ADJ-00006859

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Public Health Nurse

A Public Health provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00009295-001

25/01/2017

The Complainant herein is a Nurse. The Complainant did her post-grad in the care of sick children. She trained in Crumlin as a sick children’s nurse which is a nursing specialisation (RSCN or Registered Sick Children’s Nurse) which she understood would be of value to her and to the community when she applied to become a Public Health Nurse in and around 2014. By July of 2015 the Complainant had qualified as a Public Health Nurse (PHN) and took up a position in Dublin where there is a scarcity of such nurses working in the community. Traditionally there was a demand that Public Health Nurses would have to have a midwifery qualification but this mandatory requirement was removed in 2009. This now means that a Nurse from any background and having any specialisation is welcome to apply for this training.

The Complainant had understood that in addition to her core PHN salary she would also be entitled to a Specialist Qualification Allowance (SQA : worth about €2,700.00 taxable income per annum) as she had what is agreed to be a relevant Specialist qualification (confirmed as category II for the purposes of the within proceedings) as set out in a HSE circular issued 4^th September 2002. A further letter dated the 23^rd of February 2009 was opened in the course of the hearing wherein it is confirmed that those Nurses not holding the mid-wifery qualification cannot be entitled to an Allowance in relation to that – a sensible enough proposal. Crucially the letter goes on to state that:

In the absence of the midwifery qualification the specialist allowance can only be paid if an alternative course/ qualification, which is relevant to the specialist area, has been afforded category 2 status…

The parties have very differing views of what this paragraph purports to confirm. The INMO state that the PHN is entitled to an allowance regardless of what the qualification is, once it has been afforded category 2 status whilst the Service Provider states that the Allowance can only become operable if the Specialisation is being used in the relevant specialist area. By way of rejoinder the INMO has made the case that the position of PHNM is an area of specialisation to which the qualification of RSCN ought properly apply. This in turn is rejected by the Service Provider who describe the position as having a “cradle to grave” understanding of Public Health with no particular need for specialisation in the field of very sick children.

At the same time, it is noted that all levels of experience and qualifications are welcome in the field of the PHN as it enriches the experience and collaborative effort.

The Service Provider in particular seeks to distinguish between the Community Nurse (Registered General Nurse) and the PHN both of whom work in the community. The former does still receive an allowance for specialisations held(e.g. the Psychiatric nurse). However this is primarily because they would work in that area of specialisation (per Feb 2009 letter). In addition, the Service Provider points to the enhanced salary now being received by newly qualified PHNs which is not only greater than the salary of the Community Nurse, but is calculated at a level which recognises the various qualifications and experiences each newly qualified PHN brings to that position.

The Service Provider is very clear on what it’s policy is in this regard and whilst it welcomes the Complainant’s excellent skills and understanding in the field of sick children this was not a pre-requisite to her attaining the position and nor is there any emphasis on this specialised skill over any other. It is assumed that a PHN has a good working knowledge in all fields as befits their day to day exposure to the entirety of the population and not just a segment thereof.

The Complainant makes the case that whilst this may be the Service Providers general rule of thumb there are many exceptions to the rule such that she too should be provided with the Allowance.

In order that this claim could be substantiated, the matter was adjourned to allow the Complainant an opportunity to confirm the names of a number of her PHN Comparators whom she says have the same or similar qualifications to herself and are being paid the SQA over and above their Salaried employment as PHNs. In fact it seems that the Complainant may well have qualified with a number of other PHNs who have this remunerative benefit , where she does not.

It is very interesting to note that the Complainant has been able to come back with a number of named PHNs that the Service Provider has had to concede are, in fact, being paid the said Specialist Qualification Allowance (category II) in addition to their   core PHN salary.

The Service Provider had not been fully aware of this fact. It has been explained to me that local health or community health is divided into 9 separate geographical areas. All policies should emanate from the headquarters and implemented at a local level in each of these 9 areas (called Community Health Organisations) in the exact same way.

It has been explained to me and I accept that in 8 of these nine areas or organisations the policy put forward by the Service Provider is being applied as it should be. However, in CHO number 5 the policy is not being implemented and the Complainant is absolutely right in having made the case that there are indeed Public Health Nurses in this area being paid supplemental Allowances just by reason of their having a specialised qualification even if these qualifications are almost irrelevant to the day to day work of the PHN. ( It seems that a Mr. TA initially allowed this to happen in 2008 though the MEMO opened to me does specify that the qualification should be used “in the course of their duties” – a reasonably vague proposition)

It has been put to me that this is an anomaly and has arisen out of an incorrect interpretation of the policy and this situation has been going on for some time and   has been applied to new recruits working in that area. The HSE has confirmed that it will now have to try and regularise the situation within CHO5. However, it is admitted by the Service Provider that the Area 5 PHNs currently in receipt of the SQA will not voluntarily relinquish what has become an entitlement as they might perceive it.

How the Service Provider will regularise this situation is a matter for itself. I need only concern myself with the Complainant who has exhausted the internal workplace mechanisms and turned to this body to seek confirmation that she is being treated unfairly as against certain named colleagues. I accept that the Complainant has made her case in this regard. The Complainant has been denied a financial reward she has seen her colleagues and friends receive and where such receipt is predicated only on the fact of having had the good fortune to be a PHN in a particular area of the country.

In many ways I would like to recommend that the complainant be given the Specialist   Allowance as she has requested of me (ie be given the full Allowance backdated to the start of her employment).

However, the implications to the Service Provider could be enormous. The Service Provider has managed to implement and establish it’s policy in 8 of the 9 areas wherein it must apply. It must now try and impose the policy in the last area. If the Complainant was fully allowed to join the ranks of her colleagues in area 5 then it would presumably allow for a flood gate of similar applications from PHNs nationwide.

It ill-behoves my function to knowingly create such a scenario and in the circumstances I am instead recommending that the Complainant be paid a once off ex gratia payment which compensates the complainant somewhat for the loss of income to date and into the future. This recommendation is made in response to this particular set of circumstances and particular to this Complainant and is not intended to create precedent.

I recommend that the Complainant be awarded a lump sum of €10,000.00 payable to her by the Service Provider.