Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89461 Case Number: LCR12604 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
(1) Provision of uniforms and protective clothing. (2) Suspension of personnel without consultation. (3) Accommodation charges.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is concerned at the apparent lack of consultation
between the parties which aggravated the Union attitude to the
three items in dispute. Having considered the submissions from
the parties the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) Provision of Uniforms and Protective Clothing
The Court is of the view that the Board should not have withdrawn
Uniforms for the year 1989. However, the Court notes the Board's
intention to restore the issue of uniforms in 1990 and recommends
that this be implemented in January. Thereafter any necessary
savings in uniforms should be made in consultation with the Union.
(2) Suspension of Personnel
The Court recommends that the parties commence negotiations
immediately with a view to drawing up an agreed procedure for
dealing with all disciplinary matters.
(3) Accommodation Charges
The increased accommodation charge implemented unilaterally by the
Board to be refunded for 1989 and the increase implemented from
1st January, 1990. In future the parties should review the
accommodation charges annually.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89461 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12604
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Provision of uniforms and protective clothing.
(2) Suspension of personnel without consultation.
(3) Accommodation charges.
BACKGROUND:
2. (1) Provision of uniform and protective clothing
1. In March, 1989, members of the Union were advised by the Health
Board that their issue of uniforms and protective clothing was
being withheld for financial reasons. The union objected to the
decision at a Management/Union meeting on 12th April, 1989 and as
the decision was not rescinded the dispute was the subject of a
Labour Court conciliation conference on 7th June, 1989. No
agreement was reached and the Union requested a full Court
hearing. The Board agreed.
(2) Suspension of personnel without consultation
2. This dispute arose following suspensions by the Board for what
the union claim are minor offences. The Union contend that
suspensions for minor offences should not take place without their
right to negotiate beforehand on their members behalf. The
dispute was also the subject of a Labour Court conciliation
conference on 7th June, 1989. As no agreement was reached the
Union requested a full Court hearing and the Board agreed.
(3) Accommodation Charges
3. In April, 1989 the Board increased its accommodation charges
from #4 to #8 per week. The union maintain that the increases
took place without consultation and negotiation. The dispute was
the subject of a Labour Court conciliation conference on 7th June,
1989 and as no agreement was reached the Union requested a full
Court hearing. The Board agreed.
4. The Court investigated the three disputes in Cork on 3rd
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) Provision of uniforms and protective clothing.
1. Health Board employment by its very nature necessitates
the wearing and use of uniforms and protective clothing.
Whether a worker is employed as an ambulance driver or a
domestic on a ward, the worker is in and around patients and
responsible for hygiene. Consequently, there is need for
protective clothing and uniforms. This also applies to
porters. laboratory attendants, theatre attendants, catering
assistants and cooks.
2. A contract of employment exists between each staff
member and the Southern Health Board and specifically includes
the supply of uniforms and protective clothing. The Board may
not unilaterally break or alter this contract.
3. Non nursing staff enjoy a national rate of pay, part of
which is the provision of uniforms and protective clothing.
The rates when established took emoluments into consideration.
Only the Southern Health Board have proposed this particular
cost saving measure which if successful would place members
out of line with their counterparts throughout the country.
The provision of uniforms and protective clothing form part of
the workers salary and accordingly the Board has no right to
adjust, amend, postpone or interfere with it.
4. In many cases workers are required to have at least two
uniforms in order to change e.g. ambulance men are required to
shower and change after handling certain categories of
infectious patients. It should also be noted that the wearing
of uniforms is compulsory. Staff may be sent off duty for not
adhering to this regulation.
(2) Suspension of personnel without consultation
5. The union contend that the Board by its actions are
denying its members representation at official level. This is
contrary to normal disciplinary procedures applicable in all
places of work.
6. The Union does not object to staff being suspended in
cases of gross misconduct involving a threat to either the
proper provision of service to the patients or to the public
e.g. physical assault on fellow employers or other persons,
deliberate damage to property etc. However, it is not
acceptable that staff be suspended without consultation for
alleged stealing of a sandwich, refusal to wash an ambulance
or other minor issues involving misconduct, without the
individual having the right of official representation.
(3) Accommodation
7. The Labour Court in 1984 when dealing with a similar
claim arising from increased meal charges recommended in
Recommendation No. 7789 that -
"a realistic mechanism be introduced for the periodic review
of meal charges".
It is accepted that an accommodation increase was justified
but the Board should have consulted with the Union and
negotiated the increase. The increase should have been in
line with wage increases since 1984, thus representing an
overall percentage increase of approximately twenty per cent,
whereas the Board's accommodation charges increase is one
hundred per cent.
8. The increase imposed in April 1989 represented the
entire gross amount of the increase payable under the
Programme for National Recovery. This in effect meant a nett
loss in take home pay to the workers concerned.
