Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Clinical Nurse Manager

Health Service Provider

Representatives

 Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

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-00015948-001

22/11/2017

The claimant has been working as a CNM2 with the respondent since 2001 having previously been employed at this location after returning from a career break in 1994. The claimant is on the max of the CNM2 scale and also receives a location allowance. The union set out the responsibilities attaching to her community post. It was submitted that when she was asked to take a community assignment she was advised that this was a CNM3 position. The claimant sought the upgrading of the post in 2006 from CNM2 to CNM 3 and it was submitted that her range of duties and responsibilities clearly demonstrated that she was functioning at CNM 3 level. A series of the ensuing exchanges between the parties was presented and the claimant pointed out to her line manager in 2015, that the LRC had previously recommended that the post be pitched at CNM3 level for the former postholder. Ultimately the parties agreed to an evaluation of the post and the evaluator found that the claimant met all the criteria for a CNM 3 post and “that were the case to be tested within the WRC arena, the respondent would be unable to defend it”. Further correspondence was exchanged between the parties and it emerged that the respondent had failed to action an approval to hire form that that been processed through the system by her line manager.

The union sought the upgrading of the post retrospective to Dec. 2016 plus compensation of €15,000 for the aberrant actions and unnecessary delay on the part of the respondent.

The respondent set out a chronology of the claimant’s employment history and accepted that agreement had been reached on a job evaluation of the claimant’s post and that the upgrading of the post had been recommended. It was submitted however that the service was currently undergoing restructuring arising from an adverse inspection in Sept. 2017 and it was submitted that the respondent was seeking to postpone the claimant’s upgrading pending finalisation of the restructuring programme. It was further submitted that there are “ongoing national negotiations / difficulties regarding Nurse Management grading and the grading of Persons in Charge”. It was submitted that there is agreement in principle to grade PICs at CNM 2 level in the claimant’s geographical area of operation. It was submitted that concession of the regrading would have wide implications throughout the service and that this was a cost increasing claim which was prohibited under the current Public Sector Pay Agreement.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. I note the INMO position that the impact of national negotiations was a red herring as far as the union was concerned and that no discussion had taken place with the INMO on the grading of PICS. I further note the acknowledgment that the regarding would have been implemented if not for the adverse inspection findings.

Notwithstanding the arguments for deferral advanced by the respondent, I cannot ignore the fact that the previous postholder was a CNM 3, that the claimant first sought regrading in 2006 and that none of the managers involved in processing the claimant’s grievance disputed that the claimant was operating at CNM 3 level. In light of the foregoing and given that I consider it would be most unfair for an individual member of staff to find themselves singularly penalised for service deficits arising from an inspection I am upholding the complaint and recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the claimant be regraded to CNM 3 with effect from the 16th Dec. 2016 and that she be paid €7,000 compensation for the distress arising from the   tardiness in processing her claim.