FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BEAUMONT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH NURSES AND MIDWIVES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No(s) r-155765/155768/156308-IR-15.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Claimants' claim that monies are due to them resulting from the non-payment of a specialist qualification allowance to which they were entitled to .This dispute was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 13th June, 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I am upholding the complaint in full and recommend that the claimants be paid their full arrears within 4 weeks of the date of this recommendation."
On the 22nd July, 2016 the Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer'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 20th September, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All three Claimants submitted their certs/transcripts in 2006 following completion of the course, in order to apply for a refund of 50% of the course fees, in accordance with hospital policy. The fact that these fees were reimbursed demonstrates that management were fully aware that the claimants had achieved the specialist qualification as they had to sign off on this payment.
2. When the Claimants asked management if they were entitled to any additional remunerations following successful completion of the course they were told that they were not.
3. Other eligible clinical nurse manager's and clinical nurse specialists working in Beaumont Hospital and elsewhere have been paid the qualification allowance from the outset and the claimants should be treated no differently.
EMPLOYER'SARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimants have failed to adequately explain their delay in bringing forward their claim for this allowance.
2. It is not credible to think that staff would accept a manager's decision on an allowance of this nature without any further inquiry or without consulting with their union.
3. The Hospital has acted fairly in relation to the Claimants' situation based on the facts at hand.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the employer of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which found in favour of the Claimants’ claim for retrospective payment of a specialist allowance to three Clinical Nurse Specialists.
Having considered the submission of both parties the Court is satisfied that the non-payment of the specialist allowance to the Claimants was due to failures on both sides. The Claimants had a responsibility to pursue the non-payment of the allowance. The Hospital had no stated policy position on how payments are to be activated for eligible employees.
The Court recommends that the Hospital should develop a clear policy to outline the necessary requirements to be fulfilled in respect of (i) the reimbursement of fees and (ii) the process for application of the specialist allowance.
In all the circumstances of this case and in full and final settlement of the Claimants’ claim, the Court recommends that 50% of the retrospective payments due to Ms McCormack and Ms Long should be paid back to June 2006 and in the case of Ms McCarthy, she should be paid 50% of the retrospective payments back to 19thSeptember 2011.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
5 October 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.