LCR22122

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered carefully the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court arises from a proposal for the implementation of an inter disciplinary model for the delivery of services to Children with disabilities. There are two remaining issues between the parties before the Court.

The HSE submits that a new model of reporting is critical to the operation of the new model of service delivery and that it proposes to achieve this by the appointment of Children’s Disability Network Managers (CDNM) to determine case load priorities and manage service delivery across the planned 91 networks and approximately 1500 staff. Staff within the inter-disciplinary model will be required to have an operational reporting relationship to the CDNM. The HSE submits that there will remain a requirement for a head of discipline role and that role will require to have a collaborative working relationship with the CDNM; with the CDNM being the accountable and responsible person for ensuring the delivery of high quality, safe integrated children’s disability services in their assigned network. The CDNM will have line responsibility for all team members.

The Trade Union disputes the proposition that a CDNM should have line management responsibilities for therapy grade staff and submits that such responsibility should lie with a particular therapist’s head of discipline and that clinical governance of therapy staff should lie with heads of discipline.

The Union also submitted that the HSE proposals will, as a result of the role of section 38 and section 39 agencies in the delivery of services in the integrated networks, reduce the number of public service jobs. The HSE submitted detailed data to support a contention that this would not be the case.

At the hearing of the Court the parties asked the Court to delay the issue its Recommendation so that further attempts could be made by the parties to find a resolution through direct engagement. The Court has been notified that those efforts were not successful.

The Court, having reflected upon the detailed written and oral submissions of the parties, recommends that the implementation of the CDNM role should be accepted as outlined by HSE. The Court can find no reasonable basis for supporting a change to the role or responsibilities proposed to be assigned to CDNM’s in the new model. The Court takes particular note of the Trade Union’s concerns as regards clinical governance. The Court is clear that the HSE is responsible for the clinical governance of its services and that it has no role in impeding the HSE in discharging this responsibility. The Court therefore recommends that the Union accepts the HSE proposed arrangements as regards clinical governance arrangements.

The Court notes the parties’ agreement that CDNM positions will be at the grade of Therapy Manager in Charge 3 and notes the HSE submission that this grade level was decided upon in order to ensure that the post is at a level such that senior nurses and therapists would report to it. It has been submitted to the Court that the competition to fill the new posts will be confined to clinical grades and that the consequence of the grading decision is that 87 Therapy Grade staff will have the opportunity to be promoted to the post of CDNM

The Court, having examined the detailed data supplied, cannot find that the proposed arrangements will cause any person to lose their status as a public servant or that, in the overall, the number of public servants will be reduced as a result of implementation of the HSE proposals.

Having regard to all of the above the Court therefore recommends that the HSE proposals as regards the two matters before the Court as regards an interdisciplinary model for the delivery of services to children with disabilities should be accepted and that overall implementation of these arrangements together with arrangements earlier agreed between the parties should proceed.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
DC______________________
30 October 2019Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.