LCR23034

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047123 (IR-SC-00001636, CA-00058137)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 25 April 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 05 April 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I cannot recommend in the first instance that the Employer pay the Worker the Clinical Directors’

Allowance for the reasons set out above.  Given the lack of meaningful engagement between the parties around the provision of added years of service for pension purposes in respect of time spent working abroad, I recommend that the Worker and the Employer re-engage locally.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 August 2024.

DECISION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The worker has been employed by the employer since 2011. He took up his current role as a National Director in 2021. That role contains an element requiring clinical expertise and this level of qualification and skill was specified as a requirement at the point the worker applied for and secured the role.

The worker is one of a number of National Directors employed by the employer, and the grade of National Director carries sanctioned rates of pay.

The worker, who is a doctor, contends that he is less well paid than other doctors in the employment and contends that a Clinical Director allowance of €56,000 approximately should be applied to him in order to address this situation and to address the fact that doctors who are junior to him in the organisation are paid more than him. The application of the allowance to the worker would represent an increase of 28% in the pay of the worker. He seeks to have this increase applied to him with effect from 1st January 2022 or the date of onset of the pandemic.

The Court understands that the Clinical Director allowance is an agreed allowance paid to consultant doctors who take up certain managerial duties in addition to their clinical roles. The initiative to have consultants involved in the management of the delivery of service in this manner was an addition to the clinical roles previously undertaken by consultants and on which consultant pay scales were based.

The parties are disagreed as to whether the claim before the Court is a cost increasing claim within the meaning of the public service pay agreement “Building Momentum” to which the trade union is a party and of which the worker is a beneficiary. They are also disagreed as to the risk of follow-on claims from other National Directors and senior public servants generally if the claim of the worker were to be conceded.

The Court is of the view that the grade and rates of pay of National Director are established within the organisational structure of the employer and that the post occupied by the worker is that of National Director. He is not occupying a medical consultant role and does not carry out the role of Clinical Director albeit his role does require him to be clinically competent and qualified.

In all of the circumstances the Court can find no basis to recommend concession of the claim. The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
ÁM	______________________
28 August 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.