Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Anne Burke Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisaiton

Damien Mullarkey Area Corporate Employee Relations Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00047046

8.11.2021

The claimant is employed as a Community Registered General Nurse /Midwife  and is aggrieved that the respondent has failed to pay her a caseload allowance which was reinstated for new entrants in Circular 036/2017. The respondent has rejected the claim and argues that the claimant has no entitlement to this allowance .

The complainant’s representative submitted as follows:

1.        The matter before you today relates to the respondent’s  refusal to approve application of and payment of the associated retrospection of the Community Registered General Nurse allowance (Caseload Allowance) to the claimant from when she became eligible to receive the allowance. The claim is being heard under the Industrial Relations Acts 1969-1990. The following is sought in redress: ❖ The sum of €15,185 paid in retrospection for application of the Caseload Allowance based on 39 hours week work per week from 1 st July 2017 to 4th July 2022. (Appendix 1) ❖ Compensation of €5000 arising from the stress and significant upheaval that the claimant has endured as a result of the employer’s refusal to administer the application of the allowance to our member

2.        2. Relevant Circulars

 2.1 Circular dated 5th April 2001 provides for the payment of an allowance to CRGN’s holding a caseload.

 2.2  Circular 036/2017, states that Community Registered Nurses(CRGN) are entitled to be paid an allowance.

 3. Background

 3.1 The claimant  is a Registered General Nurse and a Registered Midwife since 1982 and 1985 respectively.

3.2 The claimant has been employed as a Community Registered General Nurse and Midwife (CRGN/RM ) in  since March 2017.Prior to this,  the complainant  worked as a CRGN/RM in a temporary post and through well established arrangements was paid on point 1 of the PHN scale owing to the shortage of PHN’s.

3.3 On attaining her permanent post as a CRGN/RM in 2017, identified that she had incurred a loss of earnings as a result of her new COE and unfortunately encountered significant difficulty in attaining the correct Contract of Employment to reflect her Dual Qualified salary scale. The matter was eventually resolved in May 2020. ADJ - 00035894 CA – 00047046

 3.4 During the tenure of both her temporary and permanent posts, and arising from her skill set as a dual qualified RGN/RM,  the complainant was requested by her Directors of Public Health Nursing to take on the PHN caseload in a large number of areas throughout the county. She  did so and remains carrying a caseload in the absence of a PHN for several years. 

3.5 The claimant has and continues to carry the clinical caseload conducting a large range of duties which normally falls to the Public Health Nurse including: • Full clinical caseload for Adult service users and clients • Management of mothers in the post-partum period ( up to 6 weeks ) • Management of Child health caseload up to six weeks post-partum. • General Management of the PHN office • Management of complex cases with the Multi-Disciplinary Team • Completion of Healthcare metrics

3.6 By May 2020, the claimant had been carrying the PHN caseload for 93 weeks. She wrote  once again to her ADPHN and sought that the Caseload Allowance be applied to her.

 3.8 On the 19 th February 2021 , the INMO wrote to Mr X , Area Corporate Employee Relations Manager seeking a meeting to discuss a number of claims including  the complainant’s  claim .

 3.9 The INMO wrote again on February 26th to Mr.X  seeking a response and offer of a meeting.

 3.10 On the 2nd. March 2021, Mr. X  responded to the INMO advising that the approval for the application of Caseload Allowance was outside the remit of his office .

 4. The Union Argument

4.1 The Allowance for CRGN in the Community( Caseload Allowance) was originally provided for in respondent’s  Circular at Appendix 2. It provides for the “ finalisation of remuneration arrangements to apply to Community Registered General Nurses who take on defined caseloads within a community setting “

4.2 That allowance was abolished under the Review of Allowances process in 2012. However, approval for reinstatement of the same Caseload Allowance to CRGN’s was reinstated in July 2017 as per Circular 036/2017. ADJ - 00035894 CA – 00047046

 4.3 The matter of  the complainant  actually carrying the PHN caseload is not disputed by her former and current Director of Public Health Nursing or HR CHO2.

