FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE NORTH EAST - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Inadequate clerical cover 2. Absence of formalised Triage system 3. Absence of A&E security 4. Environ deficiencies
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) and the Health Service Executive (HSE)North East in relation to what the Union regards as unacceptable conditions that exist in the Accident and Emergency Department of Our Lady's Hospital, Navan Co. Meath. The Union's position is that inadequacies exist with regard to clerical cover, there is an absence of a formalised Triage system and Security within the A&E department and certain environ deficiencies also exist. The HSE accepts in principle the validity of the Union's claim but is operating to strict financial budgets and a cap on additional employment to curb expenditure.
As the dispute could not be resolved at local level, it was the subject of a conciliation
conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 4th May, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th August, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clerical cover is only available during office hours from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Monday to Friday. As the A&E hatch remains open 24/7, there is a requirement to provide clerical cover while the hatch is open. Currently, nursing staff are providing this cover which is unacceptable and cannot continue.
2. Our Lady's Hospital is the only hospital in the HSE North East region that does not have a formalised Triage system. The lack of this system has a negative effect on the efficient running of the department and is also at variance with the Comhairle na nOspideal Report of the Committee of A&E Services 2002.
3. Security personnel are needed at the hospital as there is an increasing amount of psychiatric and violent patients attending the A&E Unit.
4. The building that provides the A&E service is a 30 year old prefabricated building and inadequately equipped to meet the demands expected of it. A new and adequately equipped building is required to provide an acceptable level of service to attendees at the Unit.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management accept in principle the concerns of the Union and the need for improvement in the areas outlined. The difficulty is that Management must work within a certain budget and a cap on recruitment has also been enforced. Management have sought funding at various times for the identified improvements needed but due to the constraints have not been successful.
2. Management have tried to address the clerical cover issue from within the resources currently available at the hospital. Certain initiatives have been suggested but were either unacceptable or deferred for discussion at a later date.
3. The setting up of a Triage system, while beneficial, is also dependent on adequate clerical support. Management did not receive funding or whole time equivalent (WTE) approval from the Government's 10 point plan on A&E funding.
4. Management did not receive funding for the provision of security personnel but did make several improvements in this area from available resources. As a result, security arrangements excluding dedicated personnel in the area are at a very high standard
5. Management were unsuccessful in obtaining funds for replacing the current facility. However, every possible improvement has been made through extensive refurbishment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has some doubts as to whether the matters raised in this claim could be properly classified as industrial relations issues. Nonetheless, they are the subject of dispute between the members of INO and their employer and it is in the interest of all parties that they be fairly addressed.
The Court notes that there is no substantial disagreement between the Union and Employer on the need for the measure claimed, in the interests of the efficient running of the A&E department of the hospital. In these circumstances, the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
The implementation of this recommendation, if accepted, will be dependant on the provision of adequate funding. Accordingly the Court recommends that this matter be raised at the National A&E Forum.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th August 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.