Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8823 Case Number: LCR11748 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL HOLLES STREET - and - IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION |
Claim on behalf of 21 pupil mid-wives for retrospective pay.
Recommendation:
5. While the Court would not condone the introduction of new
terms and conditions of employment without negotiation and
agreement, in this case the nurses accepted the terms prior to
accepting the posts and they are now being paid the correct
negotiated rates. The Court accepts that if it had been known
that the full rates would be applied then the course would not
have been run at all.
In these circumstances and having regard to the financial position
of the hospital, the Court recommends that the nurses be paid
fifty per cent of their financial loss.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8823 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11748
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL HOLLES STREET
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 21 pupil mid-wives for retrospective pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the summer of 1986 the Hospital interviewed student nurses
for positions on the mid-wifery course to commence on the 13th
July, 1987. In October/November of 1986, twenty two nurses were
offered positions on the course. All accepted. Because of
budgetary cuts in early 1987, the Hospital considered cancelling
the course but it was eventually decided to go ahead with it but
with costs being strictly controlled. This cost control provided
for an allowance of #50 per month for the first six months of
training, free uniform dresses, free meal and accommodation
(live-in). The normal salaries (Department of Health scales)
would have been #8539 in year one and #8822 in year two. The
Union sought local level discussions to have these rates applied
but this was rejected by Management and on the 30th October, 1987,
the Union referred the dispute to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on the 22nd December,
Management confirmed that full salary would be paid from the 1st
January, 1988, but refused to pay any retrospection. As no
agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 7th January,
1988. A Court hearing took place on the 18th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rates of pay for pupil midwives are as agreed
through the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme and any
attempt to alter these should only be through the normal
negotiating machinery laid down in this Scheme.
2. The Department of Health has disapproved of the
hospital's action in this case and in the recently published
circular pertaining to student nurses pay, there is no
proposal to amend the pay of pupil midwives or other
post-basic students (details supplied to the Court).
3. 3. Pupil midwives form a very significant part of any
maternity hospital's work-force and their job involves a
considerable amount of responsibility. The nurses have been
involved in all aspects of the hospital's activity including
delivery, intensive care unit, post natal and out patients
department. No other group within the hospital has had such
an imposition forced upon them. Earlier proposals to alter
the pay of Non-Consultant House Doctors were subsequently
shelved by the hospital.
4. A consistent argument of the hospital at local talks and
at conciliation was that it did not have the resources to pay
these nurses and that it had no other alternative available.
This is not a factual situation. This is the sole example of
any single group of hospital staff being asked to bear such an
inordinate share of reductions in expenditure in the entire
series of cutbacks which have existed throughout 1987. In
addition, the Department of Health and the Unions agreed in
July on the introduction of a voluntary redundancy/early
retirement package to be applied in hospitals which had
financial difficulties. This did not take place in Holles
Street hospital.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Given the financial circumstances which the hospital
faced in early 1987, Management would have been fully
justified in cancelling the course. However, in order to give
these students the opportunity of completing the course and
receiving the appropriate qualification, it was decided that
the course itself would go ahead. In these circumstances, the
training allowance of #50.00 per month, together with free
accommodation (live-in) and free meals plus the provision of
free uniforms and shoes was fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
2. The above terms were made perfectly clear to all
individuals prior to the commencement of the course. In each
case the trainee involved confirmed in writing her acceptance
of the above terms and conditions for the first six months.
3. The health service has been hit very severely with
cut-backs over the last few years. The National Maternity
Hospital is no exception to this. A reduction in the 1987
allocation was more severe than expected and this was only
known to the hospital several months after the year had
commenced. Therefore the hospital had to achieve the
necessary reduction in costs over the remainder of the year
(equates to a reduction of over 10%).
4. 4. The Union in its submission at conciliation referred to
the Labour Court recommendation in the cases of the Mater and
St Vincent's Hospitals/INO - LCR No. 11458. In this
recommendation the Court suggested that the hospitals should
seek in their budget allocation for 1988 additional funds to
make good the loss which the nurses suffered in 1987. The
recommendation was based on the fact that the hospitals in
that case had "unilaterally reduced the salaries of students
nurses who had commenced training, thus breaching the terms of
the contract under which the nurses are employed". That is
not the case here as all of those nurses who commenced the
training course were fully aware and accepted the terms and
conditions prior to commencing the course.
5. It is important to note that once the six months initial
period elapsed, the situation was reviewed and with effect
from 1.1.1988 all the trainees commenced on Year 1 of the
official rate, i.e. #8,772.00. It has also been conceded by
the hospital that on 13 July 1988 (six months after commencing
on Year 1 rate), the trainees will move on to Point 2 which is
#9,061.00 per annum.
6. When account is taken of the financial position that the
hospital was in at the time the course commenced and the fact
that each individual was aware of and accepted the terms and
conditions applicable to the training programme prior to its
commencement, no compensation or retrospection is warranted in
this case. In addition, all the trainees are now on the full
rate approved by the Department of Health.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. While the Court would not condone the introduction of new
terms and conditions of employment without negotiation and
agreement, in this case the nurses accepted the terms prior to
accepting the posts and they are now being paid the correct
negotiated rates. The Court accepts that if it had been known
that the full rates would be applied then the course would not
have been run at all.
In these circumstances and having regard to the financial position
of the hospital, the Court recommends that the nurses be paid
fifty per cent of their financial loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1988 John M Horgan
D.H./U.S. Chairman