 4.4 The Caseload Allowance is being paid to all other CRGN’s in CHO2 and the claimant should be treated no differently.

 4.5 The Caseload Allowance is being paid in other CHO’s to those CRGN who are registered Nurses and Registered Midwives who are also in receipt of the Specialist Qualification Allowance ( SQA) .

 4.6 The Caseload Allowance is a separate and distinct allowance from the Specialist Qualification allowance ( SQA) or the location allowance and the payment of the Caseload Allowance is not contingent on the payment or nonpayment of the aforementioned allowances. In fact, given the shortage of PHN’s in CHO2 and indeed throughout the country  it is a fact that the majority of CRGN who are paid the Caseload Allowance are those who are dual qualified( General and Midwifery qualified) .

 4.7 The INMO refers you to a recent WRC Adjudication Case, reference number ADJ- 00029762, a claim of a very similar nature and we rely on this outcome to support this claim.

4.8 Given the protracted length of time it has taken to resolve this matter and the failure of the employer to administer the policy correctly, we seek that our member is compensated to the value of €5000 for the distress and financial embarrassment she has endured during this time.

5.Conclusion

 Having regard to the foregoing, the INMO request full arrears for the claimant.

The claimant’s representative contended that there was no impediment to the respondent paying the allowance. It was contended that it was well known throughout the county that  many of the claimant’s colleagues were in receipt of the allowance. The representative refuted the contention of the respondent’s representative that concession of the claim would open floodgates for other claimants. It was contended that other CHO areas including the Southern region had interpreted the circulars to benefit rather than disadvantage the Community Registered nurses. It was contended that there were 41 vacancies in the Publlic Health Nursing stream and the RGNs were responding by taking on diverse and complex caseloads as a result of this shortage .It was submitted that it was a known fact that the numbers of PHNs were dwindling .The claimant operated her own caseload and did not report to a PHN. Since 2017 , the complainant continued to carry a caseload  and reported to an Assistant Director of Nursing. It was submitted that the claimant had an entitlement to be paid the dual qualified salary scale. The caseload allowance recognised that the claimant did not have a Public Health Nurse to report to. It was contended that the respondent paid the allowances when it suited them.it was submitted that  the  respondent knew they could extend the claimant’s caseload by virtue of her RGN and Midwifery qualifications. It was accepted that the allowance was not paid in circumstances where the Community RGN reported to a Public Health Nurse. It was contended that the claimant was entitled to have the allowance paid and that the respondent should respond to the claim on the merits of the case as outlined.

The respondent’s representative submitted as follows :

Introduction 

1. The complainant as per her complaint form CA-00047046 (dated 08/11/2021) seeks adjudication by the WRC under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

2. In her complaint the complainant states “The claimant is employed as a Community Registered General Nurse/ Midwife in Co. X. She has carried the caseload on behalf of Public Health Nurses for a number of years but the employer has failed to apply the caseload allowance to her salary which was reinstated for new entrants in RESPONDENT HR Circular 036/2017. Despite substantial engagement with the employer on this matter, the application of the allowance to the claimant has still not been approved for payment by the employer. On behalf of our member we seek the assistance of the Adjudication Service to progress our claim.”

RESPONDENT Position – Preliminary Issue

3. The complaint from  the claimant  is in the view of the respondent  misconstrued, the complaint  states “The claimant is employed as a community registered general nurse /midwife.

4. Ms Farrington was initially  offered a contract of indefinite duration as a Staff Nurse with an effective start date of the 17th April 2017.(Ref: Appendix No 1 Respondent Correspondence 23rd May 2017 Pages 1-2)

