FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH NURSES OGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute regarding damage to cars.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case relates to a claim by two Public Health Nurses (PHN's) employed by the Mid-Western Health Board whose cars were damaged while they were undertaking work for the Board. Both nurses have made claims to the Board for re-imbursement of the cost of repairs. The Board contends that it cannot be held responsible for the costs in the specific cases outlined.
The Public Health Nurse has over the years played a key role in Immunisation Schemes in the advocation, promotion and education of parents on the benefits of immunisation, which is pivotal to maximising and maintaining the uptake level among the total child population.
Agreement between Health Service employers and the Irish Nurses Organisation in relation to the involvement of Public Health Nurses in the Primary Childhood Immunisation Programme(PCIP) was reached in November, 1998, following 2-years of negotiations.Subject to Public Health Nurses observing normal safety requirements, damage to PHN's property, when engaged in their duties was to be fully compensated by the relevant employing authority.
The INO has not been part of the national review and subsequently withdrew the involvement of Public Health Nurses from the administration work associated with the immunisation scheme.
The case was referred to the Rights Commissioner on the 7th of August, 2001, by the Union but the Health Board refused to attend.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 1st of March, 2002, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of September, 2002, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The Union contends that damage caused to a Public Health Nurses car whilst engaged in her duties is covered under the Primary Childhood Immunisation Programme Agreement.
2. The M.W.H.B. has failed to comply with the terms of a National Agreement and is 'cherry picking' its own terms of the agreement. The Primary Childhood Immunisation Programme is not specific to Public Health Nurses solely engaged in this function but was intended to embrace Public Health Nurses in all aspects of the delivery of their service.
3. The enhanced leave entitlements of two days per annum are enjoyed by all Public Health Nurses of all grades regardless as to whether they are involved in the immunisation programme or not.
4. It was a traumatic experience at the time to find their cars damaged while undertaking their duties but this trauma and distress was worsened by the denial of the Mid-Western Health Board of an agreement which they were aware of and which covered such incidences.
5. The refusal of the Mid-Western Health Board to deal with this matter at the Rights Commission service demonstrated a lack of support, causing further fear and hurt by the failure of the employer to implement a national agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An employer can only reasonably pay compensation if negligence on the part of the employer is shown. In neither of these claims was that the case.
2. The enhanced mileage rates paid by the Health Board incorporate an element of compensation for insurance costs.
3. All employees who are paid mileage rates are required to indemnify the Board against claim.
4. It is a reasonable interpretation that the Agreement refers to incidents that occur when Public Health Nurses are actually involved in the discharge of immunisation duties.
5. Public Health Nurses effectively recommenced active involvement in the primary childhood immunisation scheme in the Mid-Western Health Board in mid-late September, 2000, when the Senior Public Health Nurses commenced working on the programme.
6. As the incidents occurred on the 24th of March, 2000, and the 1st of September 2000, it is possible to identify that the 2 Public Health Nurses were not involved in immunisation duties on the dates or at the times of the incident.
7. The Board has no difficulty in applying the agreement to any Public Health Nurse whose property is damaged when engaged in immunisation duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court is satisfied that the claimants clearly understood that they were covered as part of an agreement entered into in December, 1998, when they sought compensation for damage to their cars which occurred while they were on duty.
The Court is of the view that this agreement on Public Health Nurses-Primary Childhood Immunisation Programme, is open to misinterpation on the issue of compensation where there has been damage to public health nurses' property.
Therefore, the Court recommends that in the circumstances of these two cases the Board should pay the cost involved in the repair of damage to their cars. Furthermore, the Court recommends that this clause in the agreement should be clarified. In order to avoid any further ambiguity the details of its operation and application should be clearly specified.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th September, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.