FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD REGIONAL HOSPITAL - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Theatre porter training.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the context of the development of a new theatre complex at the hospital, an agreement was reached in November, 1994, which was subsequently clarified, in February, 1995, for additional theatre porter posts, a revised roster and a compensation formula. The new complex would operate on the basis of porters rotating between theatres and providing out-of-hours service where necessary. To enable the new system to work, it is required that all porters be trained in all theatres.
The hospital proposed that all 12 porters, including new appointees, would be trained over an 8-week roster period with different times spent in each theatre, depending on the complexity of the area, i.e., 2 days in General/Gynae, 1 day in E.N.T., 2 days in Ophthalmics and 1 week in Orthopaedics. It was proposed that the training would be carried out by the porters themselves, in accordance with normal custom and practice, with assistance from the theatre sister where required. The Union's position was that the training level proposed by the hospital was insufficient and also the porters were not qualified training instructors and, accordingly, would not be prepared to carry out the training, which they regarded as being significantly in excess of normal "on the job" training.
The hospital insisted that the training be carried out by the porters themselves, but stated that it would look at the issue of the duration of training. It also indicated that it would endeavour to ensure that there would be no losses incurred by staff (e.g., overtime) while training. The Union responded that the porters would not make themselves available to train one another, on health and safety grounds.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 30th of May, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in Waterford, on the 26th of June, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The porters believe that, because of the nature of the changes which have taken place within the theatre and the demands on the service with particular emphasis on the requirements of each surgeon, the training of the theatre porters is a vital issue. In order for them to have the confidence to assist in the preparation of equipment and patients for surgery, proper training must be provided. The type of equipment being used in each procedure is mainly new. Surgeons are constantly requiring porters to reach the highest standards and have a full working knowledge of each procedure and all the necessary equipment. Lack of skill or knowledge can lead to interruption in operations causing delays and anxiety to patients and staff.
2. There are six different consultants in the Orthopaedic Theatres, three in General, three in the Eye Theatre, two in E.N.T. and two in Gynaecology. All of these 16 consultants/surgeons have their own preference for the positioning of equipment and the type of equipment and machines to be used. Each porter will be required to know these requirements. In some cases, during a normal procedure, a surgeon or anaesthetist will ask for additional equipment to be provided to the operating table. It is vital that each porter is fully trained and updated in all these procedures and the requirements of each individual surgeon.
3. Some examples of the varying skills required as a theatre porter can be illustrated in the Eye Theatre. There are eight different operations carried out by the surgeons. The attendant must know what machines and equipment to use in each of these operations. Each day there are two theatres in use with two surgeons and one theatre porter working. In the E.N.T. it is not uncommon for a patient to have several procedures done at once, e.g. tonsils, adenoids and grommets. This would require the position of the theatre equipment to be changed several times during one case.
4. The proposal from the hospital is inadequate from the point of view of ensuring that each theatre porter will have the full knowledge and skill required to confidently carry out all the duties and responsibilities associated with the job. The only objective way of ensuring that adequate and professional training is given is for an independent assessor to evaluate the requirements of the theatre service at the hospital.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The hospital does not have a training instructor specifically for the training of theatre porters, nor is it aware of any such facility being made available in this country. The situation in Waterford Regional Hospital is the same as that which appertains to other major hospitals where the training is provided on site by the porter who is familiar with the procedures in the different specialities. The level of training for Waterford Regional Hospital compares well with that which has been provided to date in the other major hospitals.
2. The hospital's proposal that the porters work in a supernumerary capacity whilst being trained is not always the situation in the other hospitals where the porters are required to provide a service as part of the workforce while being trained at the same time.
3. The hospital would be prepared to look at the time given to the training of outside porters who may require more training time.
4. The hospital has given an undertaking to address the issue of possible loss of overtime during training with a view to avoiding any such losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court has concluded that the past practice of porter training porter is reasonable and should be continued. With regard to the actual training time, the Court is of the view that the Board's original proposals should be reverted to in the first instance. In the event of these proposals proving inadequate, management should provide an extension of time as considered desirable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
23rd July, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.