Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93515
Case Number: LCR14244
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: COOMBE HOSPITAL - and - THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION (INO
|
Subject:
Claim for re-grading 5 Junior Ward Sister posts.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the Court is
of the view that the appropriate course for the parties to this
case is to await the outcome of the National Gradings and
Differentials claim which is being submitted to arbitration.
The Court So recommends.
CLARIFICATION:
7th December, 1993
Mr P J Madden MA
General Secretary
The Irish Nurses organisation
11 Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2
RE: LCR14244
DEAR MR MADDEN
Your letter of 3rd December, 1993 refers.
On 27th October, 1993, the Court heard all the arguments put
forward by the parties in relation to this case and having
considered the issues, deemed it appropriate to recommend the
course set out in LCR14244.
Accordingly, the Court does not propose to re-hear the case.
Yours sincerely
------------------
Kevin Heffernan
Chairman
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93515 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14244
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: COOMBE HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Irish business and Employers Confederation)
and
THE IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION (INO)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for re-grading 5 Junior Ward Sister posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In February, 1991, the INO submitted a claim on the
Hospital for the regrading of five Junior Ward Sister posts to
that of Ward Sister. The Hospital indicated that it was
prohibited by the Department of Health from conceding the
claim as its staff complement allowed for a fixed number of
Ward Sister posts.
2. On 28th March, 1991, the INO referred the issue to the
Labour Relations Commission. The Department of Health
indicted that it was not prepared to sanction the regrading as
the INO had made a major National Gradings and Differential
claim and, therefore, was disbarred under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (PESP) from bringing this
separate claim.
3. A conciliation conference was held on 29th April, 1993.
Agreement could not be reached and the issue was referred by
the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court. The
Court investigated the matter on 27th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The present post holders undertake the full range of
duties applicable to their Ward Sister colleagues and play
identical roles within their respective areas.
2. Neither PESP nor the National pay claim has any bearing
on the merit of this regrading claim.
3. Agreements on the regrading of posts have been reached
with other employers.
4. Concession of this claim would have minimal impact on
the overall budget.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 4 of the Memorandum to PESP allows one cost
increasing claim to be processed and pending the outcome of
the major regrading and differentials claim, no progress can
be made on this issue.
2. The claim would have a knock-on effect throughout the
country.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the Court is
of the view that the appropriate course for the parties to this
case is to await the outcome of the National Gradings and
Differentials claim which is being submitted to arbitration.
The Court So recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th November, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./U.S. ----------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.
CLARIFICATION:
7th December, 1993
Mr P J Madden MA
General Secretary
The Irish Nurses organisation
11 Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2
RE: LCR14244
DEAR MR MADDEN
Your letter of 3rd December, 1993 refers.
On 27th October, 1993, the Court heard all the arguments put
forward by the parties in relation to this case and having
considered the issues, deemed it appropriate to recommend the
course set out in LCR14244.
Accordingly, the Court does not propose to re-hear the case.
Yours sincerely
------------------
Kevin Heffernan
Chairman