FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST PATRICKS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PSYCHIATRIC NURSES' ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appropriate terms & conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns a CNMI Nurse that was appointed to a higher post of Clinical Nurse Manager II (CNMII) and is on a lower pay scale than three of her colleagues that were promoted a number of months earlier from the same successful interview panel. The Hospital Management claim that they had to cut the pay rates for staff on promotion from January 2012 in order to maintain financial sustainability in the current economic environment.
On the 8th May, 2013 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th August, 2013.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hospital unilaterally decided to cut the pay of those appointed to higher posts regardless of the legitimate expectation of the Claimant that the pay rate applying at the time of the interview would apply to her on her promotion.
2. The Claimant was fully processed before the decision to cut pay rates was taken, she should now be placed on the maximum scale for CNMIIs in accordance with the terms and conditions at the time of her placement on the panel.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In January 2012 the Hospital introduced a lower rate of pay for all staff on promotion as part of a number alternative methods to avoid pay cuts across the board. The post January 2012 rates have been applied to other staff on promotion and this has been accepted.
2. The salaries and terms and conditions of employment relating to all staff at the Hospital after the adjustment in January 2012 is still above those of the Hospital's competitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the alteration in the rates applicable to promotional posts and new entrants was made known in January 2012, and that the Hospitals position in that regard was not seriously disputed. The Claimant was appointed to the promotional post in issue after the new rates took effect.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court can see no justifiable basis upon which it could recommend that the previous rates be restored in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th September, 2013______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.