9. The fact that the Board has financial problems should
not have been the major factor in the Board's determining the
size of the increase. The number of people involved are no
more than twenty five or so out of the seven hundred non
nursing staff represented. It is hard to understand how this
increase would help to balance the Health Board's books. The
money over and above what was agreed i.e. #4.00 should be
returned to the workers, and the Board directed to enter
proper and meaningful talks on a new charge based on wage
agreements implemented since 1984.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
(1) Provision of uniform and protective clothing
4. 1. The Board has been generous in respect of arrangements
made for the supply of uniforms and protective clothing to
non-nursing staff. It would expect to be in a position in the
future to continue with these arrangements. For a number of
years, Government policy has been to reduce expenditure in the
Public Service to an acceptable level. As a result of this
the Southern Health Board has been operating in an expenditure
cut back situation and has had to take a number of measures in
order to reduce service and curtail expenditure to remain
within approved budget allocation. These measures included
hospital ward closures, reduction in services, laying off of
temporary staff, granting voluntary redundancies, non-filling
of permanent staff vacancies and reduction in staff earnings.
While it is accepted that many decisions were unpopular, the
Board's main objectives were to provide the best possible
service from very limited resources and to safeguard the jobs
of its permanent staff.
2. In 1989 the Board was faced with a shortfall of almost
four million pounds in its budget allocation and as many
economy measures had already been introduced, the financial
situation became critical. The Board's Management had to make
unprecedented decisions in relation to all areas of
expenditure in the knowledge that there was no further finance
available from the Government, overdraft accommodation had
been restricted and traders, many of whom depended on
contracts with the Board for survival, were being left without
payment for up to two months. It was against this background
that the Board decided in March, 1989 that the supply of
uniforms to all grades of staff would have to be deferred. It
was understood at the time that most staff members already had
uniforms and protective clothing and what was being looked for
was a breathing space to enable the Board to continue to
function in a positive manner. It is considered that this was
a reasonable decision and it is expected that the position can
be favourably reviewed in 1990.
(2) Suspension of personnel without consultation
3. Under the terms of the Health Act, 1970, the power to
suspend an employee of a Health Board is vested in the Chief
Executive Officer. In doing so the Chairman of the Board must
be consulted and notification giving the reasons for the
suspension, must be sent to the Minister for Health. This
statutory provision is something which is not taken lightly by
the Chief Executive Officer. Records show that any
suspensions which took place over a long period of years were
as a result of serious breaches of discipline. In such
circumstances the Board must reserve the right to suspend a
worker without prior consultation with the Union. When a
worker is suspended, he is advised of his rights and is
requested to give an explanation of his actions in writing so
that the matter can be further examined. This explanation can
be given personally on his own behalf or through his union and
invariably it involves full discussions with him and his Union
representatives.
4. The Board is not aware of any situation where prior
consultation with the union takes place before management make
a decision in relation to disciplinary action arising from
serious misconduct. This procedure would not be practical and
it is at variance to the statutory powers of the Chief
Executive Officer and to the other procedures outlined.
(3) Accommodation Charges
5. Arising from the Board's critical financial situation
and the economy measures which had to be taken and as part of
the on-going review of its financial position, the Board
carried out a survey of staff accommodation charges in other
Health Boards. It was conscious that charges in the Southern
Health Board area had not been increased since July, 1984 and
that those in operation were seriously out of line with other
Health Board charges and with accommodation charges generally.
Under the circumstances it was decided in March, 1989 to
implement the following charges:
Student Nurses and pupil Midwives # 6.00 per week
Qualified Nursing Staff #14.00 per week
Interns #15.00 per week
Senior Nursing Grades #16.00 per week
Senior House officer/Registrar #16.00 per week
Non-Nursing Staff # 8.00 per week
6. The rate of #8.00 per week which is in operation for
non-nursing staff compares favourably with other Health Boards
where charges of between #9.00 to #12.00 per week apply. This
is considered to be a reasonable rate by modern day standards.
(Details of accommodation charges in other Health Boards
supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is concerned at the apparent lack of consultation
between the parties which aggravated the Union attitude to the
three items in dispute. Having considered the submissions from
the parties the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) Provision of Uniforms and Protective Clothing
The Court is of the view that the Board should not have withdrawn
Uniforms for the year 1989. However, the Court notes the Board's
intention to restore the issue of uniforms in 1990 and recommends
that this be implemented in January. Thereafter any necessary
savings in uniforms should be made in consultation with the Union.
(2) Suspension of Personnel
The Court recommends that the parties commence negotiations
immediately with a view to drawing up an agreed procedure for
dealing with all disciplinary matters.
(3) Accommodation Charges
The increased accommodation charge implemented unilaterally by the
Board to be refunded for 1989 and the increase implemented from
1st January, 1990. In future the parties should review the
accommodation charges annually.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th October, 1989 --------------
A.McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman