FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL - AND - PSYCHIATRIC NURSE'S ASSOCIATION IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for re-location.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is a claim on behalf of 17 nurses for compensation for losses incurred, increased costs and significant workplace changes experienced due to the amalgamation of Acute Mental Health Services between Vergemount Acute Services and St. Camillus Acute Services into one new unit in St. Vincent's Hospital, Elm Park.
On 15th February, 2005 the parties were before the Labour Court on whether re-location in May, 2005 of the psychiatric ward (St. Camilius) to the new Unit, constituted normal ongoing change (LCR 18114). The Court found that the move did constitute normal ongoing change within the meaning of Sustaining Progress - "In reaching this conclusion the Court has taken into account the assurances of Management that neither the Reporting Relationship of staff nor any aspect of their terms and conditions of employment will alter in consequence of this transfer. The Court also notes the assurances of Management that if further change is required on the full commissioning of the Unit at issue, this will be subject to negotiations and agreement with PNA".
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. At conciliation the Union raised a number of issues which they believe warranted compensation for the move and are seeking compensation in the region of €6,000 per person. The Union's basis for the claim is that Nurses have experienced loss of earnings, increased costs i.e. child care in attending for work and significant changes in their terms and conditions of employment above and beyond the normal ongoing changes envisaged by Sustaining Progress. Management rejected this, stating that the Court had previously found that the move constituted normal ongoing change and would not consider compensation for the re-location.
As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th May, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th September, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Up to May 2005, the Nurses worked in a small acute unit which provided some specialist services and a limited sector service to voluntary patients. They are now part of a 120 strong mental nursing team providing total mental health services in this catchment area. Due to their size and number they are dwarfed by the numerically bigger health board staff. As a result they have had to compromise on a lot of their conditions of employment and will continue to do so.
2. Working in a small unit as part of 17 staff they were able to access the rosters and holidays of their choice and enjoyed significant flexibility which suited their personal and childminding needs.
3. Nurses have experienced loss of earnings, increased costs in attending for work and significant changes in their terms and conditions of employment above and beyond normal ongoing change envisaged by Sustaining Progress.
4. The Union argued that even though the Unit is new there have been numerous problems with facilities i.e. showers, heating, hot/cold water. A "snag list" has been brought to Management's attention but there are still problems.
5. As a result of changes in rosters a number of Nurses have incurred increased child care costs of between €468 to €520 per child per annum. Some Nurses have 2,3 and 4 children to be looked after.
6. Due to the amalgamation the Nurses have to incur the cost of approximately €200 to replace their stock of uniforms to comply with the new H.S.E. dress code.
7. The Nurses concerned are an extremely despondent and dispirited group who have seen virtually every part of their role and practice changed, i.e. the changes in their rosters and reporting relationships, the way reports are filled, the number of reports and the way they deal with staff shortages planned and unplanned.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The claim is a cost increasing claim and is thus precluded by Sustaining Progress.
2. All health service staff, including psychiatric nurses have received substantial payments under Benchmarking and Sustaining Progress. Co-operation and flexibility is an integral part of these deals and hospital management are completely satisfied that this claim falls within this category and has thus been adequately addressed.
3. There is no real disturbance involved as the new mental health unit remains part of the existing hospital and is approximately 150 meters from St. Camillus Ward. The New unit is purpose built which will greatly enhance the working conditions and environment for both staff and patients.
4. The patient profile is similar to any other acute unit in the country and staff are paid accordingly.
5. Concession of the Union's claim has major cost increasing implications for the hospital, together with inevitable potential consequences for other health services providers in the Dublin area and throughout the country.
6. There are no funds available to meet this claim. Health agencies operate under very strict financial restraints and have a statutory requirement to live within their allocations. Any concession of this claim can only be funded through a reduction in the provisions of services to patients of the hospital.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the impact of the move to the new mental health unit in the hospital is consistent with the modernisation and flexibility agenda contained in Sustaining Progress and the Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body. Therefore, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim for a compensation payment.
The Court notes that the Partnership Committee will sponsor a Future Search Conference to take place by year end or as soon as possible thereafter, "to explore how best an initiative could be developed to meaningfully assist in dealing with issues that might arise" The Court endorses this initiative.
However, the Court is concerned at the length of time it has taken to address the "snag list" in the new facility. The Court recommends that a committee comprising of management and staff and/or their representatives, should as a matter of priority, seek to have these problems dealt with. If the difficulties are not resolved within six weeks from the date of this recommendation, the Court will consider recommending some form of compensation for the inconvenience and irritation involved.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd_September, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.