Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Health Provider

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00031899-001

30/10/2019

The complainant is a nurse working in the community. She holds qualifications as a Registered General Nurse (RGN), Public Health Nurse (PHN) and Registered Sick Children’s Nurse (RSCN).

She is seeking the payment of a Special Qualifications Allowance (SQA) in respect of her RSCN qualification. It is worth €3349.00 per annum.  

Since March 2002 the Nursing & Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI), the statutory regulatory body for nursing in Ireland has designated all courses it confirms as being at category 2 to be eligible for the SQA.

The RSCN qualification is a significant addition to the complainant’s practice even if it is not a requirement for the role and she should be paid the allowance.

The complainant submits that in other parts of the nursing service colleagues who possess a particular qualification are paid an SQA allowance while their co-workers who do not have the qualification are not.

The complainant received an email on September 7th, 2018 from her line manager stating;

‘Your Paeds [RSCN] qualification allowance (& arrears) has been approved by HR and is currently being forwarded to payroll for processing’.

Despite further correspondence from her union that was the end of the matter and she did not receive the payment or arrears.

The respondent does not employ Sick Children’s Nurses in its community settings; they work only in hospitals.

Where a patient needs such a specialist level of care they will be assessed by a PHN and a suitable level of response will be made available where necessary. So, while it is accepted that the RSCN qualification is a valuable addition in the complainant’s role it is not a requirement. She already receives an enhanced salary to reflect her higher skills.

The regulations governing the payment of allowances state that the respondent must approve the payment, and this has not been done in relation to the RSCN qualification for the complainant’s grade.

The respondent rejects the contention that the complainant was approved for the allowance at local level, or if any such approval was intimated it was done in error as the complainant does not meet the eligibility criteria.

In any event this is a national claim and should be processed through the bargaining arrangements between the parties.

The respondent made a number of arguments in rejecting the complainant’s case.

One was that a person in the complainant’s role does not need to deploy the full range of skills embraced by the RSCN qualification.

The respondent has also stated (in correspondence in October 22nd, 2019, the outcome of a formal grievance) that the RSCN qualification is not a requirement for the complainant’s work, and her colleagues who do not possess it are no less competent to discharge their full range of duties.

In a letter displayed by the complainant issued by the respondent HR department in February 2009 there is reference to the specialist allowance being paid when the qualification ‘is relevant to the specialist area’.

An earlier letter, in December 2008 from a different section of the respondent’s HR department referred to the criterion for eligibility as being where the person ‘is utilising this qualification’ (although with a critically important qualification which is addressed below).

The complainant says that these are the very criteria which apply in respect of another qualification; midwifery, which appears to be paid to any of the complainant’s colleagues who hold it without any further assessment of the extent of its deployment. In that sense it is a genuine ‘qualifications’ allowance.

In other parts of the nursing service colleagues who possess a particular qualification are paid an SQA allowance while their co-workers who do not have the qualification are not.

However, even if it did not give rise to national implications (which is a very serious consideration and is addressed below) the discussion at the hearing revealed disagreement on the extent to which the complainant’s RSCN skills are in fact deployed. It is not a matter for a WRC Adjudicator to determine the truth of the competing claims, which touch on clinical and operational matters and is appropriate to a discussion between the parties.

The allowance being sought is referred to as a ‘qualifications’ allowance. There is some imprecision in this as it suggests that any person with the qualification would be eligible for payment of the allowance.

However, this is not the case; it is not payable, according to the respondent’s submission, for simply having the qualification.

The explanation for this lies in the relevant National Agreement on the subject (Dated November 25th, 1999) which explains and qualifies this further.

At Section 4, ‘Specialist Qualifications Allowances’ it states;

‘A Qualification allowance …is payable to nurses employed directly on duties in specialist areas appropriate to the following qualifications where they possess the relevant clinical qualification’

The qualifications are then listed.

On conclusion of this list it states;

It will then be a matter for the employer to decide whether or not a nurse is engaged in a specialist area on specialist duties.    

Underlining added.

Notwithstanding any inconsistency in the application of the agreement referred to above this is fatal to the complainant’s case in circumstances where the employer has not so decided. There may be inconsistencies in the manner of its application, but this agreement gives it the exclusive power to so decide.

Even correspondence relied on strongly by the complainant and included in its submission, and which issued on December 1st, 2008 contains a requirement that a senior manager be ‘satisfied that the [nurse] is utilising this qualification in the course of their duties’.

The starting point for the complainant (and her colleagues) is that national agreement, the requirements of which cannot be set aside by an Adjudicator.

This leaves the matter of the commitment given to the complainant that she would be paid the allowance.

The complainant received an email on September 7th, 2018 from her line manager stating;

‘Your Paeds [RSCN] qualification allowance (& arrears) has been approved by HR and is currently being forwarded to payroll for processing’.

Despite further correspondence from her union that was the end of the matter.

The respondent submitted that this was an error. If so it is unlikely that it was an error solely on the part of the author of the email who was, (judging from the text of the email,) acting on advice from the HR department.

Error or no, it is one for which the complainant is entitled to be compensated.

However, my recommendation below of compensation arises strictly from the ensuing impact on the complainant of the failure to act on this commitment, however justified the respondent’s reasons may have been.

It should be emphasised that the complainant has not established an entitlement to the allowance and that matter must be pursued, if it is to be pursued, through normal collective bargaining channels.

I find that the eligibility criteria in respect of the Special Qualifications Allowance are clearly set out in the 1999 National Agreement, specifically requiring a decision by the respondent on whether an applicant meets the qualifying criteria.

The complainant does not meet those criteria and her claim for the payment of the Special Qualifications Allowance fails for that reason.

Arising strictly and exclusively from the communication of September 7th, 2018 that she would be paid an allowance I recommend that she be paid compensation of €2,500.00.

Allowances, mistaken offer.