Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92290 Case Number: LCR13694 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GALVIA HOSPITAL - and - THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION |
A dispute regarding the application of public sector pay rates and conditions of employment to 42 full-time and 40 part-time nurses employed by the hospital.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the hospital should concede the
Union's claim to be implemented in accordance with the terms of
the P.E.S.P. and that pending implementation of the rates as
claimed the parties should meet to arrange for the simultaneous
modifications of current conditions of employment which would
follow adoption of nationally agreed salaries and conditions. The
Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92290 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: GALVIA HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the application of public sector pay rates
and conditions of employment to 42 full-time and 40 part-time
nurses employed by the hospital.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Galvia hospital, (the hospital) which was established in
1986, is a private hospital which receives no public support
or funding. The hospital has 59 beds and employs qualified
nurses, dual-qualified nurses, theatre nurses/sisters and
state enrolled nurses. The Union organised the nurses in
March, 1991 and in April, made a claim for the introduction of
public service rates of pay and conditions of employment for
them (details supplied).
2. The hospital's management rejected the claim because of
the hospital's financial position and because it was not party
to national agreements on pay and conditions. A conciliation
conference was held in the Labour Relations Commission on 13th
February, 1992. The hospital was not prepared to discuss pay
parity with public service nurses unless certain benefits
(details supplied) which the nursing staff receive, were taken
into account. The Union did not agree that these benefits
were particular to the hospital and that a value should be put
on them. No further progress was possible and the claim was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 20th May, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 11th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has been seeking public service rates and
conditions of employment (details supplied) for the nursing
staff since April, 1991 with very little progress. The Union
is simply seeking the standard professional payments and
conditions of employment which are consistent with the duties
and responsibilities of the nurses.
2. In 1986, the hospital authorities gave a commitment that
parity with the public service would be attained before the
end of 1988. This has not been honoured. The present claim
dates from April, 1991. In similar cases, the Labour Court
has recommended that proper salary rates and conditions be
introduced.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The hospital is a private commercial organisation which
does not receive state subvention or funding. It was set up
in 1986 and it has no relationship with the public health
system. The hospital is not party to national agreements on
pay and conditions and its income is derived entirely from
private patients who are in the main V.H.I. subscribers
(details supplied). Unlike other private hospitals which are
run or owned by religious orders, it has no access to
religious funds or resources. The hospital pays its taxes
under the corporation tax code, unlike religious-run hospitals
which are registered charities. No dividends have been paid
to investors since the hospital was established.
2. Since 1989, financial pressures on the hospital have
increased as a result of the implementation of the V.H.I.
recovery plan. This difficulty is reflected in the hospital's
accounts (details supplied). On 1st April, 1992, nurses at
the hospital received a 7.75% pay increase which brought them
to within 13% of public nurses' salaries. In the light of
financial projections, the hospital would move to a loss
making situation (details supplied) if public sector rates
were paid to its nurses. There is also the strong possibility
of repercussive claims from other workers. The hospital was
prepared to negotiate with the Union on the issues involved.
This proved impossible as the Union refused to take account of
the perks (details supplied) associated with working at the
hospital. The hospital is not in a position to pay parity on
pay and conditions of employment in the public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the hospital should concede the
Union's claim to be implemented in accordance with the terms of
the P.E.S.P. and that pending implementation of the rates as
claimed the parties should meet to arrange for the simultaneous
modifications of current conditions of employment which would
follow adoption of nationally agreed salaries and conditions. The
Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
25th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.