andDr. O'Connell asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the grave consequences arising from the failure of the chief executive officers to deal with the outstanding grievances of psychiatric nurses relating to unduly long temporary appointments, he will now issue a directive to the chief executive officers to have the problem dealt with and appointments made permanent as a matter of urgency and so eliminate one of the major grievances which has compelled the nurses reluctantly to withhold their professional services.
Private Notice Question. - Psychiatric Nurses Dispute.
Dr. Browne
asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the serious consequences involved in the present dispute concerning psychiatric nurses, he will consider holding an immediate inquiry into the whole situation with a view to ensuring that adequate nursing services will be available in the various institutions affected.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take the two questions together.
As the two parties to this dispute— the Health Boards and the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union— failed to reach agreement at meetings of a Joint Industrial Council, the matters in dispute were referred to the Labour Court. The court intend to investigate them on Monday next, the 15th of this month. In these circumstances, it would be quite inappropriate that I should intervene.
I very much regret that strike action was taken while the normal process of negotiations had not yet been fully completed.
I should perhaps draw the attention of the House to the fact that the union have publicly stated that they proposed to provide a skeleton nursing service in each of the hospitals concerned sufficient to save patients from hardship. While some reports which have reached me would seem to indicate that the arrangements which the union made in some of the hospitals have been less than adequate, I sincerely hope that this was due to misunderstanding and that the Union will take immediate steps to honour their undertaking.
Is it not true that the nurses and their negotiating union have shown extraordinary patience in this matter in so far as some of the grievances go back as far as 1959? Is the Minister not aware that the unions are prepared to negotiate on either of the two outstanding major grievances—the temporary appointments or the promotions question? Is he aware that they are prepared to negotiate on the question of promotion either on the document submitted by them, which is known as the Cavan/Monaghan Agreement of which, I understand, the Minister approves but which the CEO's have failed to accept; or on the ten points put forward recently by Mr. Mulvihill on behalf of the management if the first of the ten points, which deals with the question of promotion, is not made a precondition to negotiating on the other nine points? Alternatively, they are prepared to negotiate on the matter of temporary appointments only, which concerns approximately 1,000 persons and which is the other major source of grievance with the nurses. In view of the grave hardship imposed on patients and also on the nurses who are on strike, may I ask the Minister whether he would be prepared not to wait for the Labour Court hearing on Monday but that he would make a decision in respect of any of these three proposals put forward here and allow the nurses to go back to work while useful negotiations could recommence between management and the nurses?
In view of the danger of attempted suicides, if not actual suicides, by many patients who are not receiving treatment, would the Minister not consider the matter as one of urgency? Also, when the Minister says the matter is one for the health boards is he not saying that it is a matter for the CEO and not for the health boards who have no control over this?
I do not follow what the Deputy has said. I have given my reply to the questions.
I have asked the Minister about the danger of suicides.
I expect the unions to permit drugs to be made available to patients. I should think it would be frightful if they did not do so. So far as I know, in most mental hospitals adequate drugs and medical attention are being made available to deranged patients. If there is any exception to that it is the duty of the unions, from the purely humane point of view, to permit the skeleton services to operate. These services include the provision of food, drugs, medicine and fuel to the patients, particularly to those patients who require drugs and medicines urgently.
Would the Minister not agree that, in so far as there is overcrowding in these hospitals, the patients need constant attention?
Can the Minister say if the Labour Court propose to investigate all aspects of this matter, including the question of promotion?
Yes, the Labour Court intend to investigate all aspects of the matter.
I should inform the House that there are other matters of which the Deputies may not be aware. Members may not be aware that negotiations take place between two unions and separately with another union in regard to the question of promotion, permanency and other matters. At the moment one union is in dispute and has declared a strike. Another union is not in dispute in regard to these matters. Another union has given strike notice which will not expire until 19th November.
There are complexities in relation to these negotiations about which the House may not be aware. The unions are not all in agreement about the claims being made. That is a further complication for the chief executive officers and the arbitration official appointed to deal with the matters between the chief executive officers and the union. The right to permanency in relation to a number of posts has been accepted. I asked that agreement to this should be expedited but for the last 13 years this matter has always been linked with the question of the method of promotion on which the county managers and later the chief executive officers have always said that promotion should at least be similar to that to be found among nurses in general hospitals. It is the linking of these two problems—the permanency of posts and the promotions—which are to be investigated by the Labour Court on the 15th November. It is my hope that they will make a proposal which can be accepted by the unions.
