to the
Court).
Since the Uion are not at present recognised by the Hospital to
have negotiating rights in respect of the nurses concerned, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, for investigation and
recommendation. The Union representative and 15 of the student
midwives were present at the hearing held on the 5th of March,
1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Although a substantial number of the members of the
claimant grade have transferred to this Uion the F.U.E.
indicated that it would not negotiate with this Union
on the matter and that the I.N.O. which formerly
represented these nurses would have to approve their
representation by this Union. The I.N.O. is not an
affiliate of the I.C.T.U. and therefore there is no
such requirement for clearance of members before a
transfer is effected. In any event this is normally a
matter between the unions and hardly one into which the
employers should intrude. The union is quite prepared
to demonstrate to the Court that it holds in membership
a substantial number of the members involved and has
every right to proper facilities with the employer to
represent those members.
(ii) The existing roster for pupil midwives in Holles Street
Hospital is a deplorable one. Nurses do not have two
consecutive days off, nor do they have the opportunity
for a "natural weekend" free i.e. a Saturday followed
by a Sunday. In addition the current roster operates
in such a way that a nurse can finish a shift at 22.30
hours and be expected to be on duty at 7.30 the
following morning. They can work up to ten and half
months night duty in their two year training period and
may have to work for periods of up to nine months
without a break for holidays. The combined effects of
this on a person's overall level of performance,
capacity to learn and general morale do not require
much imagination.
(iii) The apparent indifference of the Hospital management to
the staff concerned is evidenced by their attitude to
efforts to have a more favourable roster introduced.
The Labour Court previously considered this case and
recommended that there should be further discussions
between the parties. At one of these meetings
management refused to consider a roster provided by the
staff which would have met their requirements without
the traditional difficulty of additional staff
appointments.
(iv) This emphasises the necessity for some urgent solution
to the problem. It is simply unfair to expect the
pupil midwife grade (which comprises virtually half the
Hospital's nursing complement) to continue to work such
a demanding and unreasonable roster (details supplied
to the Court). This does not appear to be found
necessary in other training hospitals.
(v) The roster favoured by the pupil midwife grade is
currently in operation in the Coombe Hospital. While
it does involve a number of long shifts, these are
unquestionably the lesser of two evils when considered
against the existing arrangements. They need not
involve any additional staff and therefore, there is no
reasonable basis for the Hospital's continued
intransigence in not agreeing to its implimentation.
In any event regardless of the situation in other
hospitals it is a downright unjust and potentially
dangerous schedule for nurses in any situation.
Management's arguments:
4. (a) The Union cannot deny that nursing staff in the
National Maternity Hospital have always been
represented by the I.N.O. The Union have tried to
argue that the I.N.O. is not a negotiating body as such
and therefore there should be no reason why management
cannot deal with the I.T.G.W.U. either individually or
with the I.N.O.
As far as the Hospital is concerned, the I.N.O. has
always dealt with any issue which has been the subject
of negotiation with the Hospital on behalf of their
members and is still operating on that basis.
Consequently, the Hospital believe they are not being
unreasonable in maintaining that they should continue
to deal with one union only and not extend negotiating
rights to yet another union.
(b) The Court will accept that should a new union wish to
take over membership from another negotiating
organisation, then there are certain ways in which this
can be done. It has been accepted, that where an
employer has a tradition of negotiating with one
particular union/organisation, then they should not be
obliged to take on a second union in the interest of
good industrial relations.
(c) If the I.T.G.W.U. represent staff in the Hospital, it
is not appropriate that it come forward and make itself
known to management during the course of a negotiation.
It is appropriate that it make its intentions known to
the other negotiating body and also can prove to the
Hospital management that in fact they do represent the
staff concerned. This it failed to do, even though it
realised that the Hospital management did have
negotiating rights with the I.N.O. Management does not
believe that it is acceptable that the I.T.G.W.U.
should come along and try and claim negotiating rights
and fail to produce any evidence that it represents the
staff concerned. This is further compounded by the
fact that the I.N.O. still in membership holds these
people, and therefore can still legitimately claim that
they represent them. The Hospital asks the Court to
recommend that Management's position of not recognising
the I.T.G.W.U. is not unreasonable in the
circumstances, and that should the I.T.G.W.U. wish to
have recognition then they should enter into
negotiations with the I.N.O. to secure a transfer of
membership.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court acknowledges that ideally a single organisation of
workers makes for better industrial relations but in the case
before it there can be no doubt that significant numbers of the
trainee midwives are members of the I.T.G.W.U., and therefore
recommends that the Hospital accord that Union recognition without
further delay.
On the specific issue of the trainees roster the Court is of the
opinion that even given the constraints which debar additional
expenditure it should be possible for the parties to agree between
themselves on at least some of the amendments sought by the
trainees. It seems clear that proper discussion of this matter
has until now been hindered by confusion on issues of
organisation and recognition.
The Court therefore, on the basis of the recommendation above
further recommends that negotiations take place, involving all
parties directly concerned to introduce a roster which to the
extent organisationally and financially possible meets the claims
of the trainees.
~ Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
6th April, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.