FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Duties of portering staff (Lifts-Turns).
BACKGROUND:
2. Beaumont Hospital was selected by the Department of Health to participate in a pilot diploma registration programme in General Nurse training in partnership with Dublin City University.
One of the implications of participating in the programme is that certain non-nursing duties normally carried out by either non-nursing staff or student nurses have now to be undertaken by an appropriate non-nursing grade such as ward attendants and porters.
The ward attendant grade is a replacement for the student nurse at ward level. The ward attendant is directly involved in the area of patient care, with the portering staff carrying out non-related patient care tasks.
The Union claims that the porters are now being asked to devote much more of their time in relation to the lifting and turning of patients. It claims that the amount of time that porters are called upon to carry out this task is unreasonable. The Union claims that the lifting and turning of patients is proper to the ward attendant grade.
Management argues that it reached agreement with the Union in July, 1996 regarding the duties of ward attendants and porters. The agreement provided that porters would undertake lifts and turns when requested.
As agreement was not possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 26th of August, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The number of lifts which porters are expected to do is unacceptably high. The ward attendants should be doing more of this work.
2. The pool of porters is not large enough in terms of the demands being placed on them.
3. The ward attendants are assigned to duties at ward level. They should be involved more in the lifting and turning of patients.
4. The lifting and turning of patients should not become the main part of the porters' duties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is an agreement in place in relation to lifting and turning of patients. The Union should adhere to that agreement.
2. Management has introduced 6 hoists to the wards which makes it much easier for all grades of staff to lift heavy and acutely ill patients. It is planned to expand this service to all wards in the hospital.
3. Since 1987 porters have carried out the duty of lifts and turns without the assistance of a ward attendant.
4. Extra porters have been employed to cater for any increase in portering duties at ward level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and the arguments made at the hearing the Court has concluded that the dispute has arisen because of a breakdown in communications. The Court accepts that the claimants' have a perception that they are being asked to perform extra duties on lifting and turning. However, the Court is satisfied that the number involved is not excessive.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim whilst urging the Management to be sensitive to the situation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th December, 1997______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.