FULL RECOMMENDATION
CD/22/103
ADJ-00029762, CA-00039172-001 | DECISION NO. LCR22640 |
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES :HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (HSE)
- AND -
A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH NURSES’ AND MIDWIVES’ ORGANISATION)
DIVISION :
| Chairman: | Ms Connolly | | Employer Member: | Mr Murphy | | Worker Member: | Ms Tanham |
SUBJECT:
1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s)ADJ-00029762, CA-00039172-001
BACKGROUND:
2.The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 26 May 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 August 2022.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the HSE of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-000 29762 in relation to a worker represented by the INMO concerning the application of a ‘caseload allowance’. The worker is a Community Registered General Nurse (CRGN).
The Adjudication Officer upheld the worker’s complaint and found that she met the qualifying criteria for a ‘caseload allowance’ under the heading “Registered General Nurses in the Community”. The Adjudication Officer recommended 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, as long as she met the qualifying criteria”.The HSE has appealed that recommendation.
The allowance was introduced in response to a shortage of public health nurses in the Eastern Region Health Board in 2001. The allowance sought to address a shortage caused by a number of unfilled posts by asking RGN’s to undertake PHN caseloads. The document underpinning the allowance is a letter from the HSE to the INO dated the 5thof April 2001, which states: -
- “The context of the following arrangement is as a consequence of a large number of Public Health Nurse vacancies which are currently evident within the three Area Health Boards in the Eastern Region. Accordingly a number of Community Registered General Nurses have agreed to take on specific caseloads which otherwise fall within the domain of the Public Health Nurse”.
‘The remuneration arrangement will apply for the duration of specific assignments and will cease when the Community General Nurse reverts back to general duties either on reassignment or when a Public Health Nurse fills the role”.
The HSE submits that the 2001 letter clearly outlines that the caseload allowance only applies where there is a public health nurse vacancy and the community RGN is willing to take up that caseload. It submits that the word caseload cannot be equated to the word duties. The worker in this case was not filling a PHN vacancy nor was she covering the caseload of a PHN and therefore she is not entitled to the allowance. Concession of this claim would have enormous potential consequences in terms of cost to the HSE.
The INM0 rejects that the matter is a cost increasing claim, as it is simply seeking the application of an agreed allowance to its member. The worker was requested by her employer approximately six years ago to take on the role of providing care to male catheter clients and suprapubic catheter clients within the county where she worked. The worker agreed to take on that caseload which would otherwise have fallen within the domain of the PHN.
The Department of Health (DOH) Consolidated Salary Scales October 2021 state that the Allowance is applicable where:-
- ‘RGNS in the community undertaking certain specified duties of a PHN (Public Health Nurse) should receive the Following Allowances. The remuneration arrangement will apply for the duration of the specific assignment and when the Community General Nurse reverts back to general duties or when a PHN fills the Role‘.
The INMO submits that the documentation does not specify that the entirety of a caseload must be taken on by the CRGN in order to be entitled to payment of the allowance. While the section refers to the absence of a public health nurse, it does not state anywhere that the allowance only exists when a CRGN takes on all rather than some of the duties. In such circumstances, the worker is entitled to receive a ‘caseload allowance’.
While both parties made submissions to the Court about the difference between specific caseloads and duties, it is clear to the Court that the ‘caseload allowance’ is only applicable in the context of a vacancy. In response to questions from the Court both parties confirmed that the worker has continued to report to a PHN and that no formal vacancy arose in this case.
In light of this fact the Labour Court cannot uphold the workers claim. The claim is rejected, and the decision of the Adjudication Officer overturned.
The Court so decides.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | | | | Katie Connolly | | IK | ______________________ | | 12 September 2022 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ian Kelly, Court Secretary. |
