Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89350 Case Number: LCR12609 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that general nursing students in the North Western Health Board should have the nationally agreed rates applied to them.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that this scheme was established in very
unusual circumstances and is unlikely to be repeated again.
In all the circumstances and without prejudice to the stance taken
by each of the parties on matters of principle, the Court
recommends that the Board offer and the Union accept an ex gratia
payment of #1,500 to each of the workers who volunteered to
participate in the special training course.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89350 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12609
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(NATIONAL NURSING COUNCIL)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that general nursing students in the North
Western Health Board should have the nationally agreed rates
applied to them.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987 the allocation to the North Western Health Board was
reduced. The total amount received represented an overall
shortfall of #2.73m on the Board's requirements. At the same time
community treatment of the mentally ill resulted in the
psychiatric service being overstaffed. The Board identified a
number of options to deal with the overstaffing issue viz.
(a) Redeployment to community/geriatric hospitals for those
qualified as psychiatric nurses only.
(b) Redeployment to general hospitals for those with dual
qualifications.
(c) The provision of training in general nursing with
guaranteed employment (although not necessarily in
general nursing).
Negotiations took place at local level, arising out of which a
post graduate training scheme (in general nursing) became
available to a number of psychiatric nurses who were successful at
interview. The training scheme was on a sponsorship basis, and
provided for a payment of #50.00 per week, later raised to #70.00
per week following discussions with the local branch of the Union.
In mid 1987, all prospective applicants for the course were given
details of the scheme.
Following interview, twenty two staff took up training places on
2nd November, 1987. The Union's position now is that the North
Western Health Board was and is bound by National agreements on
the rates of pay for student and other nurses and that no local
arrangement can be allowed to undermine this. It claims that the
nurses concerned should have the correct rate of pay applied to
them, retrospective to the date of commencement of their training.
The North Western Health Board rejects the claim. It contends
that the terms of the training scheme were agreed with the Union
at local level. It further contends that the training scheme
would not have gone ahead if there had been any indication that
the #70 per week was unacceptable. Agreement could not be reached
at local level, and on 14th October, 1989 the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 22nd February, 1989, (the earliest date
convenient for the parties). No agreement was reached, and on
12th May, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Letterkenny on 13th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All conditions of employment affecting the pay and
conditions of general nurses are determined centrally. The
Health Act, 1970 actually prevents Health Boards from fixing
salaries etc without the sanction of the Minister for Health.
2. It is dishonest to suggest that the nurses in question
"volunteered" for the training positions. They accepted
places under protest in anticipation of negotiations about
their position, because the alternatives open to them were
worse i.e. unfavourable re-deployment. A unilateral reduction
in wages is not an acceptable means of maintaining employment.
There is no provision within the system of collective
bargaining on nurses pay, for "local discussions" on such
issues. To adopt the idea that individuals might "volunteer"
to work for reduced pay rates, and thereby neutralise trade
union rights to determine pay by negotiation is completely
unacceptable.
3. The Union wrote to the Department of Health on 13th
October, 1987 to complain about the fact that the Health Board
had unilaterally and in defiance of all procedures and
precedents imposed a reduction in the pay rates for student
nurses (details supplied to the Court). The Department's
reply gave no adequate justification for the Health Board's
action. On 16th October, the Union replied to the Department
of Health to this effect. The Union re-iterated its
contention that the Health Board had acted without Ministerial
sanction, and, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer was
'acting ultra vires.'
4. Section 14(5)(b) of the Health Act, 1970 says that when a
C.E.O. determines remuneration for his staff:
".....the Chief Executive Officer shall act in accordance
with the directions of the Minister and shall have regard
to any arrangements in operation for conciliation and
arbitration for persons affected by the determination."
The Board is clearly in breach of regulations in respect of
the second clause of this section. It would also appear that
sanction was not sought from the Minister of Health, and
therefore the North Western Health Board have not complied
with the above section (details supplied to the Court).
5. The Union believes that there is a responsibility on a
public employer to act properly and with integrity in relation
to agreements and pay rates. Trade union pressure should not
be necessary in order to achieve this. The Union is
dissatisfied with the actions of both the North Western Health
Board and the Department of Health in this respect. In 1987
first year Student Nurse Pay was reduced to #50 per week, and
later second year pay was also reduced. These actions were in
breach of the conciliation and arbitration scheme and
following protracted union objections, the management side,
through the local government staff negotiations board
confirmed that there would be no future changes "without the
normal conditions being adhered to."
6. Apart altogether from the breach of procedures evident in
this case, #70 per week is a deplorable wage for an already
qualified nurse. While in theory the nurses are students,
they are in fact making a substantial contribution to patient
care. Only 13 weeks of the training period is spent "in the
classroom." In the light of the foregone arguments, the Union
is asking the Court to recommend:
1. That the North Western Health Board was and is bound by
national agreements and pay rates for student and other
nurses;
2. That any proposals to alter student nurse pay should
have been processed through the appropriate procedures
at national level;
3. That the student nurses in question should now have the
correct rate of pay applied to them, retrospective to
the date of commencement of their training.
This should also apply to students at St. Columba's
Psychiatric Hospital in Sligo, who are in an identical
position.
NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of the training scheme in 1987 provided
the Board with an opportunity to make minimum savings of
approximately #240,000. These savings had to be made, and the
training scheme was one of the easier options for both sides
at the time. Concession of the Union's claim would have
serious financial repercussions as the Board has again
overspent in the current year.
2. The scheme was made available to staff entirely on a
voluntary basis. Those who expressed an interest at the time
were made fully aware of all details. In the contract given
to each individual, the level of remuneration for the duration
of the course was clearly indicated. Had there been any other
level of remuneration suggested, the Board would not have been
in a position to proceed with the training scheme.
3. The Board can see no basis on which the Union should be
entitled to pursue this claim. It is now twelve months after
the details of the training scheme were agreed both with the
Union at local level, and the individual staff members
concerned.
4. The course provided by the Health Board provided an ideal
opportunity for psychiatric staff to achieve dual
qualification without having to travel elsewhere in the
country or go abroad. The possession of dual qualification
entails definite career advantages for the nurses concerned.
5. The Board is not in a financial position to meet the
Union's claim, even if there were reasonable grounds for so
doing. Overspending in the current year is running at over
one millions pounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that this scheme was established in very
unusual circumstances and is unlikely to be repeated again.
In all the circumstances and without prejudice to the stance taken
by each of the parties on matters of principle, the Court
recommends that the Board offer and the Union accept an ex gratia
payment of #1,500 to each of the workers who volunteered to
participate in the special training course.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_____________________
20th October, 1989. Chairman
P.F./J.C.