Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 159: To ask the Minister for Health and Children her views on the INO proposal for a 35 hour week for nurses; the approximate cost of this measure; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6297/07]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Irish Nurses' Organisation and the Psychiatric Nurses Association lodged a claim in December 2005 for a reduction in the working week from 39 to 35 hours per week. The Unions are seeking 39 hours pay for 35 hours work. It is estimated that an additional 4,000 nurses would have to be recruited to maintain existing levels of service if this claim were to be conceded. The increase in the hourly rate would also lead to an increase in the cost of overtime, premium pay and agency nurses. It is estimated that the additional cost in nursing pay terms of conceding this claim would be approximately €250m per annum. This figure does not include the additional superannuation costs associated with employing 4,000 additional staff. If additional suitably qualified staff were not available and the shortfall had to be made up by the overtime and/or agency nursing the costs would be even higher.

The majority of staff in the public health service — approximately 73,000 out of a total of 106,000 staff — currently work a 39 week. Grades who work a 39 hour week include non consultant hospital doctors, emergency medical technicians, social care professionals, health care assistants, catering staff, engineering staff, and others. In the wider public service, groups such as the gardaí and prison officers work 39 or more hours per week.

The claim for a reduction in the working week was one of eight claims heard by the Labour Court on 20 June 2006. A Recommendation (LCR 18763) issued on 9 November 2006. In relation to this claim the Court stated that concession of this claim at this time would have profound consequences for both health care delivery and costs unless effective countervailing measures could be put in place. The Court did recommend that the parties should jointly explore the possibility of initiating an appropriate process aimed at achieving major reorganisation of working arrangements and practices within the health service generally. The Court also stated that such an initiative should take account of and support existing development involving other groups. It held the view that if such a programme of change could be successfully implemented, the efficiencies, cost savings and other benefits accruing may allow this claim to be processed within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed between the parties.

I would emphasise that the Labour Court Recommendation has been accepted by the Health Service Employers but regrettably the Unions have stated that they neither accept or reject the Labour Court Recommendation. I arranged for exploratory discussions to be held between all the parties concerned at the offices of the HSE-Employers Agency on 19 January 2007. The employers indicated their willingness to engage in the process recommended by the Labour Court. While I understand the discussions provided clarity as to the respective positions of the parties the meeting adjourned without agreement on the way forward. I would urge the INO/PNA to give further serious consideration to the Labour Court Recommendation.