Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88723 Case Number: LCR12205 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION |
Claim by the Union for the rate of pay for postgraduate training to be applied to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court fully understands the Unions concern in this case as
the system of sponsorship for post basic nurse training could, if
it was to become widespread, undermine national level rates
applicable in such circumstances. On the other hand the Court is
also satisfied that had the Board to pay these higher rates, the
opportunities for psychiatric nurses to take advantage of the
training available on a supernumerary basis could not have been
provided. This would in the view of the Court be regrettable
insofar as it would eliminate the possibility of professional
development available to those nurses who volunteered to take the
places on the terms offered.
In the circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the parties
who in the first instance negotiate the national rates should meet
and attempt to reach agreement on terms to cover the situation
where such supernumerary positions become available, which would
not prejudice the general agreement on post basic training, (if
necessary for a specific time,) during the present period of
financial stingency.
Pending such discussions the Court will not make a specific
recommendation on the case before it.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88723 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12205
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the rate of pay for postgraduate
training to be applied to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is in respect of a psychiatric nurse who was a
successful applicant to a post-graduate general nursing course and
concerns the rate of pay applicable for the duration of the course
(18 months). On 12th May, 1988, St. Josephs Psychiatric Hospital
Limerick invited applications from registered psychiatric nurses,
then employed at the Hospital, for entry to the Board's General
Nurse Training School in the Regional Hospital, Dooradoyle,
leading to a qualification in general nursing. The notice stated
that the course would be run on a sponsorship basis, with a
financial payment of #75 per week. The Union on behalf of its
member, claimed that she should be paid the agreed national pay
rate for psychiatric nurses undergoing post-graduate basic nurse
training under the auspices of the Mid-Western Health Board
(M.W.H.B.) which is #180.32 for the first six months and #185.89
for the final 12 months. Agreement could not be reached at local
level, and on 27th June, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 16th August, 1988. No agreement was
reached, and on 21st September, 1988, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Limerick on 8th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed payment of #75.00 per week is a totally
arbitrary one chosen by this Employer at total variance to any
national norm, and therefore presenting a fundamental
departure from the agreed salary rates of post basic nurse
training. In 1987 and 1988 the Department of Health issued
circulars in which the pay rates of students commencing basic
nurse training were altered (details supplied to the Court).
The terms of this circular and the manner in which they were
produced have been and still remain the subject of national
level discussions. However, what has been agreed in the
intervening time is that the changes in pay rates related only
to student nurses commencing after April, 1987 and that at no
time was the circular to bring about a change in the pay rates
pertaining to post basic nurse training.
2. Standardised pay rates have always existed in student
nurse training, and if the M.W.H.B. were allowed to depart
from these it would represent a major breach of norms and a
situation which was never envisaged under any circular issued
by the Department of Health. It would be inequitable for a
qualified psychiatric nurse employed by the M.W.H.B. to
receive less monies than similarly qualified colleagues
undertaking the same course under the other Health Boards.
Such a development would put into question the whole salary
structure of nursing in Ireland. It would allow any employer
to depart from agreed rates and pay lower ones if they saw
fit.
3. Traditional arrangements concerning the pay of qualified
psychiatric nurses under-taking general training have existed
for years, and in fact, differ from the pay due to other
qualified nurses i.e., paediatrics, partly in order to
encourage psychiatric nurses to commence the registered
general nurse course. Labour Court Recommendations 11458 and
11748 both upheld the principal that pay rates for the
students concerned were not covered under the Department of
Health circulars.
4. Other Health Boards which concur with the Union's view of
the situation, that is, that agreed formula are applied to
nurses undertaking this course (details supplied to Court)
have not seen fit to seek departure from these rates. The
Union questions why the M.W.H.B. should see fit to do so. If
this change in salary rates were allowed, it would result in a
gross loss of #8,504 over the training period for each nurse.
This is completely unacceptable.
5. The Union rejects entirely the Management contention that
the worker concerned is in a "supernumerary position." She is
rostered and employed in exactly the same manner as the other
nurses in the Hospital. The use of the word sponsorship
merely confuses the issue, which is simply one of the
Management having unilaterally changed the nationally agreed
rates. The Union would acknowledge that the M.W.H.B. is
experiencing very serious financial difficulties. Departures
from the rates cannot be allowed however as their introduction
would result in public servants in different employing
authorities receiving different rates of pay. The Union asks
the Court to uphold its position.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board is in a critical financial position. There is a
short-fall of #3.5m in 1988, plus accumulated over-runs of #4m
in 1986 and #1.2m in 1987. The Board also has a current bank
overdraft of #3.2m.
2. Arising from the Government embargo on recruitment in the
Public Sector the number of student nurses for entry to the
Board's General Nursing Training School at the Regional
Hospital, Dooradoyle, was limited by the direction of the
Minister for Health to 47 in 1987/88 and 55 in 1988/89. These
places have been allocated following public advertisement and
open competition for the three year training course. However,
because of the number of temporary staff currently employed in
the psychiatric service and in order to afford staff an
opportunity of acquiring additional qualifications with
enhanced career prospects, it was decided to make available a
number of post-graduate places for psychiatric nurses in the
Training School, as supernumeraries, on a sponsorship basis,
so that in the event of the places being accepted it would be
possible for the Board to employ replacements at minimum cost.
The claimant is in a supernumerary position in the Training
School.
3. Because of staffing reductions in the psychiatric
services, it would not have been possible to release staff for
general nurse training without the employment of substitutes,
thereby incurring additional expenditure. There was already a
surplus of general nurses in the service and new training
places were strictly limited.
4. The emphasis in resource allocation must be on service
delivery and in the case of the limited funds available for
nurse training, priority must be given to the development of
the therapeutic role of the psychiatric nurse in line with the
proposals set out in the document "Planning for the Future,"
rather than on post-graduate training in general nursing.
5. The conditions relating to this arrangement were stated
clearly in the notices displayed on 12th May, 1988 inviting
applications for the course. Each candidate who applied for
the course therefore was aware of the relevant conditions
(details supplied to the Court). The conditions were again
outlined in the 'Form of Acceptance' offered to successful
candidates prior to commencing training.
6. The sponsorship arrangement for training operated in the
Board in 1987. Two other psychiatric nurses are undergoing
training since December, 1987 under the same conditions.
7. The M.W.H.B. is not the only board operating a sponsorship
scheme for post-graduate training and it is the only means by
which the Board can continue post-graduate training. Any
change in the existing arrangements will inevitably mean a
discontinuation of post-graduate training in view of the
current critical financial situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court fully understands the Unions concern in this case as
the system of sponsorship for post basic nurse training could, if
it was to become widespread, undermine national level rates
applicable in such circumstances. On the other hand the Court is
also satisfied that had the Board to pay these higher rates, the
opportunities for psychiatric nurses to take advantage of the
training available on a supernumerary basis could not have been
provided. This would in the view of the Court be regrettable
insofar as it would eliminate the possibility of professional
development available to those nurses who volunteered to take the
places on the terms offered.
In the circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the parties
who in the first instance negotiate the national rates should meet
and attempt to reach agreement on terms to cover the situation
where such supernumerary positions become available, which would
not prejudice the general agreement on post basic training, (if
necessary for a specific time,) during the present period of
financial stingency.
Pending such discussions the Court will not make a specific
recommendation on the case before it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
9th January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.