LCR23116

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Section 20(2) Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

The case was referred to the Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 6th February 2025. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th February 2025. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.

RECOMMENDATION:

Cost increasing claim

An element of the trade dispute before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties as to whether the claim is in contravention of and prohibited by Section 5.6 of the Public Service agreement 2024 – 2026 which provides as follows:

“The parties agree that no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay terms and conditions of employment will be initiated or implemented for the duration of the agreement other than in accordance with the provisions of the agreement”

The Court asked the parties to clarify their understanding of the Court’s role in relation to this matter against the background that, in general, the parties have reserved to themselves and their agreed oversight structures, the function of determining whether any given claim amounts to a cost increasing claim within the meaning of the PSA.

Both parties asserted to the Court that it is agreed by the parties to the PSA that the Court would, on the joint request of the parties, determine a dispute between the parties as regards whether a claim is cost increasing within the meaning of the PSA and thus prohibited by that agreement.

On that basis the Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties on this matter and concluded as follows:

This is a dispute as regards the correct interpretation of recommendation 45 of the Expert Review Body on Nursing and Midwifery (ERB) in respect of a group of workers. That same matter has been addressed by the HSE by the initial application of recommendation 45 to CNM2’s and subsequently to three other grades following the raising of the matter by the trade unions. The HSE actions in applying the recommendation to four grades of staff has been accepted, self-evidently, as not offending against Section 5.6 of the PSA. The matter before the Court seeks the application of the same recommendation of the ERB to CPC graded staff.

There can be no doubt that concession of the claim of the trade unions on behalf of CPC graded staff will increase the cost of pay for this grade of staff just as it did for the four other grades of staff who were CNM2’s or in grades pinned to the CNM2 pay scale and to whom the recommendation was applied. On the basis of the history of the matter, it does not seem to the Court logical or practical to decide that the claim of this group of workers is prohibited by the PSA whereas four other groups, including CNM2’s, have had recommendation 45 applied to them in a manner that increased the cost of pay but did not raise an issue as regards a prohibition under the PSA.

The Court therefore decides that the within claim is permissible to be considered on its’ merits notwithstanding the provisions of the PSA at Section 5.6.

The trade dispute

This trade dispute comes before the Court arising from the report of the Expert Review Body on Nursing on Nursing and Midwifery (ERB). That report, at recommendation number 45, recommended as follows:

Extend the Revised PHN/CNM 2/CMM 2 salary scale by the addition of one further scale point and the introduction of a Long Service Increment.

The recommendation appears to the Court to be focussed on a scale already in existence which applied to CNM 2/CMM 2 grade staff, CPC grade staff, CNS grade staff and staff in two other grades.

The recommendation as written did not give any clarity as to whether it was intended, if accepted, to result in the pay scale applicable to the range of grades linked to or analogous to the CNM2 grade being amended or whether it was to apply only to the staff employed as CNM2’s/CMM2’s.

The initial implementation of the recommendation by the HSE resulted in the scale applicable to CNM2/CMM 2 staff being adjusted. Subsequently, following an evaluation / review carried out by the HSE with no participation by the trade unions, the HSE decided to apply the terms of recommendation 45 to three of the four other grades who had been remunerated on the CNM2 scale prior to the report of the Review body. The HSE however, following an evaluation / review carried out by the HSE with no participation by the trade unions, decided that CPC grade staff were not encompassed by recommendation 45 and that, consequently, their scale of pay should not be adjusted.

It is the decision that recommendation 45 does not comprehend CPC graded staff that gives rise to this trade dispute.

The HSE submit that, as of December 2024, there were 163.62 WTE staff occupying the grade of CPC. The trade unions submit that, of the individuals occupying the 163.2 WTE posts, 30 individuals are not paid in accordance with recommendation 45, and the balance of staff occupying the 163.2 WTE posts are paid in line with the scale adjustment recommended by the ERB.

The HSE submits in response to this latter submission that, if it is the case that the vast majority of CPC graded staff (significantly more than 133 individuals) occupying posts in the CPC grade are paid in accordance with recommendation 45, this is an error, and steps may need to be taken to recoup any incorrect payment from those individuals. The HSE offered no clarity as to the nature of the error it contends for or how it has occurred.

Against that background, the unions submit that this trade dispute is concerned only with those 30 CPC graded staff who have not had recommendation 45 applied to them. Clearly, if the HSE now ceases to apply recommendation 45 to all CPC graded staff to whom it is currently being applied, the claim of the trade unions will encompass those staff also.

The Court notes that both parties have accepted the report of the ERB. The Court also notes that the ERB did not recommend evaluation or review of any grade as a means of deciding whether recommendation 45 should be implemented in respect of that grade. The Court notes also that the standing position is that recommendation 45 has been interpreted and accepted as being properly applicable to four of the five grades who, prior to the report of the ERB, were paid on the CNM2 scale.

Noting also that the vast majority of CPC grade staff are already in a position where recommendation 45 has been implemented for them, albeit the HSE contends that this situation is a result of an unspecified error, the Court recommends that:

• Both parties should accept that recommendation 45 has application to CPC grade staff

And

• The remaining 30 CPC grade staff to whom the recommendation has not been applied should now have the recommendation applied to them with effect from the implementation date which was applied to the four other grades to whom recommendation 45 has been applied.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
6th March 2025	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.