FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COMMUNITY HOSPITAL KILLARNEY - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rostering Arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the question of access of two job sharing nurses to a structured job- sharing roster, and has its origins in The Agreement of the Pay and Conditions of Nurses, 1997. Following this agreement, there has been a national commitment given to minimise the amount of Long Term Temporary (LTT) work being allocated to nurses.
The Community Hospital in Killarney is a facility for the care of the elderly and the nurse complement consists of one matron and 13.86 Whole Time Equivalent (WTE) staff nursing positions of which 5 posts are filled by job sharers. The two nurses concerned along with their three colleagues qualified for permanency at the hospital under Phase 1 Long Term Temporary Initiative. Three of the nurses are rostered to a structured job sharing roster guaranteeing a 39 hour fortnight inclusive of day and night duty work. The two nurses concerned are assigned to an unstructured roster incorporating a mixture of day and night duty, given their placement following the competition process relating to the 'Initiative'.
The Union claims that the Board gave a commitment by letter dated 6th October, 1998 that when a vacancy next arose on the full time structured job sharing roster the two claimants should have had first refusal. In 1999 a vacancy arose on the full time roster when a half post became vacant when a full- time nurse commenced job sharing. The Board offered it on a 'seniority' basis to the five nurses starting at number one. The first two turned down the opportunity to become full-time and the third nurse availed of the opportunity and was extended to full time employment. The Union claims that the senior of the two nurses concerned was the next person due to be allocated a structured job sharing rota. When the Union queried this appointment, the Board stated that it had acted in accordance with the agreement and its commitment of 6th October, 1998.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 10th of February, 2000. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th of April, 2000. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the 12th of July, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Irish Nurses Organisation has been striving to ensure that all five nurses made permanent under Phase 1 Long Term Temporary Initiative, would be treated equally. Hence, the initial proposal that the three structured positions and the two unstructured work arrangements be rotated between all five nurses until further vacancies occurred, a concept that was rejected by Matron and supported by the Health Board. While access to regular night duty continues to be problematic, the Union were satisfied that fair procedure would be applied when another vacancy occurred, thus providing access to a structured working arrangement for the two nurses.
2. The reality is that the third successful candidate, under the "Initiative" was allocated to a structured rostering arrangement within two months after the first two nurses commenced their work arrangement, i.e. April/May 1998. This gave the two nurses confidence that the Health Board and local management would indeed honour their commitment to allocate them to a structured duty roster when a subsequent vacancy occurred.
3. The Employers' defence that they were obliged to offer the .5 W.T.E. position to the first three nurses who already enjoyed access to structured job-sharing work arrangements had not been signalled to the I.N.O. before. At the initial meeting in December 1997, when all five nurses were notified that they would be made permanent at the Community Hospital, Killarney, as job-sharers, they all accepted same.
It was the Union's clear understanding that access to full-time work, for those who sought same, would only occur when all five of the then long term temporary nurses were assimilated to the regular structured duty system within the hospital.
4. The Board gave a clear commitment, reinforced by it's letter of 6th October, 1998, to the two nurses that they would assimilate to a structured work rostering arrangement as soon as subsequent vacancies occurred. This has not been honoured.
5. The wrongful and unfair treatment has resulted in two permanent nurses feeling less valued than the other permanent nurses. The failure of the Board and local management to honour their commitment to the two nurses has resulted in awkwardness and a strained atmosphere in the workplace.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When final agreement was reached, in relation to the conversation of Long Term Temporaries, there were five nurses eligible in Killarney Community Hospital. The priority of management and unions was to make the maximum number of applicants permanent. There were only one and a half bone fide 'complement' posts available in Killarney Community Hospital. The five staff availed of five job-sharing positions. The alternative was appointment of the most senior long term, with letters of comfort being issued to other staff. Had letters of comfort been issued to the two nurses involved in this case, they would not yet be permanent staff of the Health Board. Management had an agreement with unions that where Long Term Temporary staff had to avail of job sharing to facilitate all their colleagues (LTT) being made permanent, these workers would have first call on full time employment when it became available, (i.e. this meant that existing permanent staff who had availed at their own request of job sharing were now going to have to take their place behind the newly appointed LTT's if they wished to revert to full time employment).
2. In the case of Killarney Community Hospital, when an extra half post became available on the roster it was offered on a 'seniority' basis to the five nurses starting with number one. The first two turned down the opportunity to become full-time and number three availed of the opportunity and was extended to full time employment. In the Board's letter of the 6th of October, 1998, management confirmed to the Union that, as substantive posts became available that the two nurses concerned would be moved on to the full roster. This is still the Board's position.
In view of the fact that, as mentioned above, number three on the L.T.T. panel has already secured a conventional assignment within the hospital, the two nurses concerned will be next to move on the fixed roster arrangement. In effect, the issue is a dispute between the two nurses and their colleague, all of whom are represented by the I.N.O., as to whether or not the person whose appointment was extended, or one of the two nurses was entitled to the post. The Board acted fairly in extending the appointment in accordance with the established agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the arrangement for the Long Term Temporaries has been properly implemented by the Hospital in respect of the two claimants in this case. No evidence to show that it has been operated to their disadvantage has been adduced.
The Court recommends that the parties should agree a roster between the nurses involved to ensure structured access to night and weekend duty for all, on a fair and equitable basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th July, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.