Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91530 Case Number: LCR13440 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by Union for the retention of two attendants on night duty.
Recommendation:
3. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has noted the protracted negotiations which took place prior to
the commencement of industrial action. The Court is concerned
that full use was not made of the agreed procedures by the Board
prior to implementation of their proposals which had the effect of
precipitating the issue of strike notice and subsequent withdrawal
of labour.
Taking all aspects of the dispute into account the Court is of the
view that the appropriate way of resolving the issue in dispute
is:
(a) The Union agree to resume working immediately.
(b) The Board agree that a joint assessment be carried out by
a nominee of the Board in conjunction with a nominee of
S.I.P.T.U.
(c) This assessment should commence as soon as possible and
in any case be completed by 30th November, 1991.
(d) That if the examination is inconclusive both sides refer
the case back to the Court for a decision to be accepted
by both sides
(e) The examination by the assessors should include a period
when 2 Attendants and Nurse are on duty as well as a
period when only 1 Attendant and Nurse are on duty.
(f) On the resumption of duty and during the assessor's
examination the attendants work under protest with
maintenance by the Board of night duty premium in respect
of the second attendant.
The Court recommends the above proposals to the parties as a
reasonable way of resolving the present dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91530 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13440
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by Union for the retention of two attendants on night
duty.
BACKGROUND:
2. Riada House, Tullamore opened in 1979 as a 40 bed residential
welfare home for ambulant patients. In 1991 a 10 bedded unit for
non-ambulant patients was built which was to open on 6th
September. On 21st May, 1991 the Union met the Health Board to
discuss another matter and was advised of new arrangements for the
operation of the new unit. Prior to the setting up of the unit
and for the past 12 years two attendants had been rostered for
night duty. The Health Board decided that as the new patients
required nursing care it was necessary to provide 24 hour nursing
staff. The Board suggested that one of the attendants normally
rostered for night duty be replaced by a member of the nursing
staff in order to assess the work done on night duty. The Union
was agreeable to the work being assessed but rejected the Board's
proposal to replace one of the attendants with a member of the
nursing staff. The Union contends that it is necessary for both
attendants to be on duty in order to assess fairly the work done
by them. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were
held on the 3rd September, 19th September and 1st October, 1991 at
which agreement was not reached. In the meantime the members held
a secret ballot on 11th September and voted in favour of
industrial action. Industrial action commenced on the 8th
October, 1991 and the dispute was investigated by the Labour Court
on the 10th October, 1991. The Court issued a recommendation by
letter on that date.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The imposition of the new roster and the rejection by the
Board of the Industrial Relations Officer's proposal of the
3rd September was not communicated to the Union until late on
the 5th September - the eve of the opening of the new unit.
Prior to this the Union had been led to believe that the
status quo would remain until the matter was resolved. By
implementing the new roster without consent, the Board
unilaterally changed the members' conditions of employment
which had been in operation for 12 years.
2. The members feel that the rostering of a second attendant
on night duty is necessary in order to provide adequate
service. The Union rejects the Board's proposal to transfer
to day duty any work which cannot be dealt with on night duty
by two members of staff under the new arrangement.
3. The Union has no objection to the work of night duty staff
being assessed but maintains that 2 attendants should be
rostered in order to carry out a fair assessment. The
assessment should be carried out by a independent/mutually
agreed assessor and the status quo should remain until the
matter is resolved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With the introduction of the new unit it is necessary for
the Board to provide 24 hour nursing care. The decision to
replace one of the attendants on night duty with a nurse is
both practical and cost effective. The rostering of one
attendant on night duty has worked successfully in other
similar institutions. The new arrangement enables the Board
to assign more attendants to day duty where the need is
greater.
2. The Board is agreeable to an assessment of night duty work
being carried out by either a Matron or an Organisation and
Methods Officer employed by the Board. It rejects the Union's
claim that it is necessary to have two attendants on duty in
order to assess the workload fairly.
3. The reason for initially rostering a second attendant on
night duty was primarily a security one. As the period from 5
p.m. until midnight is covered for security purposes and as
there are no admission after midnight there is no longer this
particular need for a second attendant.
4. Since the opening of the new unit on 6th September, 1991 a
nurse and only one attendant have been on night duty. No
difficulties regarding the implementation of the new
arrangements have been reported during this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has noted the protracted negotiations which took place prior to
the commencement of industrial action. The Court is concerned
that full use was not made of the agreed procedures by the Board
prior to implementation of their proposals which had the effect of
precipitating the issue of strike notice and subsequent withdrawal
of labour.
Taking all aspects of the dispute into account the Court is of the
view that the appropriate way of resolving the issue in dispute
is:
(a) The Union agree to resume working immediately.
(b) The Board agree that a joint assessment be carried out by
a nominee of the Board in conjunction with a nominee of
S.I.P.T.U.
(c) This assessment should commence as soon as possible and
in any case be completed by 30th November, 1991.
(d) That if the examination is inconclusive both sides refer
the case back to the Court for a decision to be accepted
by both sides
(e) The examination by the assessors should include a period
when 2 Attendants and Nurse are on duty as well as a
period when only 1 Attendant and Nurse are on duty.
(f) On the resumption of duty and during the assessor's
examination the attendants work under protest with
maintenance by the Board of night duty premium in respect
of the second attendant.
The Court recommends the above proposals to the parties as a
reasonable way of resolving the present dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
14th November, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.O'S/J.C.