Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88808 Case Number: LCR12211 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - and - NATIONAL NURSING COUNCIL;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Rates of pay of approximately 28 student nurses.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the fact that it is accepted by both parties
that the circumstances applying to the student nurses here
concerned are exactly similar to those dealt with in LCR11458, the
Court does not have grounds for issuing a different recommendation
in this case. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the terms of
that Recommendation also apply in this case.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88808 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12211
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
and
NATIONAL NURSING COUNCIL
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rates of pay of approximately 28 student nurses.
BACKGROUND:
2. In its 1987 budget the Government required that savings of
#4.5m be made in the student nurse training bill. One of the
measures decided upon by Government was to pay student nurses #50
per week in their first year of training and #100 per week in
their second year in addition to free accommodation. Contractual
arrangements entered into prior to 31st March, 1987 were honoured
subject to such arrangements having been made in writing,
equivalent savings in staff being made elsewhere before the
student nurses were taken on and subject to the employing
authority's financial allocation not being exceeded as a result.
There were, however, a number of student nurses who were recruited
prior to the budget who were placed on the lower pay rate. The
Irish Nurses Organisation brought a case to the Labour Court on
behalf of student nurses in St. Vincent's and the Mater Hospitals
and the Court's recommendation (LCR11458) resulted in agreement to
pay the student nurses #122 per week (as opposed to the pre-budget
entitlement of #142.96) for what were now 2nd year students. This
settlement was extended to the student nurses in Beaumont who were
in a similar situation (These nurses had originally been employed
by St. Lawrence's and Jervis Street Hospitals). The Union, on
their behalf, sought payment of the correct rate of pay (i.e.
#142.96). However, the Hospital was not prepared to concede this
claim. As no agreement could be reached at local level the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
basis for a settlement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 19th October, 1988 and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held on 25th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The nurses concerned had been recruited prior to the
budget on the basis that they would be paid the full student
nurse rate. They were actually in the hospitals prior to 31st
March, 1987.
2. Nurses in a similar situation in Baggot Street Hospital
were put on the full student nurse rate when they transferred
to St. James' Hospital.
3. The Department of Health undertook to confirm the
exclusion of the "pre-budget" group from the #50 per week
directive to any employer who sought it and to issue a
circular to that effect. However, that promise was never
honoured. Similarly, the Union was given an undertaking that
Beaumont Hospital would put the nurses on the proper rate of
pay, a commitment which was later withdrawn.
4. The settlement which arose out of LCR11458 was applied
to the nurses here concerned without consultation or
agreement. This agreement applied to voluntary hospitals and
should not have been used to determine rates of pay outside of
these hospitals. It represents a reduction in the agreed
rates of almost #1200 per annum. The Unions in the Voluntary
Hospitals are not party to the Programme for National
Recovery. However, the ITGWU is a party to it. The Programme
states that there will be no reduction in pay rates without
recourse to the relevant negotiation machinery.
5. The Union does not see why it should accept a deal:-
- about which it was not consulted or involved
- which is in breach of its members' contract of
employment
- which is in breach of the Conciliation and
Arbitration Scheme in both the level of pay and the
manner in which it was implemented
- which is selective, discriminatory and unfair, and
- which has negligible implications for the public
finances.
6. Student nurses are a very vulnerable group of young
workers. In the main they are school leavers with little
experience of trade unionism and with little knowledge of
their employment rights. More significantly, they are
employed on temporary contracts. The inequity of selecting
any group of young workers and asking that they accept such
massive reductions in pay is unfair and exploitative. The
case for these workers is stronger still because not all of
the nurses in similar situations were treated in the same way.
7. The Court, in LCR11458, went on to recommend that the
loss to the nurses in 1987 should be made good in 1988. This
has not happened.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Labour Court dealt with a similar situation when it
issued LCR11458. This recommendation resulted in agreement
being reached between the parties for a lump sum payment of
#500 to each student nurse and a basic rate of #122 per week
in respect of their second year of training. The normal
second year basic rate is now #100 per week and this has been
agreed with all the nursing unions.
2. In the remainder of hospitals where a similar type
situation existed agreement was reached between the parties.
Some 240 student nurses out of the 260 affected have accepted
this agreement. Only the nurses here concerned have rejected
it, although they did accept the lump sum and salary increases
while reserving their right to refer the issue to the Labour
Court.
3. Concession of this claim would have considerable funding
implications for the Hospital.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the fact that it is accepted by both parties
that the circumstances applying to the student nurses here
concerned are exactly similar to those dealt with in LCR11458, the
Court does not have grounds for issuing a different recommendation
in this case. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the terms of
that Recommendation also apply in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
24th January, 1989 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman