Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Hospital

Representatives

Eoghan Ryan, Forsa

Judy McNamara, Ibec

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 - 00002499

17/04/2024

In November 2007, the Worker commenced employment with the Hospital. The Worker currently holds the post of Physiotherapist Manager “under protest”. The Worker earns approximately €87,000 per annum and works approximately 35 hours per week. The Worker is seeking an upgrade to the post of Physiotherapist Manager In Charge III.

Under the terms of a conciliation agreement dated September 2018, between Forsa and a Health Service Provider, a group was established to assess claims regarding the regrading of Therapy Manager posts to Therapy Manager In Charge III posts. This was in accordance with the McHugh/Doran Report published in 2003. The Worker subsequently completed and submitted her “Assessment of Claims of Therapy Manager In Charge III Posts Application Form”.

On 12 November 2020, the Worker was informed by the Health Service Provider that a review of her post had been completed and that her post “fits the criteria for In Charge III”.

On 16 March 2021, the Hospital emailed the Worker, stating inter alia that the regrade could not proceed as the grade of Physiotherapy Manager In Charge III already existed at the Hospital.

On 10 September 2021, the Worker filed a dispute with the WRC.

On 20 May 2022, the Worker was informed by the Health Service Provider that the letter sent to her on 12 November 2020, had been issued in error.  The Health Service Provider stated inter alia that the regrade process did not apply to acute hospital locations such as the Hospital; an In Charge III post already existed at the Hospital; and the creation of an additional post would set a “dangerous precedent” for other comparable hospitals.

On 27 May 2022, the Health Service Provider set out in its letter to Forsa, their agreement that the Worker’s claim be referred to a process which examined “outstanding In Charge III claims in a number of settings” (the “Process”). The Worker outlined in her written submissions that this Process was “itself a continuation of the collective agreement in place in relation to In Charge III claims”.

On 7 June 2022, the Worker withdrew her dispute filed with the WRC, in order to progress her regrade claim under the Process. The Process has not yet completed.

On 17 April 2024, the Worker filed this dispute before the WRC, which is in essence, the same dispute as previously filed in September 2021.

The Worker outlined that she is seeking the implementation of her regrade to Physiotherapist Manager In Charge III; and compensation for the impact of the delay in regrading her post.

The Worker outlined that her regrade claim remains subject to the Process, which is a “collective agreement between Forsa and the [Health Service Provider]” and which has not yet concluded. The Worker outlined that her regrade claim is the sole remaining claim to be considered under the Process.

The Worker further outlined that the delay in considering her regrade claim is due to the Hospital’s objection; and that the Hospital will not implement a national agreement.

In the circumstances, the Worker submitted that the WRC does have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

The Hospital outlined that the regrade claim is a matter to be resolved under the Process, pursuant to a collective agreement between Forsa and the Health Service Provider. The Hospital outlined that it is neither a party to the collective agreement nor is it a party to the Process. The Hospital outlined that it does not know what other claims are being considered under the Process. The Hospital outlined that it is not entitled to any information concerning the Process and that it has “no visibility” on this.

The Hospital referred to the Worker’s submission that “it is ultimately the responsibility of the [Health Service Provider] to ensure that the process concludes.” The Hospital outlined that it is not the correct respondent in this matter.

The Hospital strongly objected to the Worker’s assertion that it was not implementing a national agreement. The Hospital outlined that it was awaiting the outcome of the Process, which had been agreed between Forsa and the Health Service Provider. The Hospital submitted that the regrade claim was not within its “remit”.

In the circumstances, the Hospital outlined that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.

On 27 May 2022, the Health Service Provider set out in its letter to Forsa, their agreement that the Worker’s claim be referred to the Process which examined “outstanding In Charge III claims in a number of settings”. The Worker outlined in her written submissions that this Process was “itself a continuation of the collective agreement in place in relation to In Charge III claims”.

It therefore appears that the regrade claims concern a body of workers. The Worker’s regrade claim remains subject to the Process, which has not yet concluded.

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the “Act”) provides as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner”.

As the dispute is connected with the regrade claims of a body of workers, pursuant to section 13(2) of the Act, I have no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Body of Workers, Jurisdiction.