Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Hospital

Representatives

Joe Hoolan – Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

Peter Flood IBEC

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-00048152-001

14/01/2022

The Worker claims that following the regrading of her role in April 2021 her pay should have been retrospectively apply to the date she filed her dispute, November 2017.

The Worker lodged a regrading claim via her Union on the 10th of November 2017. The basis of this claim was that her work was both comparable and of equal value to that of her Cancer Nurse Co-Ordinator colleague whose grade was CNM2. At the time she was Staff Nurse grade. On the 19th December 2018, it was agreed that an independent evaluation would take place by Ms. X however she subsequently changed jobs and became unavailable. On the 13th of March 2020, it was agreed that Mr. Y would conduct the independent evaluation. It was completed on the 6th of April 2021. The Worker was appointed to point 3 of the CNM2 scale.

Following the outcome of the evaluation the Union engaged with Management seeking retrospective payment to the date the claim was lodged. No satisfactory solution was reached.  Having exhausted the local process this matter was then referred to the WRC.

The Worker was appointed to her current post on 21st April 2014. Despite fulfilling the role of a CNM 2; confirmed through independent job evaluation, she was renumerated at Staff Nurse Grade, a deficit of €1,135.00 . She was fulfilling a comparable role to that of her colleague whom she was working alongside yet being paid €1,135.00 less. It is only fair and reasonable that retrospective payment be made.  In seeking retrospection to the date she lodged her claim, rather than the date of her appointment, the claimant is demonstrating a fair and reasonable approach.

The loss to the Worker is € 9,525.00.

The Worker requested a grading review of the role of Upper GI Cancer Trials Nurse/Co-ordinator.  The discussions in relation to the issue have been ongoing since November 2017. 

The Worker did not raise a grievance prior to lodging her claim with the WRC.  The Hospital grievance procedure, which covers both individual and collective grievances, states that a grievance may be referred to an appropriate third party, which includes an Adjudicator, if the parties cannot reach agreement on the grievance.

  There is no nationally agreed job evaluation scheme for nursing roles.  However, the hospital  did agree to an evaluation of the role of Upper GI Cancer Trials Nurse/Co-ordinator.

On March 10, 2020 the Hospital and the Worker agreed to have this role reviewed through a job evaluation exercise to determine the appropriate grade for the role.

The INMO official was informed by the Director of Nursing and the Employee Relations Manager that if any upgrade was recommended by the external evaluator that the upgrade would be given in line with job evaluation schemes in the health sector.

The evaluation was then put on hold due to the onset of the covid pandemic.  This delayed the job evaluation exercise for some 12 months.

The job evaluation report was issued in April 2021. Both parties accepted the conclusions. The role was upgraded to CNM 2. The upgrade took place from the date of the evaluation report,  April 2021.

On May 7, 2021, the Worker enquired when the upgrade would come into effect, what point on the scale she would be paid and when retrospective payment would be made. The Respondent responded informing her that the upgrade took effect from the time the job evaluation report was finalised.  She was informed that this is the consistent practice in the health sector. 

On July 15, 2021, the Worker’s Union informed the Hospital of its intention to refer the matter of retrospective payment to the WRC. This complaint was referred to the WRC in January 2022.

Job Evaluation in the Health Sector

At that time there was a job evaluation scheme in place for clerical staff and certain administrative grades in the health sector.  This scheme does not provide for retrospective grading if the job evaluation committee recommends an upgrade for a post.

The Complainant alleges that she was carrying out duties and operating at a higher grade that she was being paid for. She filed a dispute in November 2017 in relation to the issue. A job evaluation was not carried out for almost two years and the result of that evaluation were not published until April 2021. The findings of the independent evaluation were that the Worker’s role be upgraded to CNM2 grade 3. The Worker argues that whilst that is an improvement in terms of the grading, she should in fact be Grade 5. The loss to the Worker dating back to November 2017 is € 7,380.00 if Grade 3 is the correct grading and is € 9,525.00 if Grade 5 is the correct grading.

The Respondent argues that there is no provision for retrospective payments. The date of the job evaluation finding is the relevant date.  That argument might go some way to persuading me that that policy is a fair one, if the job evaluations were carried out promptly. The Respondent stated that on average it takes eighteen months to complete one. It is fundamentally unfair not to apply retrospective payments to someone who has been carrying out a role for a period of time and through no fault of their own, has been place on the incorrect scale, which has the knock on effect of  reduced pay. When the Respondent states that it accepts the findings of the independent job evaluation report, grading the Worker CNM2 Grade 3, they are essentially saying that they accept she has been carrying out a role / duties since 2017 that should have been paid on the CNM2 grade 3 level scale. However, because they don’t have a policy for retrospective payments, the Worker just has to accept the loss to her. That is not an acceptable practice.

I do not have enough evidence to look behind the findings of the job evaluation report, so I am therefore finding that the correct grade for the Worker CNM2 grade 3. On that basis the loss to the Worker is € 7,380.00.

I recommend the following:

1.       The sum of € 7,380.00 be paid to the Worker withing four weeks from the date of this recommendation.

The complaint is well founded. I recommend that the sum of € 7,380.00 be paid to the Worker withing four weeks from the date of this recommendation.

Retrospective payments, pay scale, grading, Industrial relations.