FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Seeking application of Dual Qualified payscale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as a nurse in April, 1997, and she is located in Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre. The Union is claiming the Dual Qualified Pay Scale for the worker, based on her qualifications for mental health (1987) and general nursing (1990), both of which she obtained in the United Kingdom. When she commenced employment in 1997, she was placed on the Staff Nurse pay scale that applies to nurses with a single qualification, and to those who are Dual Qualified and appointed after the 1st of July, 1998. The Department's case is that it had issued circular CL112/99 stating that"nurses appointed after 1st July, 1998, maynotbe paid on the Dual Qualified scale regardless of their qualifications". The worker had not registered her second qualification until 24th of July, 1998.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 16th of January, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of April, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Health Service Employers' Agency (HSEA) guidelines on the agreements concluded post the 1999 Nurses' dispute state that:
"Nurses who were eligible to be paid on the Dual Qualified Scale on the basis of holding two of the three qualifications in RGN/RPN/RNMH but for whatever reason were not paid on a dual qualified scale may now be paid on the Dual Qualified scale. It was also agreed that such Nurses will receive three years' retrospection."
2. Although the worker did not register her second qualification until the 24th of July, 1998, she was actually dual-qualified from her appointment in April, 1997.
3. In relation to the statement thatappointedis intended to meanregistration,as the Department claims, this is unacceptable as there can be no ambiguity as to the meaning of these terms.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was registered as a general nurse. For the second qualification to have taken effect it would have to have been registered prior to 1st July, 1998. The worker's ineligibility was confirmed by the HSEA.
2. The Department would have been willing to pay the Dual Qualification payment if it was approved by the HSEA. This approval was not forthcoming.
3. The HSEA, in its letter dated 4th September, 2002, to the Department of Education and Science, states that"in the context of the agreement in question, the word "appointed" is intended to cover registration with An Bord Altranais". In this case "appointed" would mean 24th July,1998, as this is the date that the worker registered her second qualification (Mental Health Nurse) with An Bord Altranais.
RECOMMENDATION:
The provision in the relevant agreement is, at best, ambiguous and is capable of an interpretation favourable to the claimant in this case. Against that background, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
The Court makes this recommendation on the basis that it is without precedent value and can not be relied upon or quoted in support of any other claims on behalf of others whether in a similar situation or not.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th May, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.