FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE (SOUTH EAST) - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Additional Staff / Relocation Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Health Servie Executive- Southern Area, (HSE) SIPTU and the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) in relation to staffing levels required to operate the newly constructed Hospital buildings located at St Johns Hospital, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford. The Unions' position is that funding was provided for improving patient accomodation at the hospital but no funding was made available for the additional staff that are required to provide an optimum level of care to patients
of the hospital. The Unions' position is that additional nursing and care assistants are required and the existing workforce should be compensated by way of additonal annual leave for co-operation with the new facility, the substandard conditions that they worked in to date and in recognition of disruption with continuing construction work on site.
Management's position is that a review of staff levels was carried out in 2000 (Brady Report) with significant staff increases since then. Management also claim that there are now less patients requiring care which further lessens the need for additional staff. Management reject the claim for relocation compensation on the basis that the new facility is located on the same grounds as the old one and disruption to the workforce is minimal.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 16th February 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th September 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1. Staffing levels identified in the Brady Report of 2000 were not implemented until 2004. There was no further review of staff requirements in the intervening six years. The number of patients may be down on previous levels but the level of dependency is far greater and staff are working under increased pressure. There is a fundamental need for an increase in staff levels to provide an acceptable level of care to patients at the hospital.
2. The claim for compensation in terms of additional annual leave is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The workers involved have been working in sub standard and outdated premises for a long time and will continue to be disrupted into the future with continuing construction work on site.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. In an attempt at resolution management offered one additional nursing post and four care assistants as well as 1.4 additional driver posts. Staff levels are well in excess of the numbers suggested by the Brady Report in 2000 despite there currently being fewer patients in the hospital. This is a very generous offer in the circumstances.
2 The claim for relocation compensation is completely inappropriate as the new premises is located within the grounds of the old hospital with little or no disurbance to the workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions sought additional staffing resources to ensure optimum nursing care to patients upon the opening and full cooperation of the new community hospital on grounds of St. John’s Hospital. They also sought recognition in the form of additional annual leave for their co-operation with the move. The INO’s submission to the Court specified where the additional nursing/care assistant posts would be required. This was supported by SIPTU.
In response to the claim, Management carried out an exercise to ascertain the requirements for additional resources and concluded by offering one additional nursing post and four additional care assistants (plus 1.4 additional driver posts).
Having examined the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that as an initial step in addressing the dispute between the parties and to enable the current 19 vacant beds to be occupied, Management’s offer should be accepted. Furthermore, the Court recommends that when the new hospital is at full capacity, a further review should take place, using the patient dependency index as recommended by the Brady Report June 2000. However, this review must also take account of the upgraded facilities provided in the new hospital and the reduction in-patient numbers envisaged. Along with the hospital management, the Court recommends full involvement of nurse managers and Union representatives in this review. (The Court notes the commitment given by Management at the hearing for inclusive involvement in terms of the planning for Phase 11 of the new hospital.)
Secondly, the Court recommends that an additional one day’s extra annual leave, at neutral cost, should be granted on a once off basis to those claimants who fully co-operate with the move to the new community hospital.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.