FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST MAYO GENERAL HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Upgrading from CNM 1 To CNM 2
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the upgrading of 12 - 15 staff currently at Clinical Nurse Manager I (CNM 1) to Clinical Nurse Manager II (CNM II). The Union maintains that the CNM 1s are working alongside the CNM IIs and doing exactly the same job. The Report of the Commission on Nursing (the Report) which was published in 1998 established a structure in each ward in a hospital as follows:
A CNM I who reported to a CNM II.
A CNM II who is in charge of a ward or unit of care.
A CNM III who is in charge of a department.
The HSE's position is that there is no justification for the claim as it is working in line with the report.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2007, in Westport.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reason for the claim is that the CNM I grade has been carrying out identical work to the CNM II grade for in excess of 5 years and they should receive equal pay for work of equal value (the Unions supplied details of the work involved). CNM Is have been upgraded in other circumstances in the hospital.
2. The Unions believe that the case is unique to Mayo General Hospital and that there will be no knock-on claims.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The same nursing structures exist in Mayo General Hospital as those in Sligo, Letterkenny, Roscommon and Galway Hospitals.
2. If the CNM I posts were upgraded it is most likely that the CNM II staff would look for upgrading to CNM III posts. This would erode the structures recommended by the Commission on Nursing. The HSE also has concerns about the possible national implications of conceding the claim which, in any case, is prohibited by Towards 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim that Clinical Nurse Manager Is (CNM I) should be upgraded to Clinical Nurse Manager II grade (CNM II) on the basis that they are performing identical work to the higher grade. The Unions sought retrospection to the date of their claim.
Management disputed this contention stating that its nurse management structure was operated in accordance with the Commission on Nursing Report 1998 and referred to the different responsibilities/duties which both grades are required to perform.
The Court notes that CNM Is have been rostered opposite CNM IIs and, therefore, accepts they are essentially carrying out the same role as CNM IIs at present. However, this clearly was not the intention of management. In an effort to address this anomaly, Management indicated that it would examine this issue as part of the forthcoming review of rosters due to take place on reducing the working hours of nurses in general.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that no clear distinction has been drawn between the roles of the two grades in question and the current rostering arrangements have effectively required CNM Is to carry out roles and duties normally the preserve of CNM IIs. Consequently, the Court recommends that both sides should get together and agree new rosters which will address this point. However, in the mean time, in recognition of their goodwill in carrying out duties more appropriate to the CNM II role, the Court recommends that the claimants should be paid a lump sum equivalent to the acting up allowance since the date of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th January, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.