FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICES EXECUTIVE (HSE) - (SOUTH EAST) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Additional Staff 2. Relocation Payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. St. John's Hospital, Enniscorthy is a geriatric hospital run by the HSE. It is currently being replaced by a new hospital on an adjacent site within the same grounds. Phase 1 of the project is almost ready for occupation and the HSE plans to transfer 64 patients into it as soon as possible. The Union claim is for (i) Additional staffing resources; and (ii) Relocation payment. The HSE has rejected both claims and quoting Sustaining Progress has asked the Union to co-operate with the opening of the new hospital pending the outcome of these proceedings.
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 17th February, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd August, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1Additional Staff:
The Union is seeking minor staff increases as outlined to the Court so that the Unit can continue to move forward; improve local service for the care of the elderly patients in the hospital to deliver a value-for-money service; provide improved service for patients and a better work environment and to enhance Union/Management relations on an ongoing basis.
Relocation Payment:
1.Due to the re-organisation and restructuring of care of the and elderly services in St. John's Hospital staff employed in this area will in future be obliged to re-locate to new duty areas between two separate buildings, with de-designation of patients as part of the new service.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1Additional Staff:
Management has already increased support staffing by 46.45 whole time equivalent (WTE) staff since 1999 with 10 fewer patients to look after.
2. Management has provided a new complex, improvements in staffing levels, reduction in patient numbers and new equipment and facilities all of which will greatly enhance working conditions for staff and provide patients with the comfort and care they deserve.
Relocation Payment:
1.Management rejects the Union claim for relocation compensation on the basis that the new facilities are on the same campus as the old hospital. No additional travel is incurred by staff in relation to their journeys to and from work.
2. In accepting the pay increases which were achieved under Sustaining Progress, staff have committed to "further development of a public service which...is focused on the needs of its customers...."The impact of the move to the new facility is consistent with the modernisation and flexibility agenda of Sustaining Progress. The claim is cost-increasing and thus is precluded under Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffing:
In the view of the Court, the staffing of wards is a decision for clinical management. The Court so recommends.
Relocation Compensation:
The Court sees no merit nor precedent for this claim and does not recommend that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th August, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.