Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Feb 1996

Vol. 462 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Hospital Workers Dispute.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Tá mé buíoch as ucht an deis chun an aighneas seo a ardú ar an athló. Tá suil agam go mbeidh deis ag an Aire, agus acu siúd atá ag oibriú thar a cheann ar thaoibh an bhainistithe, na cainteannaí seo a thabhairt faoi réir arís agus, le cúnamh Dé, beidh deis againn deireadh a chur leis an aighneas.

I call on the Minister for Health to intervene in the industrial dispute which will disrupt services in 40 hospitals and many health centres in the greater Dublin area tomorrow. As the Minister of State knows, tomorrow's dispute will be the second disruption of hospitals and health centres in a week. Last week's stoppage resulted in severe difficulties for hospital patients and staff due to lack of portering facilities and so on. It also resulted in hot lunches for patients being replaced with soup and sandwiches. Non emergency admissions in many hospitals were cancelled, while one third of the Eastern Health Board's 110 health centres were closed. Payment of supplementary welfare was also affected at ten centres.

Tomorrow's stoppage is likely to result in the same level of disruption and an escalation of the dispute is threatened unless a resolution is quickly found. For example, a 24 hour stoppage by manual workers is planned for next Wednesday. If this goes ahead, it will result in absolute chaos in the health services and will put many other hospital workers under immense pressure. The entire health system in the greater Dublin area could grind to a halt with potentially serious implications for some patients.

I am not trying to be alarmist. It is time for management, on behalf of the Minister for Health, and the unions to get together through the LRC machinery and resolve this. I ask the Minister for Health — whom I am delighted to see in the House — to intervene in this dispute about pension provisions for manual workers which has dragged on for too long. New talks should be convened following the failure of this week's talks with the Labour Relations Commission.

The workers involved in this dispute are exasperated at the delays in improving what appears to be a very complex pensions scheme. They state that some of the payments are very low. According to SIPTU figures, a porter with a maximum of 40 years service has an occupational pension of £27.50 per week. One of the anomalies is that when the social welfare old age pension increases in July by £2.20, the occupational pension for such a porter will reduce to £23.10. That is extraordinary and there must be something which can be done to resolve the exasperation felt by workers.

A great deal of progress was made at the LRC talks in relation to part-time workers. Some progress was made in relation to referring issues to the pensions commission. There is scope for improvement and a resolution satisfactory to both sides. I ask the Minister to encourage both sides to get together again and use the comprehensive industrial relations machinery which is there to resolve the situation.

Minister for Health (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick East): I thank Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn for giving me this opportunity of responding to the issue she has raised of the proposed industrial action by non-nursing unions.

Health service management has, for some time, been engaged in talks with the unions representing the non-nursing group in relation to their claim for an improvement in superannuation schemes. The union has been pursuing this claim under Clause 4 of the agreement on pay incorporated in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. The management side is of the view that the claim is not covered under this clause, which is concerned with claims for the introduction of pension schemes where none exist, and claims for the improvement of such schemes where these are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments.

This group is covered under the public service superannuation schemes and is not considered by the health service management to be out of line with analogous employments. The claim, as presented, would represent a fundamental change to the public service superannuation code, particularly in regard to the co-ordination of occupational pension and social welfare entitlement. Any consideration of the claim must also have regard to the terms of reference of the recently established Commission on Public Service Pensions.

While I am concerned about the potential impact of the threatened strike, I am of the view that the negotiation process has not yet been exhausted. Apart from the breach of the industrial peace clause of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work agreement involved, I am concerned at the nature and scale of disruption to services which would arise from a continuation of industrial action.

The union and management sides are currently engaged in further talks under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in an attempt to avert tomorrow's threatened action. Given the sensitivity of the discussions which have been taking place today, any further comment at this time would not be appropriate or constructive.