FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - PSYCHIATRIC NURSES' ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND (PNA) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Various issues as per PNA letter of 6 January, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves a number of claims made by the PNA to the Mid Western Health Board which could not be resolved at local level and a number of conciliation conferences took place. The 5 claims are:
- Acting allowance on behalf of two workers -
- Croom Services Payment of Unqualified Occupational Therapy Allowance
- Re-assignment from Unit 5B - 1 member
- Laundry allowance - Diploma students
- Pay cuts - sick leave, 2 workers
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Claim 1.
3. 1.One of the workers was transferred to a new service in January 1995 and carried out the role and function of a ward sister until January 1997. The other worker took over from her until June 1998.
2. The claim is for a specific period of time and there is no knock on effects or claims
Claim 2.
1.The Union are seeking payment of the allowance to nurses who are involved on a continuous basis on duties associated with Occupational Therapy and who the Union claim are quite legitimately entitled to benefit from this allowance.
Claim 3.
1.The worker was compulsorily re-assigned from Unit 5B which is an Acute Psychiatric Unit Attached to the Regional Hospital, Limerick.
2.As the worker was forcibly re-deployed it is the Union's view that he should have a right to retain the location allowance.
3. The Union are also seeking payment for travel necessitated in travelling across the city to his new work location.
Claim 4.
1. The claim is on behalf of three intakes of Student Psychiatric Nurses in 1999, 2000 and 2001 while on clinical placement for a laundry allowance of €4 per week per student.
2. At a meeting on the 4th December, 2000, the Board accepted that there wereresponsible for having uniforms laundered free of change.
3. Following a number of discussions and correspondence on this matter, nothing further has progressed.
Claim 5.
1. The Union fully accepts that where a pattern of sick leave develops it must be dealt with, but that the way to deal with it is not through a disciplinary process but rather through a common sense, sensitive caring approach.
2. There was no counselling or advice offered to the two workers concerned or any approach made by management to establish what problems were being experienced by these workers..
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
Claim 1.
4. 1.The Union are claiming an 'Acting Allowance for nurses working in the Short Stay Unit (9A) only from the period 1998 - 2002 despite the fact that there was no Ward Sister post for this specific area.
2.For the period stated in the claim 1998-2002, the Board has shown that an employee was paid as Manager continuously during this period and since the Unit opened in 1995
Claim 2.
1. Staff who relocated to Ivernia House from the Parent Hospital were entitled to have the 'Castlerea Formula' apply to them.
2. The PNA were party to an agreement reached nationally in 1998 which clarified the new up-rated allowance of €2200subsumed all other allowances with effect from 1st January, 1997, which included the Unqualified Occupational Therapy Allowance.
Claim 3.
1. Payment of the Location Allowance could not on transfer be applied to the worker as it was/is not a Unit which attracts the Location Allowance.
2. The worker, as a result of transferring is working in a Unit which attracts the unqualified Occupational Therapy Allowance and he is in receipt of same.
3. The worker is not eligible for the travel element of the Castlerea Formula as it applies only to nurses who transfer to a community based facility.
Claim 4.
1. The Department of Health & Children has indicated that no cash payment in respect of laundry allowance were to be made and the Board advised the Union of this on the 15th April 2002.
2. The Board offered to provide a facility in the nursing school for utilisation by students, this is in line with practices in other Health Boards ie. Southern Eastern Health Board and the North Western Health Board
3. The Board does not have funding available for the payment of a laundry allowance for students.
Claim 5.
1. Worker (A) has since retired and is no longer an employee of the Board.
2. Worker (A) on 30th April, 2002 was requested "to provide medical certification for any uncertified absences".He again had 2 episodes of uncertified sick leave in 2002, no medical certificates were received by the Board.
3. Worker (B) was informed by correspondence on the 4th December, 2000 advising "you will not for the foreseeable future, and until further notice be paid for any further episodes of uncertified sick leave".In accordance with correspondence issued, worker (B) was only paid for days worked.
4 The granting of sick leave is at the discretion of the CEO and this fact was made known on many occasions to both employees and their Union representatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the five claims which are the subject of this referral are the residue of a substantial range of issues raised with the Board by the Union from 2000 onwards. All other issues have been satisfactorily resolved in local negotiations.
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and has examined in turn the merits of each individual claim. Having done so the Court finds itself unable to identify merit in any of them.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend that any of these claims be conceded. The Court recommends that the Union should now accept that the industrial relations agendas, of which these claims were originally part, is now closed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th October, 2004______________________
JB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.