Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86956 Case Number: LCR11014 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROYAL HOSPITAL DONNYBROOK - and - ITGWU;INO |
OBJECTION TO NEW ROSTERS FOR NURSING STAFF
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the roster changes are necessary to
make improved provisions for patients. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86956 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11014
CC861779 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11014
Parties: ROYAL HOSPITAL DONNYBROOK
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
and
IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of new rosters for new
nursing staff.
Background:
2. Management considered patient meal times at the Hospital were
too compressed (breakfast 8.30 a.m. lunch 11.30 a.m. and tea at
4.00 p.m. with no meal after that time) and in August, 1986,
introduced new meal times (8.30 a.m., 12.30 p.m., 5.15 p.m.). The
change required extra nursing cover between the hours of 5.00 and
6.00 p.m. Accordingly, management proposed the following changes
in the roster for nursing staff:-
Present New
8 a.m. - 8 p.m. 8 - 8
8 a.m. - 6 p.m. 8 - 6
8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 8 - 6 Extra hour
2 p.m. - 8 p.m. 3 - 8 One hour less
8 a.m. - 2 p.m. 8 - 2
The changes in the roster were rejected by the staff on the
grounds that:-
(a) The schedule in use had worked satisfactorily for the
staff and management and had due regard for the
important question of patient care.
(b) The changes were unnecessary and would impose extra
hardships on the staff.
Following rejection of the new roster management withdrew its
application to existing staff, but stated that all new employees
would be obliged to work the new roster. This is the situation
which obtains at present. The Unions' claim is that the Hospital
should revert to the old roster which has been tried and proven,
while the new roster discriminates against the incoming staff who
are not in a position to object to it.
No agreement could be reached at local level, and on 24th October,
1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 4th
December, 1986. No agreement was reached, and on 5th December,
1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 2nd February, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) There is an obligation on the Unions to protect the
interests of future employees. Because of government
cutbacks there is a large pool of unemployed nurses
seeking jobs, and the Management of the Hospital is
prepared to take advantage of this.
(ii) The introduction of this roster represents a worsening
of conditions for potential staff members who would
have to accept the terms offered or be refused
employment. The idea of two different rosters is not a
good one, and will only result in friction between
staff members which is not good for staff/management
relations.
(iii) Due to the high turn-over of staff in the Hospital the
staff on the old roster will quickly come under
pressure to change as they will be in the minority
after some months.
(iv) Because of the nature of the Hospital, staff give up
some of their free time to cater for the social needs
of the patients and for management to introduce these
changes takes advantage of the goodwill of the staff.
Hospital's arguments:
4. (a) Hospital Management cannot accept any criticism of its
method of handling this situation. A modification of
duty hours was brought about by changed patient needs
and patient requirements must be management's priority.
The Hospital could have altered existing nurses duty
hours. It did not. Management consulted with existing
staff, and happily found itself in a position to
accommodate preferences.
(b) The modification involved is not fundamental and was
necessary to ensure an adequate service between the
hours of 5.00 and 6.00 p.m.
(c) Management does not accept the Unions' assertion that
it is both unusual and undesirable to have two
different rosters for nursing staff. Nor is it unusual
to have different arrangements applying to existing
staff and new recruits, and indeed the Labour Court has
often recommended such an arrangement as a settlement
in dispute situations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the roster changes are necessary to
make improved provisions for patients. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
Deputy Chairman
23rd February, 1987
P.F./J.C.