Nurses' union questions social partnership status quo

At the annual conference of the Irish Nurses Organisation, held in May 2005, delegates voiced considerable discontent over the social partnership 'status quo' in Ireland. The union has threatened to pull out of the second public service pay benchmarking process - due to commence later in 2005 - and take industrial action in pursuit of a 3.5% pay rise that employers have threatened to withhold.

The Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) represents approximately 31,000 nurses. The message to emerge from its annual conference in early May 2005 is that the leadership of the INO want to 'challenge the assumption that benchmarking and social partnership'- at least in its present guise - 'is the only show in town'. Therefore, the INO is looking to assert an independent stance and 'challenge the validity' of the 'one size fits all' status quo, which is seen as 'a flawed process'.

'Benchmarking' is the process through which the pay of public servants is compared with private sector occupations. Prior to the first benchmarking process, which was concluded in June 2002, public service unions argued that their members’ pay had fallen behind private sector wages. Under the first benchmarking process, public servants received average pay increases of 8.9% spread over three phases (IE0207203N). 'Benchmarking part two' is due to commence later in 2005, but pay rises are most unlikely to be of the same scale, especially as it is now widely deemed that public service wages are running ahead of private sector wages. Benchmarking part one was something of a 'mixed bag' for INO members, attracting a variety of reactions. While staff nurses received an increase 8%, the more senior grades were awarded 15% to 16%.

The Health Minister, Mary Harney, addressing the INO conference, stated that resistance to workplace change in the Health Service has gone on too long, and that all parties must play a constructive role in the change process. However, this will be a formidable task, according to commentators, especially given the obvious ideological differences between the Minister, health employers and the unions, over how the health service should operate.

The INO threat to withdraw from benchmarking raises the crucial question - which the union's leadership are sure to weigh in the balance - of the alternatives, and, in particular, whether the union could actually achieve more for members outside the machinery of social partnership than inside. The earlier decision to 'go it alone' by the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland (ASTI) looms large in this regard, and other unions would perhaps be wary of pursuing a strategy along similar adversarial lines (IE0011224N).

Future role

Delegates at the INO conference in Killarney, County Kerry, expressed discontent with benchmarking and the current national partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress (IE0301209F and IE0304201N), as well as uncertainty about the future role and skills mix of nurses - in relation to how it will fit in with the roles of a new healthcare assistant grade and non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs).

The crux of the matter is that the INO wants to raise the status and pay of nurses relative to other professions. It feels that the pay and status of nurses, who are mostly women, still lags behind many other professions. As of 1 December 2004, the annual wage of staff nurses ranged from EUR 26,841 to a maximum of EUR 39,190.

The INO executive council tabled a contentious motion on the union’s future approach to benchmarking for debate at the conference. The motion was passed and the union will hold a special delegate conference in September, when it will debate whether or not to stick with benchmarking. A decision will be made at this special conference on whether the terms of reference for the second benchmarking exercise are sufficiently broad to deal fully with what the union sees as outstanding issues affecting its members.

Pay anomalies

Two long-standing grievances affecting the INO are the pay anomalies it says were created by the first benchmarking exercise - one in the mental disability sector and the other affecting public health nurses (PHNs). These claims were the subject of two separate Labour Court recommendations, but have yet to be resolved to the union’s satisfaction. The union is seeking the removal of these pay anomalies, as well as action on a 35-hour week for nurses. As matters stand, benchmarking two is the only means available to process these claims.

The terms of reference for benchmarking two are yet to be finalised, but the INO assistant general secretary, Dave Hughes, said that the union had received promises from the Department of Finance that the outstanding issues referred to would be specifically mentioned in the forthcoming terms of reference. However, much depends on how the specific issues are framed in the terms of reference and whether firm action is taken on resolving them, Mr Hughes says.