5. Further  correspondence from the respondent   (dated 09.04.2020) confirms as follows  “Following a review by the CHW office,  the claimant  who is currently paid on the Staff Nurse salary scale ,is to be paid on the 9th point of the Staff Nurse  Dual Qualified salary scale i.e. €46,271 p/a with effect from 17.04.2017.  The claimant  as confirmed by the respondent’s  finance dept  and in the context of the implementation of the respondent’s memorandum dated the 9th April 2020 received arrears of €371.83 on pay date 23/04/2020 to cover the period 01/01/2020 to 12/04/2020. With further arrears of €3666.68 paid on pay date 21/05/2020. Attached documents confirm that the claimant  was advised by  respondent’s finance section  via email of 03/06/2020 of the payment of salary arrears applicable to the grade of Staff Nurse Dual Qualified (Salary Grade Code 2617) backdated to 17/04/2017. (Ref Appendix No 1 Copy Respondent  Memorandum Dated: 09.04.2020 Page 1.   Copy  Finance Calculations dated 04/06/2020   Ref: Arrears  Claimant Page 2. Copy HR102 Change to Employees terms and Conditions HR102 Pages 3-4)

6. The claimant  has been employed by the respondent  on the salary scale of a Staff Nurse Dual Qualified (Grade Code 2617) since the date of her contract of indefinite duration which issued on the 17th April 2017.  Her  current salary point is the 9th point of the Staff Nurse Dual Qualified salary scale i.e. €49,487 LSI Salary Grade Code 2617 plus a location /qualification allowance of €1483 per annum.  While the top point of the Staff Nurse /Community Registered General Nurse (RGN) salary scale is €47,931 LSI salary Grade Code 2135. (Ref Appendix No. 2 Consolidated Salary Scales October 2021 –Nursing Salary Scales Pages 13-15 and Nursing Allowances Pages 59-60)

7. The complaint  states “the employer has failed to apply the caseload allowance to her salary which was reinstated for new entrants by  HR Circular 036/2017”.  The collectively agreed circular sanctions the restoration of allowances to a number of named  nursing grades including Registered General Nurses in the Community  however the circular does not reference restoration of an additional “case load allowance” payable to the grade of Staff Nurse Dual Qualified .  A copy of Circular 036/2017 is enclosed at Appendix No: 2 Pages 1-2)

8. In the context of the Grade of staff nurse paid on the dual qualification salary scale, Circular 112/99 Issued 30 November 1999 and titled - Revised allowances for Nursing Grades Labour Court Recommendation’s No 1621 and 16330 - states at Point 6 “Appropriate arrangements should be put in place to ensure that staff nurses on the dual qualified scale do not benefit from a full location /qualification allowance in addition to the dual qualified scale.” The circular makes no provisions for the payment /inclusion of an additional case load allowance to the grade of Staff Nurse Dual Qualified. Furthermore the Consolidated Salary Scales October 2021 confirms at Page 59 - Nursing Allowances- that the grade of   Staff  Nurse dual qualified with reference to circular 112/99 receives a Location /Qualification allowance valued  at the 1st October 2021 at Euro 1483 per annum. (Ref Appendix No: 2 Consolidated Salary Scales October 2021 Page 59)

9. The claimant , in accordance with the terms and provisions of Circular 112/99 and with reference to currently applicable  consolidated salary scales dated 1st October 2021, receives the 9th Point (LSI) of the Dual Qualified Salary Scale Grade Code 2617,  current remuneration payable being  €49,487 and a location /qualification allowance of €1483 per annum.

(Ref Appendix No: 2   Copy  Circular 112/99 Pages 1 -7.  Copy: Consolidated salary Scales 1st October 2021 – Nursing Salary Scales Pages 13 – 15. Nursing Allowances Payable Pages 59-60)

10. With reference to the current Public Service Agreement Building Momentum the employer must consider the within claim as both  a collective issue/claim in the context of   Section 5.6 of the agreement,  and  as cost increasing, in circumstances where as per Section 5.6 .1  of the agreement “The parties agree that there will be no cost increasing claims for improvement in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions, Garda and Defence Force Associations, or employees during the period of the Agreement.”

13. It is the view of the employer that the complainants case is being brought for the purpose of pursuing what is in fact a collective issue with both local and national implications.  Currently in CHO2 area there are 46 nurses including the claimant  who are in receipt of the Dual Qualified Nurses salary scale. It is the view of the employer that the INMO in lodging this claim are avoiding engagement with the binding mechanisms as set out in the current public service agreement (Building Momentum) for the resolution of collective industrial relations issues .

