FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Public Health Nurses who were un-sponsored wish to buy back their non-sponsored training year for pension purposes 2. The Union contend that the claimants are comprehended by Department of Health Circular 27/66 thus providing them with an entitlement to have their Public Health Nurse training year reckonable for pension purposes.
2. The rules of the pension scheme require that only payments received as an approved salary may be pensionable.
The within dispute arises from a claim on behalf approximately two hundred and eighty public health nurses (‘PHNs’) to buy back, for pension purposes, their one-year period of specialised training and to do so at the rate that applied at the time the training was undertaken. The PHNs who are the subject of the dispute undertook a one-year course of study in training, between 1987 and 2000, in order to obtain a Diploma in Public Health Nursing. Only individuals with five years’ post-qualification experience and who were registered as both a general nurse and as a midwife were eligible to undertake the PHN training. It appears that from 1987 onwards, the majority of nurses employed by individual Health Boards who wished to undertake the training were required to resign their existing positions and could seek sponsorship from their previous employer to undertake the diploma course. The amount of sponsorship paid varied from £300.00 up to £4,500.00. In the Union’s submission, the Western Health Board adopted a different approach: it applied the terms of Circular 27 of 1966 and retained trainee PHNs in employment throughout their training period. The Union’s case is that its members who are comprehended by this claim were, for all intents and purposes, employees of the relevant Health Board for the duration of their PHN training. It submits that as trainees they were required to undertake a number of placements for the duration of which they were under the control and direction of the Director of Public Health Nursing. They were also required to give an undertaking to work for the Health Board for a minimum period post-qualification asquid pro quofor the sponsorship they received. The Union also submits that Circular 27 of 1966 should have been applied by each of the Health Boards in the manner in which it was applied by the Western Health Board. In support of this argument, the Union referred the Court to Circular 85 of 2000 which it submits provides for the employment status and terms and conditions of trainee PHNs in identical manner to Circular 85 of 2000. The HSE submits that for public service pension schemes, a period of service can only be regarded as pensionable service when a worker is in receipt of an approved salary for the period in question. It is common case that the PHNs on whose behalf the within claim is being advanced were not in receipt of an approved salary during their year of PHN training. It follows, in the HSE’s submission, that that they did not come within the terms of Circular 27 of 1966. The HSE also submits that the within claim is cost-increasing and, therefore, not permitted within the terms ofBuilding Momentum. The HSE estimates that the total cost of conceding the within claim would be almost €5m as the cost per individual (assuming current salary at the top point of the PHN pay scale) would be €17,839.00. Discussion and Recommendation Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court is of the view that the within claim is cost-increasing in nature and therefore contrary to section 5.6 ofBuilding Momentum. That being the case, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
