Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Nurse

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Lorraine Monaghan, INMO

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-00030950-001

17/09/2019

The worker is presently employed as a Public Health Nurse by the employer. The worker commenced employment in September 2017. The dispute is in relation to a Specialist Qualification Allowance (SQA) which the worker claims should be applied to her position.

The worker holds the required qualifications making her eligible for payment of the allowance.

The worker brings significant added value to children and their parents in her daily work in the health service.

The employer is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with their own formal policy position and with management elsewhere in the organisation.

This is a National claim and should be progressed at National Pay discussions.

Qualification Allowance has not been awarded to Public Health Nurses.

The worker is not engaged in a specialised area on specialised duties and consequently the employer cannot approve an allowance that does not satisfy the relevant qualifying criteria.

The worker did not attend the hearing but was represented by her union official.

The worker commenced employment with the employer on a student training post in September 2017 and was subsequently appointed as as a Public Health Nurse (PHN). The worker also holds the qualifications of Registered General Nurse and Registered Children’s Nurse. There used to be a necessity for PHNs to have a midwifery qualification but this ceased in 2008. In December 2008 the employer issued a memorandum to management in regard to the application of the SQA to Public Health Nurses. In that memo it is stated, inter alia, that;

“for those newly qualified PHNs that do not have midwifery but do have an alternate qualification (such as Paediatrics, etc.) then the Qualification Allowance may be applied where this other qualification is at Category 2 status with An Bord Altranais and the Director of Public Health Nursing is satisfied that the PHN is utilising this qualification in the course of their duties.”

A further clarification was issued by the employer’s HR department in February 2009 which stated the following as regards the allowance;

“(It) can only be paid if an alternative course / qualification, which is relevant to the specialist area, has been afforded category 2 status by An Bord Altranais.”

The worker raised the issue of the payment of the SQA shortly after her appointment in 2018.   The response of her local HR manager was to the effect that the advice received indicated that, as the necessity for a PHN to hold a Children’s Nursing qualification was not a requirement for appointment to that position, no payment was made for that qualification.   The worker appealed this decision under Stage 3 of the employer’s Grievance Procedure to the Employee Relations Manager. In her response the ER Manager upheld the decision not to apply the SQA. In that letter it was stated;

“that while the Registered Children’s Nursing (RCN) qualification is very beneficial to a RPHN it is not a requirement for entry to PHN training or to do the role of a PHN.”

Following that response the issue was referred to the WRC in line with the Grievance Procedure.   The worker is seeking payment of the SQA together with full retrospection.

At the hearing the employer also pointed out that a PHN is in receipt of an enhanced salary in recognition of the various qualifications and experiences that an appointed person brings to that position. The SQA, according to the employer, can only apply to a nurse engaged in a specialist area on specialist duties. The union, on behalf of their member, argued that a PHN with a midwifery qualification was paid the SQA even when employed on duties caring for male and elderly patients. The worker in this case catered for a significant number of children in her area.   In addition, the union stated that some PHNs, with similar qualifications as the worker, but employed by the employer in a different geographical area, were in receipt of the SQA.

I have a lot of sympathy for the case put forward by the union on their member’s behalf. There appear to be some inconsistencies in the position put forward by the employer. The claim, however, although put forward on behalf of an individual who has brought her case through the Grievance Procedure, has implications for other PHNs who are in a similar situation to that worker. The issue indeed is the subject of ongoing discussion at national level between the union and the employer. I note that there was correspondence from the union’s head office in this regard dated the same day as the hearing. In these circumstances I cannot make a recommendation that could prejudice the outcome of those negotiations.

I recommend that the worker awaits the outcome of the ongoing negotiations at national level in respect of the issue raised in this referral. If no agreement is reached between the parties, or if there is some issue particular to the worker concerned in this dispute that remains unresolved, then the worker can refer the matter in dispute back to the WRC.

Special Qualification Allowance     Grievance Procedure