FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST JOHN'S HOSPITAL, LIMERICK (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC132/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal is on behalf of one worker, a nurse, who has been employed at the Hospital in a permanent capacity since 1979 and has worked permanent night duty since 1986. The Hospital began to introduce agreed internal shift rotation for all nursing staff in 1993. The worker was asked to work some weeks of day duty. Having initially refused to comply with the request, she, subsequently, indicated that she would work 4 to 6 weeks' day duty each year, but not full rotation. Following discussions and correspondence between the parties, the worker agreed to join the full rotation on a phased basis. This was accepted by the Hospital in principle but agreement was not reached on the phasing. The Hospital proposed phasing, as follows:-
6 weeks' day duty in 1996; 12 weeks' day duty in 1997
18 weeks' day duty in 1998; Full rotation from 1999.
The Union proposed, instead:-
4 weeks' day duty in 1996; 6 weeks' day duty in 1997
8 weeks' day duty in 1998; 10 weeks' day duty in 1999
Full rotation from 2000.
Agreement was not reached by the parties and the matter was investigated by a Rights Commissioner. He found, inter alia, that the Hospital is clearly entitled to introduce full rotation of its nursing staff, with due allowance being made for the rights of existing staff. He recommended that the worker accept the principle of full rotation and that the Hospital allow her to phase in the change, as follows:-
6 weeks' day duty in 1997; 12 weeks' day duty in 1998
Full rotation from 1999
The Union appealed against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, on the 12th of December, 1996, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation, in Limerick, on the 2nd of October, 1997, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker should retain, on a "red circled" basis, her present rostering arrangements on night duty, which she has maintained since 1985.
2. The Union understands that the present rostering arrangements in the Intensive Care Unit are acceptable to both the Ward Sister in charge and the other nurses working in the Unit. If the worker is included in full rotational arrangements, this in turn will have further implications for existing staff in that they will then be required to do considerably more night duty than they are required to do at present.
3. The reason given by management for their requirement that the worker should become involved in full rotation pertains to their concerns with regard to her knowledge and familiarity with changes and developments that may take place in the Unit. In that regard, the worker regularly attends study days on her week off nights and intends to continue updating herself through attendance at educational seminars and study days.
4. If the worker is required to return to full rotation, the financial implications of such a move must be taken into consideration as she would have to endure a considerable loss of earnings (details supplied to the Court).
5. In other hospitals where internal rotation was introduced staff have, in one case, shared in financial compensation and, in another case, have had to work only restricted day duty. In Court Recommendation LCR13459 (Southern Health Board), the Court found in favour of maintaining a permanent night worker on a "red circle" basis.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Internal Rotation
Internal rotation of nursing staff was introduced by agreement following representations from the nursing unions. Apart from the night sisters, all of the 85 staff nurses within the main hospital rotate between days and nights, with the exception of the worker in this dispute. As a member of the INO, she must be part of agreements arrived at through collective procedures.
This rotation is based on the accepted principle that staff should not remain exclusively on nights and that rotation amongst colleagues and departments is vital for ongoing staff development. This is particularly important in view of the changing nature of nursing. The worker's refusal to participate is, therefore, not in her own best interests. In addition, her opt-out is creating operational difficulties in the pairing of trained nurses for night duty.
2. Length of Time
Internal rotation has applied for the worker's colleagues since 1993, over four years ago. Whilst she initially refused to participate and argued for special and exclusive arrangements, her acceptance of rotation in 1995 was only in the context of a position which would serve to delay its application in her case until seven years after all her other staff nurse colleagues. The Hospital has been more than patient and the matter cannot be delayed any further, both from an operational and equity perspective.
3. Acceptance of Rotation
The worker has accepted rotation in principle and the only issue in dispute is the application date. Her proposed phasing is unacceptably and excessively long.
The matter has been under discussion for almost four years and there can be no question of the worker being surprised or unprepared for this change in her working arrangements. She has had four years to make whatever arrangements are necessary which might arise from this change in her duties.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, finds that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is not unreasonable in the circumstances surrounding this case.
The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th of October, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.