Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Health Service 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-00019218-001

16/05/2018

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

CA-00019219-001

16/05/2018

The claimant has been employed by the respondent since 2001 .It was submitted that the claimant had pursued numerous grievances regarding her grading over the years and the respondent persistently ignored her claim for upgrading – leaving her to work with additional roles and responsibilities well outside her terms and conditions of employment.

The unions set out a chronology of the claimant’s career with the respondent – in 2006 the claimant was eventually upgraded to a CNM1 but it was contended that it soon became apparent that the breath and roles of responsibilities was more appropriate to a CNM 2. The claimant had worked as a CNM 2 with her previous employers. At the request of her CNM 3 , the claimant took on additional responsibilities in terms of duties and geographical area and it was submitted that the additional responsibilities would near guarantee the claimant a CNM 2 post.The union presented details of the exchanges of correspondence between the claimant and the respondent on the matter of upgrading her post.The claimant’s willingness to take on the duties of the retiring CNM3 post were referenced .The respondent confirmed on the 6th.Feb. 2018 that they were unable to approve the claimant’s upgrading.

It was submitted that the job spec that was issued for the claimant’s post was that of a CNM 2.It was submitted that the Commission on Nursing 1998 and the Benchmarking Body in 2002 clearly supported that contention.It was contended that the respondent had ample opportunity to upgrade the claimant’s post prior to the introduction of the moratorium on recruitment and had failed to do so and that the respondent presided over the downgrading of key nursing management roles in 2017.It was submitted that the respondent had failed to acknowledge the claimant’s contribution t the Early Childhood Services.The union sought the upgrading of the claimant , the payment of compensation for her extended period of acting at a higher level and compensation for acting in the absence of a CNM 3 in 2017.

The respondent company offers day and

residential services to children and adults with intellectual disabilities in

various locations throughout the West. Services are delivered in

the local communities, working in partnership with local communities,

agencies and organisations to initiate and develop increasingly inclusive

opportunities for, and with, the individuals they support in order that they

may identify and achieve their personal life goals and live ordinary lives in

their communities.

The claimant, is employed in the company’s

Children’s Resource Centre which provides an educational support service to

young children and transition supports to children transferring to preschool

and mainstream education. Referrals for admissions are received from

the Early Intervention Services and supports are provided to children

with physical and sensory requirements as well as children with intellectual

disabilities. Children attend between the hours of 10 a.m.

and 1 p.m. Monday to Friday, and staff work regular rosters Monday to Friday

to support this service.

The claimant was initially employed as a Teacher/Trainer paid as a Dual

Qualified Nurse in the Children’s Service and on the opening of the unit she was appointed Acting Unit Head and paid a responsibility

allowance. Subsequently, she was re-graded to the post of CNM 1 in

December 2004. This upgrading was granted on the basis of the staffing levels

of 14 staff W.T.E. 7.27 and budget allocation of €197,251.

In November 2005, the claimant expressed her disappointment with the

monetary value of her upgrading and applied to be re-graded to CNM2. Even

though this upgrade was supported by her manager at the time (who

subsequently retired in 2017) the claimant’s application was declined on the

basis that the duties and responsibilities were not comparable to other

CNM2’s employed in the Service.

On the retirement of the CNM 3 Children’s Services Manager in 2017 the role

which was reviewed and revised to CNM2 by management of the Services and

the post was publicly advertised twice. Following the first advertisement

interviews were held and no candidate was deemed suitable for appointment;

following the second advertisement an existing CNM2 Manager expressed

their interest in this role and as there was no other suitable candidate for

interview the existing manager transferred into this role.

The issue of the claimant’s re-grading was raised by the INMO in December

2017 and, after further consideration, the claim was declined on the basis

that in comparison to other CNM2 posts the current role did not warrant regrading.

The INMO subsequently wrote to the Services contending that the Services

chose to ignore the claim for re-grading and transferred another staff member

into the vacant manager’s post. The appointment to the post of Children’s

Manager in 2017 was following a publicly advertised competition for which

all suitable candidates were invited to apply.

Based on the activity level and responsibilities associated with the unit/service the respondent contend that the post is appropriately graded at CNM1

level as the current staffing level is 14 staff W.T.E. 7.76 and an allocated

budget of €310,024 a similar allocation of resources and responsibilities to

2004. The majority of the budget is allocated to staff resources and non-pay

expenditure is approved in advance by the Early Childhood Services Manager

including the budget allocation of an additional €72,512 allocated to Physical

and Sensory Supports which is transferable throughout the Children’s

Services.

On the basis of the above details, the Services contend that the post is

currently appropriately graded at CNM1 and is comparable to other colleagues

in the Services.

In the event that this post is regraded there will be many knock-on claims

throughout the Services.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the claimant’s post be the subject of job evaluation by an agreed third party on terms of reference agreed between the parties.