Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

Public Service Body

Representatives

Neal Donohue Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

 Paul Hume

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00047996-001

06/01/2022

The employee commenced her employment as a Registered General Nurse in 1999.  She was promoted to CNM1 in 2008, managing the waiting list office.  The role and function constitutes senior administrative function, a high level of responsibility and direct reporting relationship to the General Manager.  In 2014 a business case was submitted to seek regularisation to Grade 7.  The employee’s counterparts in other hospitals are graded at 7 or 8, resulting in the employee in this case being paid at a much lower rate than her comparators. The business case was declined at the time.  In 2020, a grievance was submitted by the employee and the comparators cited.  In February 2021 the employee was informed that the only pathway to conclude the matter was through WRC.  The employee then referred the dispute to WRC.  It is submitted that the employee should be regraded to Grade 7 from the time of the business case submission, i.e. 2014.  The employee was transferred on a temporary basis to the vaccination clinics from March 2021 to October 2021 so this period could be taken into account when calculating retrospection.  It should further be noted that the reporting relationship is an anomaly in respect of the usual structures where the employee as a CNM1 is reporting directly to the General Manager.  The usual reporting structure would have 4 additional levels of reporting i.e. CNM1 – CNM2 – CNM3 – ADON – DON – GM.  This anomaly should be rectified and the employee remunerated at the appropriate level back to 2014. 

The employee is currently employed as a Scheduled Care Manager, paid as a Grade V11 on a temporary assignment basis.  The employer accepts that she is doing the work of a Grade V11, and note that she is currently paid as same.  It is the post that we are talking about, as opposed to an employee, and therefore there is a difficulty for the employer in “imparting” such a post on an employee without an open competition, under the current recruitment process, (which is collectively agreed by the Trade Unions).  In such a scenario the employer has a concern that other employees could step forward and say that they had an interest in that post and were denied the opportunity to apply for it.   The employer’s position is whilst being sympathetic to the employee’s position we cannot fill this position without an open competition.  To do so might lead to challenges from other potential applicants. If we were talking about a post from temporary to permanent or a long-term acting into a promotional post, there are circulars that encompass these scenarios.  However, has this is a “regularisation” there are no circulars that guide or advise on this scenario.

For the reasons cited above, I recommend that the employee be regraded to substantive Grade VII  from 2014.  

Upgrading.  Backdated.