14. The chair of the labour Court in LCR22464 in the context of Building Momentum expressed the view that “in the interests of good industrial relations generally, dispute resolution arrangements across the public sector, including as regards matters covered by the agreement, should be clear and followed consistently by the parties.” “Those arrangements currently include an infrastructure established as part of “Building Momentum “which will have application until such time as the parties amend or conclude that agreement.”

15. It remains the position of the respondent  that the complainant who seeks the payment of an additional allowance (described as a caseload allowance) is properly remunerated in accordance with the salary scales applicable to the grade of Staff Nurse Dual Qualified Grade Code 2617 (currently in CHO2 there are 46 nurses paid in accordance with Grade code 2617) and with reference to both DOH Circular 112/99 and currently applicable Consolidated Salary Scales (October 2021)

16.  The respondent  seek a recommendation favourable to the employer. 

The respondent’s representative asserted that the claimant was employed and paid as a dual qualified nurse. He submitted that there were 46 other dual qualified nurses  and consequently this had to be viewed as a collective claim. It was contended that the caseload allowance was only payable to those on an RGN scale  and the claimant was paid higher than an RGN. He referenced a Labour Court Recommendation issued on the 25th.May 2022 which identified when matters had to be addressed from a collective perspective – in that case it was pension entitlements. He asserted that he was not here to question the claimant’s academic qualifications – he was obliged to interpret the respondent’s consolidated scales  as they are written. The allowance can only be paid to those on an RGN scale .He disputed the claimant’s representative ‘s assertion that her circumstances were confined to an individual case and argued that there were  46 personel on the same grade code as the claimant. He reiterated that this was a cost increasing clam and pursuing the claim was he argued in breach of Building Momentum. He submitted the restoration of the allowance applied to RGN  nurses and not dual qualified nurses.

I have reviewed the submissions presented at the hearing and noted the respective submissions of the parties. I have considered the respondent’s assertion that this is a collective claim debarred by virtue of the provisions of Building Momentum. The respondent had an opportunity to decline to participate in the hearing but did not do so. Additionally , it became clear in the course of the union’s presentation that the claimant is the only community RGN in Co.X that is being denied this allowance. Consequently I am satisfied that that this dispute is not a collective  dispute and that I have jurisdiction to hear it. Furthermore ,  I am taking into account the provisions of Building Momentum which allow for the progression of minor claims. 

I have considered the entirety of the circulars relied upon by both parties and note that the respondent is adamant that there are over 40 nurses in his region with the same pay code as the claimant – dual qualified staff nurse. The respondent presented no evidence to clarify in what capacity these equivalently coded nurses were working. While I acknowledge the claimant’s CID referred to her as a Staff Nurse – dual qualified – there is no dispute between the parties that she is assigned as a community RGN , carries a case load and does not report to a Public Health Nurse.On cessation of such assignment , it is acknowledged by the union that the caseload allowance would no longer apply. I can find no evidence in the circulars relied upon by the respondent of an embargo on the application to the claimant of the caseload allowance. I found the arguments of the union regarding the declining numbers of PHNs in the system and the imperative to fill this recruitment vacuum with suitably qualified RGNs to be compelling and persuasive . Additionally  I found the fact that the HR manager for County X confirmed as far back as the 17th.July 2018 that  the claimant had an entitlement to the allowance  to be convincing. I have also taken account of  the correspondence from the Southern CHO area to the effect that there was no obstacle to the payment of the caseload allowance not withstanding any other allowance applying to Community RGNS.

In all of the circumstances  I find the claimant has a legitimate grievance and I am upholding her complaint .I recommend the respondent pay the claimant the case load allowance with effect from the 1st.July 2017  and continue to pay the allowance for as long as the claimant is assigned to a Community RGN post and meets the criteria for being paid the allowance .

I am upholding the complaint and recommend that the claimant be paid the caseload allowance with effect from the 1st.July 2017.

Caseload Allowance for Community RGN’s