Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Community Nurse

Health Service

Representatives

Ms. Noelle Hamilton, Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00039172

13/08/2020

The Worker commenced employment in June 2004. At all times her role is described as a “Community Registered General Nurse”. On 13th August 2020 the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. By correspondence date 31st March 2021, the Employer indicated that they wished to engage with the dispute. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 8th November 2021. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. No objections as to my jurisdiction to heat the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In summary, the Worker submitted that she was entitled to a “caseload allowance” payment. The Employer, in denying this claim, submitted that the Worker did not meet the criteria for the allowance.  

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in June 2004. She is engaged as a community registered general nurse. Approximately six years prior to the hearing, the Worker start providing catheter and suprapubic services on the request of the Employer. She provides these services to a high standard, with her work receiving positive commentary from GP’s and consultants.

In providing these services, the Worker organises her own appointments with clients and manages her own caseload. She further liaises with GP’s regarding the renewal of governance correspondence. The Worker has a set of clients that require her services on an ongoing basis. Without this provision of this service, these clients would be forced to attend emergency departments at great personal discomfort and cost to the state.

In July 2019, the Worker made representations to her line manager regarding her application for caseload allowance in July 2019, which was refused. The Worker’s representatives raised the matter locally on her behalf, however management continued to state that she was not entitled to the benefit.

In summary, the Worker submitted that she is entitled to the allowance as she met all the relevant criteria. By submission, the Worker’s representative submitted that the Worker should be entitled to payment of the allowance from the date the Worker commenced the duties.   

By response, the Employer accepted that the Worker was providing these catheter and suprapubic services in the community, and that she had raised this matter locally in June 2019.

They submitted that the Worker’s application was refused on this date as the caseload management allowance is only payable when a community registered general nurse takes on the entirety of a public health nurses caseload for a geographical area. They submitted that notwithstanding the services that the Worker provides in the area, she was not performing all the services of a public health nurse to the general public and consequently is not entitled to payment of the allowance. They submitted that the Worker was in receipt of a “enhanced nursing allowance” since April 2020.

There is no significant dispute as to the material facts of this dispute. It is accepted that that Worker has been providing a service that falls under the normal remit of a Public Health Nurse for a number of years. It is also agreed that the Worker provides manages a caseload of a number of individuals for the provision of these services. It is the Worker’s contention that this entitles her to payment of an allowance known as “caseload allowance”. In the alternative it is the Employer’s position that this allowance is only payable when a Community Registered General Nurse takes on the full caseload of a Public Health Nurse for a period of time. Having regard to the same, the qualifying criteria for the allowance will be of central importance in resolving the dispute.

In this regard, the representative opened correspondence from the Employer relating to the creation of the allowance. Herein, the Employer, or more accurately the body that pre-existed the Employer, refers to “finalising remuneration arrangements to apply to Community Registered General Nurses who take on defined case loads within a community setting.” The correspondence goes on to state that the remuneration arrangement arises as a consequence of a large number of Public Health Nurse vacancies that have arisen and “consequently a number of Community Registered General Nurses have agreed to take on specific case loads which would fall within the domain of a Public Health Nurse”. On foot of this correspondence, an allowance under the heading “Registered General Nurses in the Community” was included on the Department of Health consolidated salary scales. The qualifying criteria for this allowance echoed the language of the above-mentioned correspondence in that it states that,

“Registered General Nurses in the community undertaking certain specified duties of the Public Health Nurse will received the following allowance. The remuneration arrangement will apply for the duration of the specific assignment and end when the Community General Nurse reverts back to her general duties either on reassignment or when a Public Health Nurse fills the role”.

Having reviewed these documents, it is apparent that the dispute rests on the term “certain specified duties”. It is the Employer’s submission that this relates to the transfer of the entirety of the Public Health Nurse’s caseload to a Community Registered General Nurse. Having carefully considered this submission, I find that I do not agree with the same. If this was the intention behind the creation of the allowance, this is what the qualifying criterion would state. Rather, the term “certain specified duties” indicates that some duties may be assigned, while others would not. This interpretation is corroborated by the language of the correspondence (which is referenced in the criteria). While the section refers to the absence a public health nurse, it does not state anywhere that the allowance only exists when a Community Registered General Nurse takes on all, rather than some, of the duties.

In circumstances whereby the Worker was assigned some duties that normally fall under the remit of a Public Health Nurse, it would be reasonable to assume that the Employer would carefully consider this clause, and clearly state from the outset that the allowance would not apply. However, it is apparent that the Worker simply commenced these duties with any consideration of these issues on the part of the Employer.

Having regard to the foregoing points, I find that the Worker meets the qualifying criteria for the allowance. In settlement of this dispute I recommend that the Worker be compensated for the non-payment of this allowance from the date she assumed the additional duties and receive same on an ongoing basis so long as she meets the qualifying criteria.

I find that the Worker meets the qualifying criteria for the allowance under the heading “Registered General Nurses in the Community”, referred as “caseload allowance” by the parties.

In settlement of this dispute I recommend that the Worker be compensated for the non-payment of this allowance from the date she assumed the additional duties and receive same on an ongoing basis, so long as she meets the qualifying criteria.

Caseload allowance, criteria