Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Community Mental Health Nurse

Medical Health Provider

Representatives

Caroline Brilly                                      Psychiatric Nurses Association

Aislin Reid                                                  IBEC

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-00031761-001

22/10/2019

The Complainant seeks payment of remuneration she says was due and owing to her following from a promotion which had resulted in a movement up the recognised payscales.

The Complainant’s case was comprehensively set out in a submission supported by documentation. I was additionally assisted by the Complainant’s representative who explained the nuances of the workplace custom and practise.

The Respondent was ably represented by IBEC who had also provided me with a comprehensive submission together with supporting documentation. I also heard from two witnesses from the Respondent HR Department.

I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced in this hearing. Both parties provided me with excellent submissions and there was little to no conflict in relation to the facts asserted.

At the outset, I am happy to confirm that any recommendation made herein applies to the particular circumstances of the within worker. It is not intended that a precedent is set as each worker’s circumstances and dispute is different to any other.

The Complainant commenced her employment with the nominated Employer as a Staff Nurse in 2014. In July of 2015 the Complainant was invited to step into a Community Mental Health Nurse position to provide cover by reason of an acknowledged period of absenteeism. The Complainant was now “acting up” in that role. The Complainant acted up for ten months until 2016 at which point, she was made permanent in the role of Community Mental Health Nurse.

It is noted that in the period between July 2015 and April 2016 the Complainant received an acting up allowance which fell well short of the community health nurse scale but which was at least was some recompense for the role the Complainant had taken on.

When the Complainant was made permanent in the role of Community Mental Health Nurse, I am advised that she was put on to the appropriate scale and on the first (and lowest) point thereon. By April 2017 she had moved to the second point and thereafter might have continued moving up the scale i.e. to reach point 3 on that scale by April 2018.

However, in the intervening period the Complainant had been asserting her entitlement to have the benefit of what has been described to me as the “MAX to MAX” rule. This, as I understand it, recognises that a Nurse in the field of mental Health who is moving up a pay scale (e.g. Staff Nurse to Grade I Community Mental Health) is entitled to be placed at the top of the new incremental scale assuming he or she is already at the top of the scale form which the move is made. If, as in this case, the individual is moved up two scales i.e. from Staff Nurse to Grade II Community Mental Health the Nurse will be placed on point 6 of that new scale.

This rule has only ever applied to Psychiatric Nurses and has been preserved and locked in at any and all discussions even those held at a National level (eg Croke Park). In the Complainant’s case (as I understand it) she was put onto point 1 at a salary of €47,000.00 when she should have been on point 7 at a salary of €53,000.00.

It is also noted that in a period of “Acting up” this method of payment should also have applied. This was acknowledged by both parties as being the correct procedure in Circular 008/2016.

The Complainant met with some success in 2018 when her situation was acknowledged, and her losses were paid going back as far as January 2018. This decision was taken by the Board of Directors. However, the Complainant claims that she is also entitled to have her correct pay to be calculated from the earlier date of July 2015 (when she first acted up) to December of 2018.

The Respondent witnesses, the HR Officer and the Interim Director of HR did not really dispute the Complainant’s assertions. The primary difficulty seemed to be the raising of extra funds. The paperwork and the custom and practise all seemed to support the Complainant’s case.

On balance, I find I have to accept the validity of the Complainant’s case and must therefore find that she is entitled to be compensated for her Remunerative losses in the amount of €17,000.00. I find this to be a Gross figure and that the sum should be payable within six months of the date of issue of this recommendation unless the manner of payment is otherwise agreed with the Complainant. As previously stated, this recommendation can only apply to the Complainant who has made a personal case to me

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

CA-00031761-001

I recommend that the Worker herein be paid the remuneration due and owing from a period from April 2016 to December 2017 and in the Gross amount of €17,000.00. This remuneration should be paid within six months unless otherwise agreed with the Complainant.