FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Location Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 60 of it’s members employed as Imaging Nurses for the application of a Location Allowance to Nurses working in Radiology Departments and for application of the full theatre on-call arrangements to nurses providing on-call service in Radiology Departments. The Union contends that the Labour Court in a previous Recommendation No: 16083, provides the criteria required for the application of Location Allowance. It states that they apply if nurses work in areas that are “unattractive, difficult, or unpopular”. Imaging nurses working in Radiology Departments clearly fall into the category intended by that recommendation.
- It is the Health Service Employers position that the duties in the Radiology Departments are no more onerous than in other areas. The duties performed in these areas are considered by Senior Nursing staff, in some instances, to be less onerous than duties undertaken by nurses in busy medical and surgical wards.
- The Union further contends that Nurses working in Radiology Departments have traditionally provided limited on-call services on the basis of various ad-hoc arrangements at a number of hospitals. In some cases a formal agreement did exist and in others the rates that are relevant to theatre nurses were applied. Substantial advances in technology has led to an increase in work in these areas without an increase in the number of nursing staff being assigned, thus leading to an increase in emergency ad-hoc on-call occurring at night and at weekends at all locations. The Union's position is that the Coordinators Allowance element of the theatre on-call arrangement is before the Court as no agreement could be reached on it.
- It is the Employers contention that the issue of on-call payments has been addressed separately.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of three conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached on the issue of the Location Allowance, the dispute was jointly referred to the Labour Court on the 9th March, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th May, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The issue of on-call arrangements was not jointly referred to the Court and therefore, was not for adjudication. No agreement on same was reached between the parties at the Labour Court hearing.
- It is the Employers contention that the issue of on-call payments has been addressed separately.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Imaging Nurses working in Radiology Departments work in semi-darkness, have to wear heavy lead aprons and are involved in procedures now that had previously been performed only in theatre. This has rendered Radiology Departments unattractive areas to work in, and thus, unpopular with nurses leading to difficulties in filling vacancies with such Departments on a nationwide basis. Although they are now becoming quite specialised, there is no requirement for specialisation in order to attract a Location Allowance and they should be awarded eligibility for Location Allowance with full effect from the date of the original claim. There has been a reliance on the use of Agency Nurses in some cases and in other cases vacancies exist for a long period before they can be filled and almost always are filled from external applicants because there are no interested applicants from within the existing Nursing pool.
2. This is not the way for an employer to treat a dedicated group of Nurses who provide an essential service which is a growing part of acute hospital services and which has contributed enormously to the productivity of that sector in terms of it's ability to reduce hospital stay and increase day procedures. The Union is seeking the Location Allowance for it's members in the Radiology Departments based on the criteria requirements recommended in a previous Labour Court Recommendation LCR 16083.
HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union was asked to submit a list of tasks to justify receipt of the Location Allowance. The list submitted included routine nursing tasks similar to those carried out by nurses in medical and surgical wards who would not be entitled to a Location Allowance. The comparison made by the Union, of a radiology Department dealing as it does with a range of scheduled patient appointments and routine x-ray, with sterile, invasive and the highly specialised environment encountered in theatre, is inappropriate.
2. An option for both sides is to jointly consider the usefulness of developing a higher diploma in Interventional Radiology approved by An Bord Altranais. If such a qualification were developed, successful graduates working in the clinical area would be entitled to a Specialist Qualification Allowance. The issue of the Location Allowance has been investigated fully and the Employers are satisfied that the Radiology Units do not meet the criteria for payment of the allowance and therefore payment of the allowance is not appropriate in this instance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Union's claim for the extension of the Location Allowance to nurses in Radiology Departments had been the subject of at least two review groups comprising of qualified personnel. These review groups did not consider it appropriate to designate the Radiology Department area as an appropriate area to warrant the allowance.
From the evidence produced by the HSE, there appears to be no particular difficulties in the recruitment and retention of staff into Radiology Departments which would substantiate the Union's contention that it is an unattractive, difficult or unpopular area to work in.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is satisfied that the issue had been extensively examined and consequently does not see merit in the claim.
The Court notes management's support for the development of a Higher Diploma Course in Radiology Nursing to recognise its speciality status.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd August, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.