[4] There have been ongoing negotiations between the Association and the Department of Health for some time regarding the terms of a new award, the nominal term of the existing award having expired on 30 June 2010. Indeed, since May 2010 the parties have met 13 times. The Association had put forward a number of claims including general improvements to wages and conditions, a new 'experienced nurse' classification and the claim relating to nurse to patient ratios. The Department made a counter offer in October 2010. Obviously, the negotiations between the parties were unsuccessful.
3 The Commission proposed an expedited process for addressing the industrial issues between the parties, but made the process conditional upon the stoppage being called off:
[12] In so far as the planned stoppage is concerned, in light of what I have said about expedition, it becomes unnecessary, on any objective criteria, for it to proceed. The fact is it will cause great inconvenience to patients and their families, will result in lost wages that nurses can ill-afford, especially at this time of the year, will put at risk Commonwealth monies that are tied to waiting lists, will disrupt unnecessarily the public hospital system generally and will not make a jot of difference to how the Association's claim is progressed except that if the stoppage does proceed, the Commission will not go out of its way to afford expedition and the matter will take its normal place in the Commission's list.
4 The Commission made the following recommendation and direction:
[13] The Commission strongly recommends that the Association by its officers, employees and members employed in the public health system by the Director General of Health refrain from taking industrial action on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 and that the parties redirect their energies towards achieving an expedition. Further, I direct the Association by its officers and employees to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the employees and members of the Association are made aware of my recommendation.
[14] The parties are to report their positions to me regarding this Statement and Recommendation at 11.00 am tomorrow, 19 November 2010. Liberty to apply on short notice.
5 On 19 November, the Commission was advised that the Association had convened a meeting of its Council to consider the Commission's Recommendation at 1.00 pm. In the meantime, counsel for the Director General foreshadowed that in the event the stoppage was to proceed, the Director General would seek a certificate of attempted conciliation pursuant to s 135 of the Act and upon the issuance of that certificate would seek orders from the Commission under s 137(1)(a) of the Act. The Commission adjourned until 1.00 pm.
6 In reporting back to the Commission on the outcome of the Council's deliberations, counsel for the Association advised the Commission that the Association had given serious consideration to the Commission's Recommendation but had determined not to accept it and that the stoppage would proceed as planned. The Director General immediately sought the certificate and orders earlier foreshadowed. The certificate was issued pursuant to s 135(7) of the Act and dispute orders were made together with appropriate directions. The Commission indicated it would provide reasons later. These are those reasons.
7 In support of the applications for a certificate and dispute orders, the Director General tendered a statement of Dr Tim Smyth, Deputy Director General, Health System Quality, Performance and Innovation, Department of Health. Dr Smyth in his statement described the impact of the strike action on the public health system and in particular its effect on planned surgery and emergency surgery. Dr Smyth indicated that the impact of the strike would not only be felt on Wednesday 24 November but in the days preceding and the days following. He also stated that some 2,000 patients whose planned surgery would have to be cancelled would face deferral of their surgery until next year.
8 Dr Smyth indicated that the Department would need to notify on 19 November those patients due to have planned surgery on 24 November because of work, travel and family arrangements that were made by such patients in anticipation of the surgery so that they could cancel such arrangements. Surgeons, anaesthetists and suppliers would also need to be informed.
9 Dr Smyth was required for cross-examination. Counsel for the Association sought to minimise the impact of the stoppage and put to Dr Smyth that the impact of the stoppage could not be known by the Department because it would not be aware whether nurses in all facilities would participate in the stoppage or for how long they might stop work. So that there may be sufficient nurses on duty to avoid disruption to emergency surgery and to planned surgery.
10 Dr Smyth was adamant in his evidence that given that only night shift staffing would be available on 24 November, it would be unsafe to proceed on the assumption that there would be sufficient nurses available to enable planned surgery to proceed. Dr Smyth maintained his view that patients would be required to wait longer for critical surgery and that would have a disruptive flow on effect in respect of both planned and emergency surgery.
11 I have no proper basis for rejecting Dr Smyth's evidence. Certainly there was no cogent evidence contradicting Dr Smyth.
12 It seems to me to be a matter of plain commonsense in any event that if staffing levels are to be reduced to 'night duty staffing levels at each facility for the period generally between 7am and 5pm' on 24 November it is inevitable that disruption and inconvenience will be caused to the public health system unnecessarily.
13 The Director General also tendered the witness statement of Annie Owens, Director, Workplace Relations and Management Branch with the Department. Ms Owens' statement dealt with the history of the negotiations between the Department and the Association regarding the Association's claims and the decision of the Association to take industrial action. Ms Owens was not required for cross-examination.
14 For the Association, counsel tendered the statement of Ms Rhonda Kassis, Industrial Officer for the Association. Ms Kassis' evidence went into some detail about the failure of the reasonable workloads clause in the Public Health System Nurses and Midwives (State) Award to reduce excessive and unreasonable workloads on nurses and the history of the development of the claim regarding nurse staffing ratios and skill mix, its importance to nurses and the failure of the Department to respond to the claim in a reasonable way. Ms Kassis also gave evidence about the Association's perspective on the impact of the stoppage, suggesting that patient care would not be compromised. Ms Kassis was required for cross-examination.
Consideration
15 It is most regrettable that the situation has deteriorated to the point where the Commission is being asked to make dispute orders. The Commission in the Statement of 18 November 2010 was critical of the parties for failing to involve the Commission at an early stage of their negotiations. The focus has now turned towards the completely unproductive path of sanctions for industrial misconduct rather than resolving the dispute that lies at the heart of the differences between the parties.
16 The Commission recognises the genuine concern reflected in Ms Kassis' evidence that the Association and its members have in relation to nurse/patient ratios and the frustration it has experienced in not making progress in its negotiations in that respect with the Department. The Commission also recognises the Association's claim regarding nurse/patient ratios has very significant implications for the public health system and will not be resolved easily.