FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SACRED HEART HOSPITAL, ROSCOMMON (REPRESENTED BY HSE WEST) - AND - 14 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Cessation of 'Green Nights'.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Sacred Heart Hospital is an elderly care Hospital (Band 4) with over 100 patients based in Roscommon. The issue in dispute, which was referred by the Union, concerns the withdrawal of "Green Nights" by Management. About ten years ago Health Care Assistants (HCAs) agreed to an earlier night duty starting time of 8.30pm, previously 9pm, on the understanding that they received a day off every four weeks. This was the practice up until April, 2009, when Management withdrew the facility. 14 HCAs are affected.
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 14th July, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management cannot unilaterally withdraw the "Green Nights" facility, however, the Union is prepared to negotiate a compensation package for its withdrawal if it's deemed the only way to resolve the issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is sufficient staffing on nights to meet both the needs of patients and to allow staff to take breaks. Bed numbers have decreased recently and the current occupancy rate is 80%.
2. With current budgetary cuts across the health sector there is simply not enough funds to continue the practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court brought by the Union is a claim on behalf of 14 Health Care Assistants concerning the cessation of “Green Nights” by Management. The Union sought reinstatement of the “Green Nights” arrangement and compensation for the losses involved to date. The HSE, on behalf of management, stated that as there are sufficient staff on duty at night to allow staff to avail of breaks, it decided to cease the arrangement as the practice of “Green Nights” was seriously impacting on the availability of staff during the day when the need was greatest.
“Green Nights” is an arrangement which existed in the Hospital from 2000 until 1st April 2009 when it was withdrawn by Management. It is the term given to the taking of time off during day working in lieu of taking breaks during night shift duty. Under this arrangement staff were paid for the hour’s break during which they provided cover and received the time off in lieu in addition.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court has taken serious account of the HSE’s assurance that the staffing levels are sufficient to allow staff to avail of a one-hour break at night, which may be taken away from their workplace, to allow the practice of “Green Nights” to cease. Furthermore, the Court notes the HSE’s assurances that the current practice since April 2009 is not in breach of HIQA standards nor Fire Regulations. On that basis the Court recommends that the arrangements in place since April 2009 should continue and those staff who previously worked under the “Green Nights” arrangements should be compensated for the losses involved.
The Court recommends that a lump sum to the value of one-and-a-half times' the annual loss should be paid to the Claimants involved within a period of six weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
The level of losses should be calculated in respect of each individual Claimant in the twelve-month period prior to April 2009 when the practice of “Green Nights” ceased.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th February 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.