Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86804 Case Number: AD8713 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - INO |
Appeal by the Bank against Rights Commissioner's recommendation, DM 98/86, in respect of the grading and remuneration of an Occupational Health Nurse.
Recommendation:
6. The Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86804 THE LABOUR COURT AD13/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 13 OF 1987
Parties: BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Bank against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, DM 98/86, in respect of the grading and
remuneration of an Occupational Health Nurse.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was appointed Occupational Health Nurse
with the Bank of Ireland Group in 1971 with a reporting
relationship to the Chief Medical Officer. The Bank provides a
medical service in its Head Office in Baggot Street and in its
branch at 2 College Green, which is available to employees of the
two locations and to staff of branches in the Dublin City area.
The worker's salary is related to that of Senior Bank Official and
at present she is on point 21 of the scale (#16,992 p.a.).
3. In March, 1978, a second nurse was appointed to the position
and in 1981 was promoted to Senior Nurse, a position which
attracts a salary of Assistant Manager rate (she is currently on
point 21 of this scale - #20,604 p.a.). The claimant subsequently
sought discussions with the Bank regarding her grading as it was
her view that she should have the same rate of pay and conditions
of employment as the Senior Nurse. Although her Organisation does
not have a recognition agreement with the Bank on negotiation and
representation, in the case of an individual grievance, such as
this the Bank agreed to allow the Organisation to represent her in
her claim. A local level meeting took place between the parties
on the 25th July, 1986, but no agreement was reached and it was
agreed to refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner, having
investigated the dispute on the 23rd September, issued the
following recommendation on 7th October, 1986:
"It is accepted by both sides that there are duties
performed by the Senior Nurse which are not done in
turn by the claimant. I have discussed these with both
sides and I have come to the conclusion that they do
not justify paying her #3,612 less than her colleague.
I accept the Bank's point that taking account of the
basic pay and fringe benefits, the remuneration of a
nurse employed by the Bank compares very favourably
with that of nurses in other employments, but, in my
view, that is not the only factor to be taken into
account in venturing an opinion as to whether or not
she is treated reasonably by her employer. Account
must also be taken of how the Bank treats her colleague
who works opposite her, but who does carry some extra
responsibilities.
To upgrade the claimant to the same grade (Assistant
Manager) as her colleague would not in my view be
justified. I have considered recommending that she
should be promoted to Officer grade (maximum #17,913)
but I suspect that this grade might have been used by
the Bank instead of Assistant Manager grade, if it has
existed at the time the post of Senior Nurse was
created and I cannot put aside completely the
comparison with nurses in other employments.
The best compromise I can offer is that she should be
paid an overscale allowance of #750 per annum, and that
this allowance should operate from the date both sides
agreed to refer the issue to me, namely 12th August,
1986. I so recommend."
The Bank rejected the recommendation and on the 13th October,
1986, appealed the case under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, to the Labour Court. A Court hearing took
place on the 26th November, 1986.
Organisation's arguments:
4. (a) This dispute relates to the fact that while the
claimant is working opposite the other nurse whose
role, status and responsibilities are interchangeable
in almost every respect, she does not enjoy the same
level of remuneration as her colleague.
(b) Since 1984, with the departure and non-replacement of
a secretary, and from September, 1985, with the
departure of the third Occupational Health Nurse who
was also not replaced, the claimant's workload has
increased out of all proportion to that which existed
when she was appointed in March, 1971.
(c) Occupational health nursing has replaced the old title
of industrial nursing. It is totally different from
nursing in the hospital environment in that strictly
speaking it is preventative, educational, first-aid
etc. It is involved in keeping the employee at work.
The duties involved are the provision of a nursing
service for all staff of all grades from executives to
porters. It requires wide experience in the clinical
field as many decisions have to be made based on good
clinical judgement and experience. An assessment has
to be made of each patient, a decision made on
treatment and a review of the effects of the treatment.
The post also requires management and teaching skills
in conjunction with clinical skills in order to
organise the department and meet the needs of staff.
(d) The claimant's grievance is her inappropriate grading
in comparison to that of her colleague. The
Organisation contends that the Bank of Ireland is
unique in having a differential of #3,612 per annum
between what it considers is the Senior Nurse and the
claimant. In other instances (e.g. Guinness Group),
the difference in salary is only #398 per annum and in
any case the difference in duties and responsibilities
as between the two is only marginal. The Organisation
recognises that some duties are the sole responsibility
of the Senior Nurse but they are in no way such to
justify a differential of #3,612 per annum.
(e) To place the claimant on the Assistant Manager salary
scale at point 18 (#19,056) would more than recognise
the difference in duties and responsibilities between
the two employees. In the Organisation's view this
would be more equitable, giving a salary differential
of #1,548 per annum. While there may be a marginal
difference in duties and responsibilities as between
the two nurses, the Court should bear in mind that when
acting in a professional capacity both have equal
responsibility.
Bank's arguments:
5. (i) The position of Senior Nurse in Bank of Ireland
involves responsibilities and accountabilities which
only attach to that position (details supplied to the
Court), and while the nursing skills of both are
interchangeable between the two locations in which the
Bank provides a medical facility, the responsibilities
rest with the Senior Nurse.
(ii) The terms and conditions of the position of nurse with
the Bank have always been those which apply to the rank
of Senior Bank Official (S.B.O.) in banking scales. In
addition, the claimant's remunerative package compares
very favourably with those in other employments
(details supplied to the Court).
(iii) It is not considered necessary or appropriate to
appoint an additional Senior Nurse as the
responsibilities of such a position are adequately
catered for by the one position which presently exists.
(iv) The Rights Commissioner, in his recommendation, states
that it was accepted by both the Bank and the
Organisation that there are duties performed by the
Senior Nurse which are not done by the claimant. In
addition, he is totally incorrect to surmise that the
Bank might have used the officer grade, had it existed
at the time, as the appropriate grade for the position
of Senior Nurse.
(v) The Rights Commissioner, in his own words, offered a
compromise of paying the claimant an overscale of #750
per annum. The effect of the implementation of such a
recommendation is that any employee of the Bank could
lodge a claim for regrading and expect to be awarded,
at a minimum, an overscale payment. Effectively, the
recommendation has introduced a new rate for the grade
of nurse in the Bank and this has implications for
other staff.
DECISION:
6. The Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
Chairman.
10th February, 1987.
D.H./J.C.