FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DINGLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY HSE) - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Gaeltacht Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dingle Community Hospital is situated in the West Kerry Gaeltacht and can care for up to 43 convalescent, palliative care and respite patients, a 72 bed facility is currently under construction and is due to open next year.
Nurses working in Dingle Community Hospital are required to have an adequate knowledge of the Irish language in order to be able to converse with mainly elderly patients from Gaeltacht areas, but they currently are not paid a Gaeltacht Allowance unlike other public sector employees.
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 16th May, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th March, 2008, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.There are 22 Nurses, 16 of whom are native Irish speakers employed in Dingle Community Hospital and there are 42 patients of whom 28 count Irish as their first language.2. All public servants working in the Gaeltacht area of Dingle who have established their proficiency in Irish are paid the allowance regardless of whether they work at or at a remove from their head-quarters/base.3. All other Nurses employed in similar facilities in designated Gaeltacht areas throughout the country are paid the allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of the allowance was to act as an incentive for the recruitment of qualified staff for community based services as opposed to hospital based staff. For example, Irish speaking Public Health Nurses would qualify for the allowance as they work on their own away from their base, in the community.2. If the claim were to succeed, it would have a knock-on effect on other hospital staff and having regard to the new 72 bed Community Hospital being built to replace the current facility, it would have a significant cost impact due to the additional staff that will be employed.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the facts of this situation have not been agreed upon by the parties, the Court has not been able to establish to its satisfaction the merits or otherwise of this case. The Court therefore recommends that the matter should be examined at National level. Should no agreement come out of this process by 30th June, 2008, the parties may revert to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th April, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.