If the issues in question are not addressed satisfactorily, then the INO says that it is serious about pulling out of benchmarking. Even if the union is not ultimately serious about taking such a drastic step, by 'upping the ante' on its claims now, it may be hoping that that this tactic could have a knock-on effect on the deliberations of the benchmarking body, according to observers. The second benchmarking body will not issue its findings until the second half of 2007. A similar tactic of 'upping the ante' took place during the first benchmarking process, when the INO backed a motion at its 2002 annual conference to sanction nationwide industrial action if benchmarking did not deliver its minimal demand for parity of pay and conditions with other healthcare professionals, or a pay increase of about 30%.

PVG pay threat

Existing levels of dissatisfaction within the ranks of the INO membership with the direction of Ireland’s current social partnership model have been fuelled further by the fact that the new Health Service Executive (HSE) has threatened to block payment of the 3.5% rise due to nurses with effect from 1 June 2005 - which consists of the last 25% benchmarking payment, worth 2% for a staff nurse, and the first 1.5% phase of part two of the pay terms of Sustaining Progress.

Under the Performance Verification Group (PVG) process established under Sustaining Progress in 2003 (IE0402202N,) health employers have cited the INO for breaching the modernisation provisions in the deal, alleging that the union is not cooperating with the introduction and training of a new grade of healthcare assistant. Increases due under benchmarking and Sustaining Progress will be paid only following verification by the PVG of adequate progress in implementation of the industrial peace/modernisation agenda. The final decision on whether to pay or not in the health sector rests with the secretary general of the Department of Health.

The INO’s Dave Hughes says that the reason given by the employer side for threatening to withhold the pay rise is 'spurious' and that employers are trying to place the union 'offside'. The INO takes the view that the threat constitutes a retaliatory strike by management as a result of the ongoing protest by nurses about problems in hospital accident and emergency departments. Nurses have been engaging in a series of lunchtime protests in this regard, which the INO plans to continue.

Demarcation dispute?

The HSE has denied that the threat to withhold pay increases in June 2005 is linked to the INO accident and emergency campaign. It is of the view that the INO’s alleged refusal to cooperate with the implementation and training of the new hospital healthcare assistant grade constitutes an old-fashioned demarcation dispute.

The implementation of the new healthcare assistant grade, and the implications for the role of nurses, was the subject of a heated debate at the INO conference. The position of the union executive is that nurses themselves must retain the right to decide on whether or not to delegate duties, such as taking blood pressure and reading temperatures, to what it terms unregulated healthcare assistant grades, basing their final decision upon the needs of the patient and their own professional judgment. If healthcare assistants make a mistake, it is registered nurses who will ultimately be held responsible, the INO fears. There are signs that the dispute is also stoking inter-union tensions between the INO and Ireland’s largest union, the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU), which represents many healthcare assistants. SIPTU is in a difficult position because it represents both healthcare assistants and about 9,000 nurses.

The INO general secretary, Liam Doran, told delegates, 'forget pay. This goes to the heart and soul of what nurses will be doing in five or 10 years time'. He added into the mix the issues raised by the EU working time Directive, and its impact on the work patterns of NCHDs, which may result in nurses taking on an expanded role.

Processing the dispute

The next step is that the pay dispute will go before the Health Service National Joint Council (NJC) on 12 May 2005, where senior employer and trade union representatives will try to find a solution. One of the main tasks of the Health NJC is to deal with difficult industrial relations disputes. If there is no agreement, then the dispute looks set to be referred on to the Labour Relations Commission/Labour Court under the procedures in the national agreement. Section 19.9 of Sustaining Progress covers what constitutes a breach of the agreement, and ultimately provides for a binding determination.

At the May conference, the INO executive passed an emergency motion warning that it would take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all pay increases are paid on time, including industrial action. There is a view within the INO that it is being singled out by the government and the HSE. It is aware that employers did not threaten to withhold pay rises from members of the Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union (IMPACT), when IMPACT engaged in industrial action over health service reforms late in 2004, and that this union was not cited for a breach of Sustaining Progress as a result.

