FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MATER PRIVATE HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGAINISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employer is a private hospital outside the auspices of the Health Service Executive (HSE), terms and conditions of employment generally mirror those of the HSE although there have been a number of enhancements that do not exist in the public health service. This dispute concerns the interpretation of an agreement reached between the Employer and the Union during the nationwide nurses' dispute on a 35 hour working week and increase in pay in 2007.
- The Employer claims that it committed to implement the deal that was subsequently agreed for the public health service, i.e. a 37.5 hour working week by June 2008 and an international commission to look at best practice on a 35 hour working week. The Union, however, claims that the agreement was for a study on the 35 hour working week to be completed by September 2007 and the 35 hour working week to be implemented by 2008.
This 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 4th December 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th March 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has honoured sections of the agreement, i.e. the 3% pay increase backdated to December 2006. The Employer paid this before the HSE, thereby undermining the Employer's argument that it cannot lead in negotiations on nursing terms and conditions.
2. The agreement with the Employer was seperate from any agreement with the HSE.
3.The working group should be established and operated according to its terms of reference in the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer cannot lead in negotiations on nursing terms and conditions. Concession of this claim would create a dangerous precedent for the health service in general, and leave the Employer open to further claims by other staff grades in relation to breaking the link with public sector rates.
2. At no time did the Employer concede a 35 hour working week. The Employer has committed toimplementing the deal that was subsequently agreed for the public health service.
3. Concession of a 35 hour working week would lead to huge financial, competitive and operational disadvantages.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the view of the Court, the Terms of Reference agreed on the 17th April 2007 cannot be considered in isolation from the Hospital's clarification of 21st April 2007.
A national strategy and timescale has evolved for dealing with the two-phased process aimed at meeting the Nursing Union's objective of a 35-hour working week.
The Court recommends that this matter should be processed in line with that national strategy and timescale.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19 March, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.