Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Doctor

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Vivienne Hannon

Irish Medical Organisation

Employee Relations Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

18/05/2021

The dispute as presented is concerned with a claim that the incorrect rules on promotion were applied to the employee.

The employee commenced employment with the employer on July 9th, 2018 as a SHO in her first year of GP training. Her increment date was 23rd January. In the subsequent two years the employee progressed from point 3 of the scale to point 5 of the scale through annual increments applied on the January date.

On July 9th, 2020 the employee entered the final two years of the GP scheme at which point she became a GP Registrar at which time she was place on point 2 of the Registrar scale and her increment date was changed to July 9th. The claim relates to the change of the increment date from January to July with a loss claimed of €1193. The basis of the claim is that the increment date should not have changed by reference to Circular 10/71 at section 14(v) which states:

Subject to sub-paragraph (i), where the minimum of the new salary scale is equal to existing pay, the officer may enter the new scale minimum plus one increment -he may retain his existing increment date, if any.

As point 5 of the SHO salary scales is equal to point 1 of the Registrar scales, the rule regarding the increment date as provided for in 10/71 should have applied to the employee and her date of increment should have remained at January 23rd.

The issue was explored internally without a resolution. The employer response-that NCHD incremental credit is not covered by 10/71 was rejected on the basis that section 16 of the NCHD contract does not apply and when she queried this referring to section 14(v) of circular 10/71 she was informed that 10/71 did not apply to NCHDs. At the hearing, the representative stated that this case is very unusual as the progression in this case would not be usual. The representative stated that she had achieved additional incremental credit for individuals citing 10/71.

The essential facts are not disputed. However, the position of the employer is that it is the terms of the NCHD contract and not the terms of 10/71 which apply to the employee. In any event the claim is a group claim with ,it is suggested, the IMO is, or maybe, trying to establish a precedent for the grade to be covered by 10/71; it is a claim with potential knock on effects and therefore not an individual dispute under the Industrial Relations Act; it is a cost increasing claim which properly belongs at the appropriate discussions under Building Momentum and should be pursued at the appropriate sectoral bargaining segment of the related discussions.

Section 16 of the NCHD Contract which refers to incremental credit is silent on the date of incremental credit on moving from the SHO Grade to GP Registrar. This is an issue which requires clarification between the parties to the NCHD Contract. There cannot be an automatic assumption that 10/71 applies but neither can it be said that a clause which is silent on the matter in dispute automatically applies. This is particularly so when it is clear that the employee in question is placed at a disadvantage by the employer decision, one which is not provided for in their contract of employment which terms are governed by the nationally agreed collective contract. The fact that as clarified at the hearing, there is no recollection of this issue arising in the half a century since 10/71 was issued, suggests that in practice this could well be an individual and exceptional case. However, it is not a dispute which is appropriate for an individual recommendation, either way, but rather a matter for clarification between the parties to the NCHD Contract at national level.

NCHD incremental Credit on moving between training posts.