LCR22456

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

TIPPERARY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY HSE SOUTH EAST)

- AND -

10 NURSES (6.3 WTE )
(REPRESENTED BY INMO)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Location Allowance

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27 April 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 September 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Precedent exists in the HSE for payment of the Location Allowance to Nurses working in endoscopy service areas in other hospitals.

2. This allowance is not being paid to the Nursing staff working in the Surgical Day Services (Endoscopy) Unit of Tipperary General Hospital.

3. The Union is seeking the payment of the Location Allowance to the Nursing Staff, retrospective to 26^thFebruary 2020.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Surgical day ward staff do not perform the endoscopy nursing processes nor the procedural elements associated. Theatre staff nurses carry our such procedures and are paid the location allowance accordingly.

2. The surgical day ward is not 24/7, it is for day cases and not endoscopy service. Day services do not normally attract location allowance.

3. Any concession to this claim by the employer would have consequential cost increasing claims both regionally and nationally.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Trade Union seeks the application of a location allowance to day-ward personnel whose functions, in part, relate to the activities of the endoscopy unit of the hospital. The employer contends that the application of the location allowance in relevant part is, by agreement with the Trade Union nationally, confined to certain areas and certain WTE nurses in hospitals across the country. In this hospital, the day-ward and the WTE’s who are the subject of the claim are not included in the agreed application of the allowance.

It is clear that in certain locations in the Country the application of the allowance has not accorded with the nationally agreed arrangements, and this is an aggravating factor in the within dispute. The employer has identified at least one such instance as an error by a particular hospital.

The dispute is further aggravated by what appears to be an inability of the parties to agree on the factual matter of whether the 6.3 WTE claimants before the Court actually perform medical and surgical endoscopies. The Trade Union submission to the Court records as a basis for the claim that the members have advised the Trade Union that they do perform such procedures. The employer asserts unequivocally that they do not. The Court notes that the Official representing the workers did not contend that any nurse at all performs this medical procedure in any location nationally.

The Court notes that the arrangements for application of the location allowance to nurses involved in endoscopy procedures is the subject of a national agreement. The claim before the Court seeks to have the allowance extended to the 6.3 WTE nurses involved in the claim as an addition to that national agreement and the agreed arrangements dealing with the implementation thereof.

The Court, having considered the matter and in particular the agreed nature of arrangements nationally for payment of the location allowance, recommends that any engagement in relation to the matter should take place nationally as distinct from locally between the parties.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.