ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019441
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Nurse | A Health Service Provider |
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-00025391-001 | 29/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
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(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
This dispute concerns the loss of increments and pension entitlements of a nurse whose job title was CNM2 (Clinical Nurse Manager Grade 2) but who was paid a DON rate (director of nursing) |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant is a nurse who disputes her classification at the CNM2 grade. She submits that on foot of a memorandum dated 6 January 2006 following her taking up a position of Area Coordinator, her pay was identified as being on a Director of Nursing level, however her pension is based on her being at the CNM2 grade. This is despite the fact that since 2006 she was paid at a director of nursing rate. She also never received any pay increments since 2006, that should have attached to a DON grade.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s defence to the complaint is not to dispute the value or effectiveness of the Complainant’s work and commitment over many years. The high quality of her work and the esteem with which she was regarded was never in any dispute and her reputation is as high as can be described. However, the memorandum agreed in January 2006 reflected an increase in pay as opposed to a promotion in grade. It was to reflect the greater responsibility held, as an Area Coordinator, however the reason that she was still maintained in terms of job title or grade at the CNM2 grade (albeit being paid at a Director of Nursing rate) and that this was expressly stated in the memorandum was to balance between incentivising the Area Coordinator while ensuring that the increase in pay would not have any knock on unintended effect upon people those who held the job title of Directors of Nursing. Having said that however it is conceded by the Respondent that the Complainant was not merely a nurse at CMN2 grade and to ameliorate the fact that she did not receive pay increments and her pension was lower than it should have been an offer to compensate the Complainant has been made. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
On the basis that a settlement has been reached between the parties and having heard the evidence of both sides I find the dispute to be well founded and I recommend that the amount of €21,000 be awarded as compensation to the Complainant. Award: €21,000.00 |
Dated: 22/07/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
|