LCR21839

• “It is accepted that there was an agreement in March 2007 that Circular 112/99 applied to this respite centre in principle. In that letter there was no argument that the circular did not apply to the Complainant on an interpretation of the circular and the only issue to prevent the allowance being granted was funding.
  

  In relation to the criteria that is contained in the guidelines to Circular 112/99, I find that the reliance by the Respondent on the national database – which is not regularly updated – should not be the sole determining factor as to the clinical status of a service user as there is an argument that the information in this database is not kept up to date. However equally I am not convinced that the use of DSM criteria by the Complainant and her colleagues, to be either objective or wholly reliable. I do find it odd that there should be such a divergence in clinical status between the national data base figures and use of the DSM formula, however in the absence of evidence of a clinical psychologist, I am unlikely to find any explanation for this.

  On the basis that there was an agreement in March 2007 I am of the view that the nurses in the respite centre staff should receive the location allowance. I am influenced by the fact that the allowance is paid to nursing staff in the Meath Louth respite centre. The work of psychiatric nurses in respite centres is onerous and important care work, work that relieves families in so many ways and I believe that the allowance was designed to acknowledge this important and often challenging work. I do not think likely that in recommending that the allowance be paid in this case will have a flood gate effect on other cases. This is because this case is confined to psychiatric nurses in respite centres with a high percentage use of service users with severe profound intellectual disability and because the staff in this specific respite centre were specifically promised the allowance in 2007 so, in this respect, the case turns on its own facts. I find that as it is an allowance rather than constituting “pay or conditions” that it is not in breach of the public-sector agreements in particular para 4.2 of Lansdowne Road Agreement. I recommend that the respite centre be treated as coming within the definition of circular 112/99 and that the Complainant and her nursing staff colleagues be paid the allowance from the date of issue of the WRC complaint form on a prospective annual basis, which is currently €1858.00 per annum.”.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00008907, dated 1 August 2018) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The dispute concerns a claim for payment of the HSE Nursing Location Allowance with full retrospection to 2004 ostensibly to the single PNA Member named in the claim. However, it is self-evident from the Union’s own written submissions that the outcome of within dispute has far-reaching implications for a broad cohort of similarly situated staff nurses employed in a number of specialist areas.

Discussion and Decision

When the matter came on for hearing before the Court on 6 November 2018, it was agreed with the Parties’ representatives that it was not properly within the Court’s jurisdiction as it is in effect a collective dispute and, therefore, ought not to have been referred under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The matter is therefore dismissed.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
MK______________________
30 November 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.