Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Claimant

Respondent

Representatives

Liz Curran                                                      Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

HR Manager

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-00042629-001

22/02/2021

The Worker herein has issued a Workplace Relations complaint form as of the 22nd of February 2021. The details of the complaint are that the Complainant is seeking to be re-graded to a scale commensurate,says, with her role and responsibility.

The Complainant was represented by a member of her Union. I was provided with a comprehensive submission setting out the Complainant’s reasons as to why she needs to be regraded.

The Respondent was represented by a member of its own Human Resource division. I was again provided with a submission setting out the Respondent’s position.

I have carefully listened to the parties herein. Both representatives made clear submissions and the complainant herself was given the opportunity to explain her position. There is, it should be said, a lot of commonality regarding the background and facts.

The Complainant qualified as a Public Health Nurse in 2002. She initially operated as an Area Health Nurse. Then, in and around 2010 or 2011, she applied for and was successful in obtaining a new post. This new role was Co-ordinator of parent support programmes and in particular the “life start programme” which is a universal care programme for early childhood and involving home visits to babies and toddlers up to the age of five years. The Complainant worked alongside about 5 colleagues all of whom implemented this home-based programme.

The Complainant slotted into the new role and worked well for a couple of years. Then in and around 2013 or 2014 the Complainant accepted the role of line Manager for the Family Support Workers. This was in addition to Co-ordinator role already held by her. This new role involved directly managing up to 7 or 8 Family support Practitioners who are involved in much more targeted intervention in difficult situations which have come to the attention of the public Health Services. This was also all part of the absorption of these – previously HSE services – into the body which we know as TUSLA.

I do not doubt the sensitivity and pressure under which the complainant operated in this role and the Complainant has given comprehensive evidence of the workload involved in managing this increased number of personnel. The Complainant had never had to directly manage staff before and the learning curve for these duties was steep. The Complainant had to organise hours of work, places of work , travel and subsistence, annual leave and the myriad of other incidentals associated with people management.

It has been put to me, and not contradicted by the Respondent that the complainant’s role was no longer that of a Public Health Nurse but was now much more similar to the role of Assistant Director of Public Health Nurse. The difference being a management (including line-management ) role is inherent in the Assistant Director role. I have been advised that a Public Health Nurse does not generally have a management role.

It also appears to have been recognised right from the start of her appointment that the Complainant’s role involved a significant change in duties and responsibilities such that her Public Health Nurse Grade and Status no longer truly represented the work she was expected to perform. I am happy to accept  that both her own line Manager and indeed the Area Manger sought to engage in or pushed to engage in  a process which would allow the workload be evaluated with a view to allowing the complainant be placed in a Grade commensurate to the work being performed by her.

It is a regrettable fact that the process of evaluating the Complainant’s job was never performed, and I have been advised by the Respondent’s HR representative that this is because such a process is not provided for in the Respondent body. This is very surprising to me, and clearly very frustrating for the complainant who has been unable to get the Respondent to perform a fair evaluation which she (the Complainant) says would result in a recognition of her grade needing to be revised upwards. I acknowledge that the complainant has been left in a difficult position for six or seven years as a result of the situation. I am also satisfied that the complainant has availed of every possible internal process to try and have this matter dealt with in the workplace.

I note that the Complainant has maintained that she should (as of 2014) have been placed on the grade associated with Assistant Director of Public Health Nurse. The Respondent has not accepted this in circumstances where it says that that grade is simply not recognised in this workplace. The Complainant is trying to attach herself, they say, to a non-existent pay grade and role.

The Complainant’s representative has underlined an historic transfer of several Assistant Directors of Public Health Nurses into the Respondent company and those persons are now in the role of Early Years Inspectors, having adapted to local requirements as they were absorbed into the Respondent. It is in these circumstances I have been asked by the Complainant’s representative to recognise the suitability of the pay grade attaching to the early years inspectors as also being applicable to the Complainant.

The Respondent has pointed out that the roles performed by the early years inspectors and the Complainant are not the same. I, of course, accept this point as being true. However, I don’t think the Complainant was suggesting that there were job similarities, she was simply making the point that the applicable grade is being used in the workplace albeit now for a different class of worker. On balance I accept that this is the appropriate applicable pay grade.

I understand that the Respondent may well have wanted to recognise the Complainant’s status and it is clear that many  senior members initiated processes to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, budgetary constraints and an absence of evaluation process have given the complainant very little comfort.

It is in these circumstances that I am recommending that the complainant be immediately placed on the pay grade which currently attaches to those employees in the respondent company known as Early Years Inspectors. This is the appropriate grade for this individual who performs a very demanding function of line management well above the paygrade she is currently at. I am advised that the Pay and Promotion circular applicable in this workplace should be referenced when determining the correct point on scale.

In making this recommendation I am mindful of the fact that this is a unique set of circumstances presented by the Complainant in person and should have no applicability any where else.

This recommendation should be implemented within four weeks of the date of issue.

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

CA-00042629-001

Having already articulated my opinion on the merits of the within dispute, I am recommending that the Respondent place the Complainant on the correct grade (as attaches to the role of early years inspector) within four weeks.