FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN NORTH EAST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PNA) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-135766-ir-13/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-135766-ir-13/SR. The issue concerns a claim by the Union that the worker who is employed as a Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) should be paid a specialist qualification allowance on the basis of her academic achievements and the fact that her position reflects the academic studies that she has completed. Management's position is that the worker is not entitled to be paid the allowance as the CNS rate of pay reflects the requirement to have the relevant academic qualifications.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 25th February 2014 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim on the basis that the CNS rate of pay reflects the requirement for the academic qualification and to pay the allowance sought would lead to anomalies within the grade and undoubtedly would lead to repercussive claims.
On the 20th March 2014 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st May 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker obtained the required academic qualification on the basis of advice from her Director of Nursing that it was the most appropriate course of study relevant to her position. The course was also funded by management. The subsequent non-payment of the allowance to the worker in such circumstances is unacceptable.
2 The Union is justified in seeking the retrospective application of the allowance to the date she received the required qualifications.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker is not entitled to the payment of the allowance. The CNS rate of pay, which the worker is in receipt of is inclusive of the requirement to achieve the necessary academic qualification.
2 Concession of the payment of the allowance to the worker in the case would lead to a significant numbers of repercussive claims from those who have the qualifications and who work in the CNS role but were not entitled to, and have not claimed, the allowance.
DECISION:
The Rights Commissioner issued a comprehensive and fully reasoned recommendation in this case. In effect the Rights Commissioner found that the salary applicable to the post held by the Claimant reflected the requirement to hold a specialist qualification of the type held by the Claimant. That finding was undoubtedly correct.
It seems to the Court that it would be illogical to hold that an additional allowance should be paid for the specialist qualification in circumstances in which the requirement to hold such a qualification is taken into account in the salary attaching to the post.
For this reason the Court can see no basis upon which it could interfere with the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th June 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.