FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH INFIRMARY - VICTORIA HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Specialing of patients.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns about 30 porters represented by the Union who no longer want to carry out the job of specialing psychiatric patients,(The term "Specialing" refers to an increased one to one (or more) level of observation and to request assistance for the patient if required. This is determined to be clinically necessary by a Senior Medical staff member and a Senior Nurse Manager after clinically assessing the patient. The aim is to increase the observance of a particular patient where there is a rise of self harm, risk of harm to other patients/property and/or staff").Management says that this is a normal security function that porters have always done. The Union's position is that porters are not qualified to do this work and is not provided in their job descriptions and could not be considered as security within the meaning of general security work appropriate to porters.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th September, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Porters are not qualified and should not be involved in specialing psychiatric, disturbed or dangerous patients.
2. The Union maintains that the security aspect of workers was related to security of hospital premises, care of grounds, car parks, and responding to security calls from wards and dealing with boisterous visitors.
3. Specialing should not and is not included in Porters terms of employment.
4. Specialing is a duty proper to Nursing or Para medical personnel.
5. In this day and age with so much rightful concern about proper qualified personnel in the Health Services treating patients capable and also being in a safe environment themselves, that Porters should no longer be forced to perform specialing duties which they are not qualified for.
6. The Union maintains that this is just a cost saving exercise at the Porters expense and patients and employee safety. It is Management's function and responsibility to provide adequate funding and appropriate staffing.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Hospital has systems in place that are as safe as far as is reasonably practicable in accordance with the duties of the workers.
2. Following all measures taken by the Hospital, the volume of specialing has been dramatically decreased over the years. There has been none so far in 2005.
3. All efforts have been made to address and improve security and safety of staff providing specialing duties, e.g. bleep/walkie talkie system, further backup arrangements and training.
4. Medical management of difficult patients has been addressed through the Hospital's Drugs and Therapeutics Committee and guidelines have lead to improved clinical management and less need for and reliance on specialing.
5.The Hospital will continue to look at training or any other options that would further improve the system of work.
6. The Hospital cannot discriminate against providing specialing services to psychiatric patients.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the Hospital has been diligent in their efforts to address the concerns of Porters/Security Officers regarding "specialing" requirements.
The Court notes that every effort has been made to minimise the necessity for such arrangements, resulting in a nil requirement since January 2005. The Hospital has implemented the expert report and recommendations of the Health and Safety Authority. Among the measures taken to address the claimants concerns are, the provision of specialised training; introduction of risk management assessments, which include the involvement of the portering/security staff; introduction of panic attack pagers and a new communication system which works through bleep/walkie talkies and provision of back up support from security contractors when necessary.
The Hospital informed the Court that it has been made clear to all nursing and other staff that the remit of the portering/security staff is that of a security presence and when they are required to provide "specialing" their remit does not extend to direct patient care/care attendant role.
The Hospital has put in place procedures to enable staff who feel in danger or under threat, to alert the Gardai.
Having examined the details, the Court is satisfied that the duties of "specialing" come within the scope of portering/security duties and bearing in mind the measures taken by the Hospital, it is satisfied that the Hospital has the right to expect portering/security staff to provide "specialing" service required. Consequently, the Court recommends that portering/security staff should continue to provide the "specialing" service. However, as these new measures have not been tested yet, the Court recommends that the totality of the measures should be reviewed twelve months from the date of this recommendation, to consider their effectiveness.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th July, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.