Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92353 Case Number: LCR13825 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MATER PUBLIC HOSPITAL - and - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION |
Claim, by the Organisation, for compensation in respect of new technology.
Recommendation:
8. The Court notes that the parties are agreed that there are no
cash savings which can be directly attributed to the new
technology which is the subject of this dispute. The claim
accordingly must be considered within the terms of P.E.S.P. (in
particular Clause 5).
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
during the course of two hearings. In particular it notes that
the claim is submitted as an "interim" one and that the broader
question relating to grading, flexibility etc has still to be
addressed.
In the circumstances the Court recommends concession of the two
days additional leave for each of two years on the basis outlined
by the Union in its supplementary submission on the 8th October.
The concession of this claim is to be taken as an interim measure
coming within Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. and is to be reviewed in the
context of the outcome of the national negotiations or/and at the
end of two years.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92353 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13825
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MATER PUBLIC HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the Organisation, for compensation in respect of new
technology.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1991 the Organisation lodged a claim on behalf
of approximately 700 nurses for compensation in return for
on-going co-operation with the introduction of new technology.
The Organisation quantified its claim, the main element of which,
was 2 days leave for two calendar years. It based it on an
interim agreement reached in other hospitals (details supplied to
the Court). The Hospital rejected the claim on the grounds that
its circumstances were different in that it had an on-going
programme of developing its technology which commenced several
years ago. The Hospital had intended to introduce ward based
information technology which would be used by the nurses. The
technology has not been introduced pending the outcome of the
Organisation's claim.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
7th February, 1992. Conciliation conferences were held on 30th
March, and 22nd May, 1992. As no agreement was reached, the
Commission, with the consent of the parties referred the dispute
to the Labour Court on 16th June, 1992 for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on 3rd July, 1992.
4. Following the hearing the Court issued a letter to the parties
as follows:
"The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. On the basis of the information supplied
in the written and oral submissions the Court is of the view
that it should not issue any recommendation at this stage.
In the light of the relevant terms of P.E.S.P. with regard to
cost increasing claims the Court requires further information
from the parties. The Court accordingly suggests that:-
(a) the Union agree to co-operate with the extension of
new technology as proposed
and
(b) the parties prepare an agreed statement (if
possible) as to the nature, quantity and quality of
any savings which will be achieved as a result of
the extension of technology.
(c) the parties submit this information to the Court by
the 1st September, 1992. The Court will arrange a
further hearing to discuss this further information
if it considers it necessary".
The Organisation responded that, following consideration by its
members, they would not co-operate with the new technology as
their request for the application of an agreement already in place
in other hospitals was reasonable.
5. A further Court hearing took place on 8th October, 1992.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The interim agreement on the introduction of new
technology was initially applied in three major acute
hospitals and has since been applied in other hospitals
(details supplied to the Court). The Department of Health and
Local Government Staff Negotiations Board were involved in the
negotiations.
2. The question of a final national agreement for nursing
staff for compensation in respect of new technology is one of
the elements of a gradings claim currently being processed
through the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme.
3. It is understood the agreement will be applied in other
hospitals when they introduce new technology.
4. It is custom and practice that agreements arrived at in
Health Board hospitals are applied in voluntary hospitals and
visa versa.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The situation regarding the Mater Hospital is different in
that the introduction of new technology predates that of other
hospitals by several years and as a consequence is at a much
more advanced stage.
2. No member of the 1,600 staff employed by the Mater
Hospital received compensation in respect of co-operating with
the new systems. If the claim was conceded it would have
serious knock-on effects.
3. Under its present financial circumstances the Hospital
cannot afford concession of the claim.
4. The claim is inconsistent with the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and current Government pay
policy.
5. The introduction of the new system will be a major benefit
to both staff and patients. Many of the developments reduce
time-consuming administrative work, thus increasing time spent
on patient care.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court notes that the parties are agreed that there are no
cash savings which can be directly attributed to the new
technology which is the subject of this dispute. The claim
accordingly must be considered within the terms of P.E.S.P. (in
particular Clause 5).
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
during the course of two hearings. In particular it notes that
the claim is submitted as an "interim" one and that the broader
question relating to grading, flexibility etc has still to be
addressed.
In the circumstances the Court recommends concession of the two
days additional leave for each of two years on the basis outlined
by the Union in its supplementary submission on the 8th October.
The concession of this claim is to be taken as an interim measure
coming within Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. and is to be reviewed in the
context of the outcome of the national negotiations or/and at the
end of two years.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
4th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.