INO not alone

The depth of INO member dissatisfaction with the current social partnership model was illustrated by the scale of their rejection of Sustaining Progress part two (IE0409203F), having voted in favour of part one. The INO is not alone in its disillusionment with the current partnership process. There is a growing perception among the ranks of other unions - for instance, the Union of Retail, Bar and Administrative Workers (MANDATE) and the Irish Bank Officials Association (IBOA) in the private sector - that the direction of pay policy is disproportionately shaped by the interests of IMPACT and the civil service unions.

It has also emerged that the second largest member of the alliance of nursing unions, SIPTU, is also threatening to pull out of benchmarking in relation to its nursing members, and the matter was discussed at the union’s national nursing convention in Cork, also in early May. In a recent statement, SIPTU’s national nursing official, Oliver McDonagh, remarked that: 'the Public Service Benchmarking Body may not be the most appropriate mechanism for determining nurses’ pay in a fair and transparent manner so as to command the respect and confidence of the profession.' Unless the new benchmarking process 'is allowed to address long-standing grievances left unresolved by the previous Benchmarking Body, then it is highly unlikely that nurses would be willing to cooperate in the exercise', Mr McDonagh warned.

Commentary

The Irish Nurses Organisation is clearly dissatisfied with the social partnership status quo. However, what is the alternative for the INO, and indeed other unions disaffected with the current social partnership/benchmarking situation? They could decide to use their 'industrial muscle' to pursue an adversarial strategy along the lines of the ASTI teaching union, but it is debatable whether this would ultimately be fruitful. Or, it may be that they could try and combine their collective weight to lobby for a rebalancing of priorities within the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), but remain within the social partnership process.

The option of industrial action is available, but it is clear that the traditional trade union strike weapon has been substantially 'blunted' in Ireland in recent years. It is becoming more and more the case that industrial relations are increasingly governed and corralled by institutions, procedures and clauses (IE0503202F) - with disputes being referred to the state dispute resolution mechanisms, and complex procedures in national agreements, including the Performance Verification Group procedures and the modernisation/industrial peace clause. Even when procedures are exhausted, the 'voluntary' code of practice on industrial action in essential services agreed in 2003 (IE0404202F) provides that unions must give three weeks' notice before embarking on industrial action.

Therefore, unions are now finding that they have to jump through more and more hoops before they can instigate strike action and, by this time, the sting may have been drawn. However, it is now difficult for unions to criticise this state of affairs, given that they were acquiescent in 'relinquishing' the strike weapon. Indeed, they played a central role in negotiating the various industrial peace procedures. The issue is further complicated for a union like the INO, which obviously has to consider the implications for patient care when devising plans for industrial action, even though it knows it can draw on a reservoir of public sympathy in the event of a strike. This was certainly the case when the nursing alliance embarked on a nine-day nationwide strike in 1999 in pursuit of a pay rise for members (IE9912202N). On the back of the strike, the nurses secured - through various sets of negotiations - pay rises totalling 26% ahead of agreed basic pay rises. However, this 26% pay rise was on top of a relatively low base rate.

It is clear that the level of conflict currently simmering across the Irish health service and the sheer number of points of aggravation - not just among nurses - has not been helped by the fact that a leadership vacuum has opened up, with a lack of a clear direction and poor communication, which, in turn, has generated considerably uncertainty on the ground. There have been extensive changes in senior personnel, both in the Department of Health, and in relation to the restructuring of the old Health Boards and the formation of the new Health Service Executive. In fact, the new chief executive of the HSE is yet to take up his post.

On the other hand, however, there is little doubt that the public service unions could themselves do more to engage actively with some of the industrial relations problems facing the health service. While the unions do respond to many legitimate grievances among members, in some instances it appears to be a case of too easily slipping into 'resistance mode' when any change proposal is mooted. As a result, while the concept of enterprise partnership is very much in vogue in Ireland - and there have been moves towards a partnership-style approach in some areas - adversarialism is still very much alive in the health service, with both employers and unions often being tempted to resort to this traditional modus operandi. (Tony Dobbins, Industrial Relations News)