FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH INFIRMARY-VICTORIA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-033318-Or-05/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Hospital in March 1978. She acted as a Staff Nurse from 1978 to 1984 and Senior Staff Nurse from 1984 to 1993 when she was involved in setting up and running the Day Theatre. Following the Nurses' National Dispute in 1999 the worker was one of a number of nurses who was upgraded to Clinical Nurse Manager I (CNM I), in her case on seniority and suitability. The Union's case is that because of her duties and responsibilities the worker should be further upgraded to CNM II. The claim was first made in April, 2004. The Hospital's position is that the worker does not possess the necessary qualifications for the post of CNM II, e.g. a recognised Theatre Course, and that her duties and responsibilities are correctly graded at CNM 1.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and he recommended as follows:-
"Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out above, I do not recommend concession of the claim"
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 20th April, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of September, 2006, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker undertakes all the duties and responsibilities of a CNM II grade. She manages a heavy case load and operates with a multi-disciplinary team. She has sole responsibility for the nursing of the Theatre and is in charge of a number of staff.
3. 2 Whilst the Union accepts that the Hospital has a requirement for a CNM II to have a recognised Theatre Course it believes that the worker's 28 years' experience is at the very least the equivalent of a recognised Theatre Course.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Hospital did not put forward the worker's post to be upgraded to CNM II. Given the staffing levels involved and the responsibility the worker is correctly graded at CNM I.
4. 2 The worker is aware of the essential requirements for a CNM II Theatre post. Knowing that she did not possess the necessary requirements she processed a claim for upgrading rather than go down the route of obtaining the necessary qualifications.
4. 3 The qualification /experience required for all CNM II Theatre posts are management experience essential, a recognised Theatre Course essential and a management course desirable. The criteria cannot be changed even for an internal up-grading. The Hospital is willing to support the worker if she wishes to acquire the necessary Theatre qualification.
DECISION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court accepts management's right to stipulate a requirement for applicants to have a recognised Theatre Course as an essential requirement for a CNM II position in Day Theatre. Furthermore, the Court does not accept that the duties and responsibilities of the appellant should be appropriately graded at CNM II level.
Therefore, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the Union's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th January, 2007______________________
CON/MC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.