Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93218 Case Number: LCR14087 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ST OTTERAN'S HOSPITAL - and - THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION |
Dispute concerning the allocation of temporary work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
The Court takes the view that the parties should await the outcome
of the interviews referred to at the hearing and in the light of
the outcome should review the situation regarding the allocation
of temporary work in the hospital taking account of the views of
all parties concerned.
It is clear to the Court that there is a dispute regarding
representation rights this issue should be resolved through the
procedures available in the trade union movement.
The current arrangements for the allocation of temporary work
should apply in the interim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93218 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14087
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ST OTTERAN'S HOSPITAL
(SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD)
and
THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the allocation of temporary work.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns two inter-related elements.
(1) The right of the Irish Nurses Organisation (I.N.O.)
to represent nursing staff in a public psychiatric
hospital.
(2) An agreement on the allocation of temporary work at
the Hospital.
2. The representational dispute concerns Services Industrial
Professional Technical Union (S.I.P.T.U.), the Psychiatric
Nurses Association (P.N.A.) and the Irish Nurses Organisation
(I.N.O.). The P.N.A. and S.I.P.T.U. claim that under a 1990
Congress agreement relating to spheres of influence, the
I.N.O. has no rights of representation in the Hospital. This
dispute has been referred to the Irish Congress of Trade
Unions (I.C.T.U.) for adjudication.
3. An agreement was reached in 1992 between the Hospital, the
P.N.A. and S.I.P.T.U. on the allocation of temporary work.
This was necessitated by the transfer of the mentally
handicapped patients from the Hospital. The transfer resulted
in a reduced staffing level and a consequent decrease in the
amount of temporary work available. A three month rotational
system for all temporary staff was agreed. The system took
effect from 1st December, 1992. The I.N.O. was excluded from
the negotiations and its members had to accept the terms of
the agreement concluded with the other Unions. The two other
Unions represent the majority of staff at the Hospital.
4. The I.N.O. objected to the new agreement on the bais that
it disadvantaged five of its members who had been employed on
a long-term temporary basis. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on 24th March, 1993. The P.N.A. attended the conference
to make a statement but did not participate in the
discussions. The dispute was not resolved through
conciliation and it was referred to the Labour Court on 29th
March, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place on 19th
April, 1993. The P.N.A. attended and made a statement to the
Court prior to the investigation. The P.N.A. was not a party
to the investigation.
I.N.O.'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The I.N.O. was excluded from negotiations with the
Hospital on the grounds that it does not have representation
rights for nurses in the psychiatric services. The I.N.O. has
been representing its members at the hospital for over 20
years. The agreement concluded with the other Unions has
caused difficulties for the I.N.O.'s members and hs resulted
in poor staff relations.
2. The I.N.O. has an agreement with the Hospital on the
allocation of temporary work. The collaboration between the
Hospital and other Unions has led to the lay-off of long-term
temporary staff who have over 2 years unbroken service. The
I.N.O. has a well documented history of representation at the
hospital. The new agreement overlooks this and is in breach
of both the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.) and the hospital's own grievance
procedures (details supplied).
3. Under the new Agreement the I.N.O.'s members will lose 9
months work per year. This imposed change must be questioned
as interviews are being held for placement on panels for
permanent posts. The new permanent panel will be used to
allocate the temporary work available and this will make the
present system obselete.
4. The I.N.O.'s members were laid-off on 28th March, 1993.
It is recognised that these workers would be in permanent
employment were it not for a once-off re-allocation of staff
(details supplied). The workers now find themselves treated
in the same way as short-term locum staff. The I.N.O. is
seeking that the recent agreement be set aside and the workers
be compensated for their losses to date.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital acknowledges that negotiations were being
conducted with all 3 Unions on the issue of temporary hours
allocation. When objections were received from both the
P.N.A. and S.I.P.T.U. on the issue of representational rights,
the Hospital requested all 3 parties to have the matter
clarified by the I.C.T.U. The Hospital is still awaiting a
decision.
2. The Hospital required, as a matter of urgency, that an
agreement on the rostering of temporary staff arising out of
the transfer of mentally handicapped patients be put on place.
An agreement was concluded with both S.I.P.T.U. and the P.N.A.
on the allocation of temporary work. This is now in place and
the Hospital is reluctant to overturn the agreement.
3. Every effort has been made to resolve the dispute and
facilitate the three Unions. The Hospital has agreed to be
bound by any centrally negotiated spheres of influence
agreement. The staff affected were maintained on the payroll
until 28th March, 1993, which allowed a month for the Unions
to resolve the representational issue. The Hospital is not in
a position to pay staff when there is no work available for
them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
The Court takes the view that the parties should await the outcome
of the interviews referred to at the hearing and in the light of
the outcome should review the situation regarding the allocation
of temporary work in the hospital taking account of the views of
all parties concerned.
It is clear to the Court that there is a dispute regarding
representation rights this issue should be resolved through the
procedures available in the trade union movement.
The current arrangements for the allocation of temporary work
should apply in the interim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
24th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.