An independent investigation into the treatment of a group of nurses from India and the Philippines by the National Maternity Hospital has been sought by the Irish Nurses Organisation.
The union claims that the hospital in Holles Street, Dublin, tried to intimidate the nurses into signing contracts inferior to those they had already signed before their arrival in Ireland.
It said many of the 16 nurses were "traumatised" and "in tears" after being summoned to a meeting with management on February 1st last.
They were told at the meeting that they would be sent home if they did not sign the new contracts by that afternoon, according to INO official Philip McAnenly.
Management had threatened to close beds and wards of the hospital if necessary to ensure the nurses were sent home, he claimed.
Mr McAnenly said the hospital had failed to explain at the meeting that the new contracts were inferior in a number of respects to those the nurses had already signed.
The nurses, he said, had initially been hired on two-year fixed contracts, as qualified general nurses. At the meeting on February 1st, management had said they did not require general nurses, but instead wanted the 16 to train to become midwives.
The nurses were told to sign new permanent contracts requiring them to undertake a two-year midwifery course.
Mr McAnenly said it was not explained to nurses that the new contracts would result in them suffering a drop in income over the two years of just over €26,000.
They were also not told, he claimed, that the new contracts would require them to remain in the Irish public health service for two years after their training was completed.
Some of the nurses had families at home in the Philippines and India and had intended to stay in Ireland for two years only, as required under their original contracts.
He said the new contracts had now been withdrawn and the nurses' initial terms restored.
The INO, however, wanted an investigation by an agreed independent third party into the "threats" and "intimidation" suffered by the nurses in the first place. It also wanted them to be given the option of midwifery training, but without a diminution in their pay and conditions.
The hospital had refused the request for an investigation and the matters in dispute had been referred to the Labour Relations Commission, Mr McAnenly said.
He added that the situation had not been helped by a letter of "apology" sent to him by the hospital management.
In it the hospital had said any distress caused was inadvertent, but it added it was "disappointed" to find it had a cohort of nurses who were not prepared to undertake training. The letter stated that while management would prefer to have nurses who were enthusiastic about midwifery training, it had no difficulty with those who "wished to limit their commitment to the hospital".
Mr McAnenly said this was a distortion of the true picture as some of the nurses were interested in training to be midwives, as long as they did not suffer financially as a result.
A hospital spokeswoman said no comment would be made until today.
