FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Arrangements relating to nurse education centres.Previous LCR18555
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns matters outstanding between the parties following Labour Court Recommendation No. 18555. In 2002 an agreement was reached between the parties to transfer pre-registration nursing education to the third level sector. In 2006 the Union brought a claim before the Court in relation to the Agreement. The Union were seeking the restoration of options given to nurse teachers in 2002 and agreement on arrangements relating to the transfer of pre- registration nursing education to the third level sector. The Court issued LCR 18555 which recommended full implementation of the agreement and further local discussions on outstanding matters, with the option to refer any residual matters back to the Court. In 2009 the parties agreed to an independent review of the functions of the Centres for Nursing and Midwifery Education. The "Butler Report" was published in August, 2009 and further talks commenced between the parties.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a Conciliation Conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the14th June, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th September, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The HSE confirmed before the Labour Court in 2006, that it had not fulfilled its obligation under the 2002/2006 Agreements. It confirmed this again before the Labour Relations Commission in 2010.
2 The 2002/2006 agreement was very specific in respect of the role of the Centres. The Butler Report confirmed that these agreements were not in place. The Butler Report sets out straight forward methods by which the Centres can operate. It is reasonable that this group of workers who have been attempting to have their situation corrected since 2002 and who participated in this review fully, should now have its principles implemented as a matter of priority.
3 The Union are seeking an entitlement to have the options available to the workers concerned in 2002 revisited, particularly the option of early retirement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The HSE recognises that there have been difficulties in implementing the agreement in the manner that was originally intended. The HSE remains cognisant of the necessity for the workers concerned having a relevant role with proper governance structure in light of the necessity for ongoing in service education and training for nurses in the current environment.
2 The HSE is opposed to the reopening of the option of early retirement with added years. It is unreasonable to seek to have such an option reinstated almost ten years after the original offer had been made.
3 The reopeninig of the scheme offered to nurse teachers in 2002 would set huge precedents within the health service and wider public sector. Any such move is opposed by the Department of Finance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the dispute has continued for an inordinate period during which it was the subject of a previous Labour Court investigation and has been considered by an independent consultant appointed by the parties. This independent consultant produced a comprehensive report on all aspects of the dispute (the "Butler" report). Despite these initiatives the dispute remains unresolved.
In the Court's view the resolution of the dispute could best be advanced within the parameters of the Butler report. The Court recommends that the parties establish a working party to consider how best to implement the recommendations of the Butler report, having regard to current constraints.
It is clear that the ultimate solution to the issues in dispute will require the active involvement of the Department of Health. The Department is not party to this referral and consequently the Court cannot address any recommendations to the Department. The parties should, however, invite other interested parties, including the Department of Health, to participate in this working party.
Having regard to the period over which this matter has remained unresolved the process recommended above should be expediated. Accordingly, the working party should be established immediately following the acceptance of this recommendation and should complete its work in a period of not more than six months
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th October, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.