Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Doctor

A Government Body

Representatives

Thomas Smyth Irish Medical Organisation

 Internal HR

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00001636

04/08/2023

The Worker is seeking payment of a Clinical Directors’ Allowance in addition to his existing salary given that he is required to maintain his clinical registration to fulfil his role. He is also looking for additional years of service to be added for pension purposes.

The Worker is employed as a National Director by the Employer. He stated in the first instance that his salary does not reflect the fact that he is required to maintain his clinical registration and he is paid less than all other public health doctors working in the new consultant roles (one of whom reports to him). He sought to engage with the Employer to address this discrepancy and requested the payment of a Clinical Directors’ allowance. This had been previously restricted to consultants but had also been paid to other doctors who were acting in non-clinical roles in recent years. The Employer would not sanction the payment of this allowance for him however.

The Worker is also seeking that consideration be given in respect of the possibility of the provision of added years for pension purposes in respect of time spent working abroad.

The Employer stated that they could not agree to the payment of a Clinical Directors’ allowance to the Worker because this is a cost-increasing claim and is therefore precluded under the provisions of Building Momentum. It was also asserted that any departure from same would be a breach of FEMPI legislation and would set dangerous and unacceptable precedents.

Although the Employer accepted that the Worker is paid less than people who report to him, it was highlighted that this was not unique to him. Specifically, it was highlighted that Hospital Consultants report to managers of hospitals who are remunerated at levels considerably lower than them.

It was also asserted that the payment being sought by the Worker arises from the 2008 Consultant Contract and is paid in circumstances where consultants, in addition to their core clinical role, take on added managerial duties in respect of a specific area of hospital activity. While the Worker may have the requisite qualifications for such a post, he is not employed as one; he is employed as a National Director, paid the rate for the job and as per the terms and conditions agreed prior to him taking up the role.

The Employer also highlighted that some Doctors who are beneficiaries of the Clinical Directors’ allowance have carried this concession with them to their new positions, from previous roles where such payment was appropriately applied, given the nature of the work being undertaken by the individual consultant at the time. In the instant case however, the Worker never occupied a role which carried such a payment.

Finally, it was highlighted that the Employer is undergoing a process of very significant structural changes which could impact the Worker. It was therefore asserted that it would be decidedly inappropriate that the pay position of the Worker be altered while such a process is ongoing.

I recognise in the first instance that while the Worker is paid less than others who report to him, given that he is not in receipt of the Clinical Directors’ allowance, this is not unique to his situation either in the Employer organisation or elsewhere in the wider world.

Although I accept that there are doctors who are not operating as consultants but who are in receipt of the Clinical Directors’ Allowance, it was highlighted by the Employer that these doctors either assumed additional duties after they started in their roles or brought the allowance with them from their previous roles, in which case it would be legally impermissible to remove the allowance. Although I accept the Worker’s assertion that he is required to maintain his clinical registration to retain his role and therefore has to fulfil additional clinical duties, these medical shifts can be done at a time and a venue of his own choosing unlike the additional managerial duties in respect of a specific area of hospital activity that those in receipt of the clinical allowance fulfil.

I also noted that, while it was accepted by both sides that the Worker assumed additional responsibilities during the Covid period, the Employer highlighted that the same was true for several other employees at the same level as the Worker and none received any additional payment in respect of these.  

Finally, I accept the Employer’s assertion that the payment of a Clinical Allowance to the Worker would be cost increasing and therefore at odds with the pay agreement negotiated between the government and the public sector.