Vol. 231 No. 2
asked the Minister for Health if he will urge the representatives of the Dublin voluntary hospitals and the trade unions concerned to arrange an immediate conference for the purpose of considering the claim for the introduction of a 40-hour week, made on behalf of hospital porters etc., which has been outstanding for approximately three years.
12.
asked the Minister for Health if, having regard to public anxiety caused by the current ban on overtime in Dublin voluntary hospitals, he will state the steps which will be taken to avoid risk and hardship to sick and injured persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together.
The Irish Transport and General Workers Union has informed the Federated Union of Employers that, with effect from 13th instant, overtime will not be worked by its members employed in Dublin voluntary hospitals. The staff concerned are all male and comprise porters, orderlies, attendants etc.
Deputy Mullen's question contains an implication that the claim for a 5-day 40-hour week for certain nonnursing personnel employed by the Dublin voluntary hospitals has not been considered by the employers. In fact, this claim has had a very full measure of consideration, including several meetings between the employers and the workers, five conciliation conferences under the chairmanship of a Labour Court officer and two open hearings by the Labour Court. During that time, the hours were reduced from 45 to 42½ while the working week for most of the categories involved was reduced to 5½ days. Earlier this year the employers made a further offer of a 5-day 42½ hour week with a 6-day spreadover. However, the workers rejected this offer, even when it had been endorsed by a Labour Court recommendation.
I cannot accept the implication that a claim is outstanding merely because, irrespective of its merits, it has not been conceded in full.
I fully share Deputy Ryan's concern for the welfare of the patients in hospitals affected by the union's ban on overtime. At my request, the Hospitals Commission has asked each hospital authority to indicate, as a matter of urgency, what steps they propose to take to maintain essential services whilst the ban on overtime is in operation. I am awaiting a report from the Commission which, I hope, will be reassuring. I shall keep in close touch with the position and the Deputy may rest assured that every effort will be made to safeguard the welfare of the patients.
Having regard to what the Minister has said are the implications in my question, does he not agree that it is of the utmost importance that discussions should take place between both parties in order to avoid a continuance of the overtime ban? Would the Minister not ask both parties to come to a conference with him, without giving any indication as to what is in his own mind?
I do not accept that what the Deputy has said is so and I do not intend to intervene. I do not know what is to be gained by calling yet another conference. The workers have already been assured by the Federated Union of Employers that the negotiations may be recommenced in April but apparently they are not prepared to wait until then and apparently the union is not prepared to advise them to wait until next April.
Surely the Minister is aware that the workers were warned by the employers that if industrial action was taken, court actions would be taken against them? They took the only course open to them and surely, in these circumstances, there is a clear need for ministerial intervention?
Do I understand that the situation now is that a ban on overtime will exist for six months? If this is so, does the Minister not agree that this would be a hard blow to sick and deserving people? I would ask him to intervene at this stage because six months is far too long to leave sick human beings at the mercy of improvised services.
It is not I who put the patients in this position.
All I am asking is that the Minister should make an effort towards a settlement.
I believe in the Labour Court machinery and I cannot accept the implication in the question that a claim is outstanding merely because it has not been conceded in full.
It has been going on for three years.
I am not going to intervene. If they go back, negotiations can begin the next day.
Procedural matters should be put in abeyance in matters as serious as this.
I repeat that I will not intervene.
