ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011853
Complaint(s):
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-00015701-001 | 10/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant is currently graded at CNM2 level as an Assistant Bed Manager and claims that he is carrying out the role of Bed Manager and should be graded at CNM3 level. The respondent claims that another member of staff already has this responsibility. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant works as a Bed Manager in a hospital fulfilling the responsibilities of that role as outlined in the Capita Report – a national review of the bed management function in hospitals. This report recommended that the appropriate grading for the function in the hospital in which the complainant is employed should be CNM3. The complainant is graded at CNM2. The complainant performs the same functions as others in the group of hospitals who are graded at CNM3. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant is employed as Assistant Bed Manager not the Bed Manager. The responsibility of Bed Manager is assigned to another employee at Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) grade. This person is not exclusive to bed management but has significantly less responsibilities in other areas because she is responsible for the bed management function. The Capita Report did not abolish the grade of Assistant Bed Manager. The respondent disputes that employees with a similar level of responsibility as the complainant in other hospitals within the group are generally graded at CNM3. Any regrading of the complainant would have a knock-on effect as there are others with similar responsibility in the same area at the same grade. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Capita Report is a comprehensive Report dealing with Bed Management within hospitals and, among other things, recommends the appropriate grading for the individual with overall responsibility for this function in each hospital. It is clear from the evidence given at the hearing that there is no dispute in relation to the content of the Report but rather in relation to its implementation. Section 5.1 of the Capita Report stated that ‘hospitals that establish a Bed Management Department need to designate a single department head post of Bed Manager (the specific title should remain flexible) that is vested with clear authority, responsibility and accountability for all bed management functions. The respondent’s position is that they have appointed a person at ADON level who is recognised as having this responsibility and that there are three others, including the complainant, who are graded at CNM2 level and assist in carrying out the function. It is clear from the report that it envisaged one person with overall responsibility in this hospital at CNM3 level (or equivalent). The complainant shares responsibility with two others in relation to the bed management function and therefore does not have authority, responsibility and accountability for all bed management functions. The report did not abolish the Assistant Bed Manager grade. It is clear that the report did not envisage more than one person as having overall responsibility and that the complainant does not have overall responsibility. In relation to other hospitals in the group grading Assistant Bed Managers at the higher level it would appear, based on the evidence provided, that this is not a sufficiently consistent or widespread approach to support the complainant’s claim. I therefore, do not recommend in his favour. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
For the reasons set out above, I am unable to make a recommendation in the complainant’s favour |
Dated: 18/01/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Regrading claim. Capita Report. Bed management function |