FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Access To Night Duty
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) and the Health ServiceExecutive (HSE) West in relation to equal access to night duty premium hours for nurses employed at the Plunkett Home Community Nursing Unit in Boyle, Co Roscommon.
It is Management's position that there have been agency nurses employed to do night duty at the facility as there are no additional Whole Time Equivalent (WTE) positions sanctioned. Management also contends that the agency workers are only interested in working night duty and if they were to be liable to work day shifts, they would leave in order to avail of night duty premium hours elsewhere.
The Unions position is that it is unacceptable that its members should be refused equal access to night duty premium hours on the basis of the reasons put forward by management. The Union is seeking equal access to night duty and premium payments of time and one quarter. It is also seeking €5000 compensation for loss of earnings and the distress and trauma caused to its members by the issue.
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 29th May 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th July, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Staff Nurses at the unit are being treated unfairly with regard to access to night duty premium hours of work. Agency workers employed to work only night duty are in receipt of higher levels of income and are not required to work day shifts.
2 Management has failed to afford nurses equal access to night duty and premium payments. The arrangement put in place in 2002 for the use of agency nurses was a temporary measure pending the filling of 2.7 nursing posts. This "temporary" situation still prevails which is unacceptable and undervalues and discrimminates against staff nurses employed at the unit.
3 Management contend that agency workers will leave if required to work day shifts. If this occurs there will be equitable access to night duty and premium payments for all staff nurses and additional hours required on day duty can be covered by overtime or by way of extra attendance by part time staff.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Agency nurses are not willing to work day shifts. If management force the issue, the agency nurses will inevitably leave and seek employment in other hospitals where they will work only on night duty.
2 Staff nurses do have access to night duty and are rostered equally to work alongside the agency nurse. There are no approved positions to provide an extra staff nurse to work in place of the agency nurse on night duty.
3 Agreements were concluded for an increase in staffing levels in 2004 on the basis of the opening of a palliative care bed, which has not happened as a result of disagreements with the Trade Union.
4 There are currently requests from nurses wishing to reduce their working week. The Union's suggested solution of additional hours and overtime is not practical and will not work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties in this case.
The Court's view as expressed in LCR 13459, Southern Health Board/ INO, PNA and SIPTU that
"everything possible should be done to ensure an equitable share of premium time to those who wish to work it"remains unchanged.
Paragraph 21.9 of "Sustaining Progress"and Paragraphs 28.9 and 28.13 of the "pay, the workplace and compliance" section of "Towards 2016" both provide for the employment of temporary staff in exceptional circumstances involving temporary pressures or plans or in order to avoid excessive delays in the delivery of services.
It was not in the view of the Court, envisaged that situations like this would apply for periods as long as five years as is the case in the Plunkett Home Community Nursing Unit. All it seems to do is diminish the value and thrust of these National Agreements.
The Court accordingly recommends that both parties now adhere in full to the terms of the agreement reached between them in July 2004.
This should include the agreed staffing levels to that point without recourse to agency workers , the opening of the Palliative Care service and the consequent equal access for all nursing staff to avail of opportunities for premium-time working.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st July 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.