FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 25% pay claim for performance of a medical procedure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Hospital was established in 1961 to deal exclusively with spinal injuries. The claim is on behalf of 40 Attendants who carry out manual bowel evacuations on male patients, and it is for a 25% pay increase. When the need arises to carry out a manual bowel evacuation on female patients, the function is carried out by nurses. The Union believes that it is inappropriate for the Attendants to carry out what, it claims, is a medical procedure. The Attendants' rate of pay is based on the Porters' rate plus 10%, and ranges from £255.66 to £273.35 per week.
The claim was first served on the 22nd of February, 1999. Part of the Union's concern had regard to the legal, and health and safety implications for carrying out the procedures. To this end, the Hospital gave unequivocal guarantees (in August, 1999) that all Attendants who were asked to carry out the procedure by a medically qualified person were covered under the Hospital's insurance cover.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission, and a conciliation conference took place on the 14th of December, 1999. As the parties did not reach
agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of January, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The procedure is a medical nursing procedure and is appropriate to nursing staff. If the Attendants have to perform the duty, they should be properly compensated. Nurses who perform the procedure on female patients are on much higher rates of pay.
2. Attendants in other hospitals do not carry out this procedure. It is always performed by medical personnel. Recently, attendants in 7 other hospitals were given an 8% differential for carrying out duties which do not include this procedure.
3. Only nursing staff can be trained in this medical procedure in Ireland or the U.K. Attendants would not be accepted for training.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This procedure is clearly outlined as part of the Attendants' duties since 1961, and they have been performing it since then. The claim was not made until 38 years later.
2. In 1999, the Hospital paid course fees for 2 nurses to attend a "train the trainer" programme in the U. K. with a view to imparting their skills to the Attendants. The Hospital has also given guarantees that all Attendants will be covered under the Hospital's insurance scheme.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and is in breach of Partnership 2000. The fact that the procedure may be unique to the Hospital does not imply that extra monies are warranted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken into consideration the written and oral submissions of both parties. The Court accepts that this procedure is quite clearly defined in the Attendants' job description. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim. The Court supports the actions of management in its recent efforts to formalise the training and supervision of this procedure.
The Court notes the "unequivocal guarantees" given by Hospital management that all Attendants who are asked to carry out the procedure by a medically qualified person are covered under the Hospital insurance scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th March, 2000______________________
FB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.