Could the Minister establish whether the Chief Executive Officers' Association have any statutory authority to negotiate in this matter?
Under the health board legislation they are the people who are responsible for terms and conditions for staff appointed to the health boards.
That is, since the boards were established? Does that enable them to accept responsibility about matters which were at issue ten or 11 years ago?
I would not be certain about the legal position regarding that, but evidently they have taken the same point of view. There is no change in the connection which has always existed between the permanency of these posts and the method of promotion. I want to say again that Members of the House know perfectly well that I have intervened on some occasions when I felt that the authority concerned in the determination of wages and conditions should be speeded up or that regard should be had to special features concerning the dispute. I have asked chief executive officers to expedite the examination of permanency of posts. I believe that in an industrial dispute in the arena of sick or mentally infirm persons strike action should not be taken until all the resources of conciliation and settlement have been utilised. Strike action should very rarely be taken under these circumstances. The Labour Court are holding an open hearing on the 15th November. I trust that these matters can be settled then between the CEOs and the unions. It would appear that in some mental hospitals drugs are not being allowed to reach the patients. I hope that the union concerned will ensure that their members observe the clear conditions which have been pre-stated in this regard. The only alternative will be, if old, infirm and mentally handicapped persons are suffering, to have volunteers looking after these patients for humane reasons.
Today is Tuesday. Nothing will happen until next Monday. Does the Minister not appreciate the significance of Deputy O'Connell's interjection stating that there could be serious consequences for individuals because of the inadequacy of the staff at present available as a result of this dispute? In relation to the question of skeleton staff, is it not a fact that the members of the nursing staff were so anxious to see that an adequate skeleton staff were provided that practically all of them volunteered for service in St. Brendan's Hospital? If they were all permitted to take part there would be no strike, so the union asked that they might be able to define the type of skeleton staff to be maintained. This was rejected by the authorities at St. Brendan's. Further, does the Minister realise that if the transport union are as anxious as the Minister to see that the minimum hardship should be caused they can appeal to congress, if they wish to do so and can ask for the support of the Workers' Union, the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union, and the Irish Medical Union, and can bring services completely to a halt? It is in sympathy with their role as nurses that they have failed to do this until now. Will the Minister not take action to see that his own ten points are reconsidered as a basis for negotiation, less the one point which he knows refers to the question of promotion and which is already the subject of consideration by a working party who are to advise the Minister and will not report until the end of the year?
Would it be possible for the Labour Court to meet before next Monday in view of the urgency of this matter?
The Labour Court have so far stated that they are not prepared to advance the date of their meeting.
The plight of the patients is not important to them.
I do not know whether they would reconsider their attitude in view of the statements made in the House. I cannot force the Labour Court to expedite their hearing.
Could the Minister put the facts before the Labour Court because of the grave concern expressed by Deputies and public? The situation is so urgent that the Labour Court might be prepared to consider the matter before Monday next.
The Labour Court have been approached informally about this matter and have decided not to advance the date of the hearing. In regard to what Deputy Dr. Browne said about getting the help of other unions to enforce a complete strike, I cannot believe that that could take place in connection with mentally infirm persons.
Deputy Dr. Browne said they were acting so responsibly they would not do that.
I hope they never would.
The Minister is aware that the harmony and good relations which have existed for years between doctors and nurses may be permanently ruined if this strike escalates? Tension is already building up among the patients in mental hospitals. Would the Minister not agree that he should try to call interested parties to sit around the conference table tomorrow, if at all possible?
Surely the Minister must agree that it is a rather peculiar situation to hear him condemning the unions here while eight chief executive officers and a couple of people in the Labour Court are responsible for this situation, and not the trade unions involved?
All I have said is that I had hoped that the one trade union concerned would have waited until after the 15th November until all possible arbitration possibilities had been exhausted.
(Interruptions.)
Last Wednesday Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins and I went to the Minister's office and warned him that this strike would take place and he did nothing about it. Would the Minister agree that that is correct?
(Interruptions.)