FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS' AGENCY (HSEA) - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Hearing arising from LCR17876.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case was the subject of LCR17876 and the full background is contained in it. Briefly, the case concerns the role of Bed Managers in the Health Services. A working group - assisted by an agreed firm of Consultants - was commissioned to review the bed management function. The Consultants recommended as follows:-
- Category A Hospitals - Administrative Grade 8 with salary adjusted to be equivalent to the Assistant Director of Nursing.
- Category B Hospitals - Administrative Grade 7 with salary adjusted to be equivalent to CNM 3.
- Category C Hospitals - Administrative Grade 6 with salary adjusted to be equivalent to CNM 2.
The Union accepts the grading involved but not the salary adjustments. The HSEA has accepted the recommendation. The Court recommended that Capita clarify its position and it responded as follows on the 10th of August, 2004.
"Our definitive position on this matter is that the salary levels recommended are based on nursing scales.We evaluated the posts of Bed Manager across the three hospital categories (Groups A, B and C) in terms of their content, duties, responsibilities and qualifications, and determined that the most appropriate grading was at ADON grade for Group A hospitals, CNM-3 grade for Group B, and CNM-2 for Group C.
As it had previously been determined that Bed Managers were to hold a nursing qualification as a mandatory requirement, and as the Bed Managers would work with a dotted line relationship to the Director of Nursing, we took the view that grading the Bed Manager posts on nursing (rather than management / administrative) scales was appropriate."
Both parties were asked for their comments and, following these, it was decided to hold another hearing which took place on the 20th of January, 2005. The Court also met with the parties and a representative from the Consultants on the 28th of February, 2005, on an informal basis.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Court in its recommendation stated that if the Consultants evaluated the posts as being administrative Grade 8, 7, and 6 there could be no justification for paying a lower salary and other benefits than that attaching to the equivalent.
2. As the issue of what grade the posts were valued - based on their content, qualifications and responsibilities has now been clarified - the Unions believe that the rationale offered for adjusting the grades to nursing grades is not justified for paying a lower salary and other benefits.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Consultants clarified their position in August, 2004. They also stated that in virtually every hospital in the country nursing administration provides at least 50% of the bed management cover through the night superintendent post.
2. The Consultants have clarified that the Head of Bed Management should structurally report to the highest level of general management on a direct reporting basis. Concession of the Grade 8 salary to the Head of Bed Management function would result in a salary scale for the Bed Manager that significantly overlaps that of the Director of Nursing scale. The cost of knock-on claims for approximately 639 Assistant Director of Nursing posts alone is in the region of €8.85 million.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the comprehensive written and oral submissions of the parties to this dispute. The Court has also had the benefit of hearing from a representative of the Consultants who prepared the report which dealt with the appropriate grading of the Bed Manager posts.
The Court is satisfied that the import of the Consultant's report was that the posts in question should be established at a level within the hospital management structure at which they would have a status and authority equivalent to that of Grade 8, 7 or 6, as the case may be. This recommendation was accepted by both sides, and in the Court's view it is entirely appropriate that the post would be so graded having regard to the functions which those appointed will be expected to perform. As the posts were established at that level, in the Court's view, the salary attaching to them should be commensurate with that grading. The Court notes that it is the Unions' view that should their claim be conceded consequential claims will not follow.
Accordingly, the Court considers that the Unions' claim is reasonable and it recommends that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th March, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.