LCR23309

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 17 April 2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 July 2026.

Page 1

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation

The issue in dispute between the parties concerns the application of the National Review for Public Laboratory Scientists, including revised pay rates, to Haemovigilance Officers (HVOs). The background to this issue originates from a Labour Court Recommendation in 2008, where the Court noted that there were no terms and conditions set out for this grade when it was introduced. The Court recommended that the two existing grades of Senior Medical Scientists (SMS) and CNM2 nurses, who made up the cohort of HVOs, should be on the same pay scale (LCR 19168). The recommendation went on to state that the parties should agree an appropriate scale for HVOs. For various reasons, this issue was not progressed until an agreement was reached under the auspices of the WRC in 2022, which provided for HVO nurses to move to the SMS scale. This was confirmed by HSE Circular 08/2022. The MLSA, which represents the SMS grade, was not a party to the WRC discussions.

In and around the same time, a review was carried out of Medical Scientist grades, and the report arising from that review was published in January 2023 (the Devine report). It recommended a new, increased pay scale for Medical Scientists, which was paid from 1 January 2024. This new scale was applied to most, but not all, Haemovigilance Officers. The HSE was instructed by the Department of Health not to pay the new scale to HVOs. The matter was referred to conciliation, and a conciliation conference took place in February 2025, with the matter ultimately proceeding to the Labour Court. In 2025, without any engagement with the parties and contrary to the earlier Labour Court Recommendation, the Department of Health published a new pay scale for HVOs, which was lower than the revised Medical Scientist scale and indicated that it should apply to both SMS and CNM2s.

The Court, in Recommendation LCR 23142, noted that no engagement had taken place on the proposed new rate of pay for HVOs contained in the 2025 DOH circular, contrary to what had been recommended in the earlier Labour Court Recommendation. The Court recommended that the parties have further engagement, with the assistance of the WRC if appropriate.

The Union, in its submission to the Court, stated that the MLSA had not been involved in the WRC agreement that had identified the appropriate rate as being that of SMS. At the time, it was given a commitment that this would have no impact on its members and that the Employer would engage on a new pay rate for the HVO grade. That never happened. The assessment and data collected for the Devine report included a Senior Medical Scientist Haemovigilance Officer from a level 4 hospital. It is accepted by both parties that both SMS and CNM2s do the same HVO work. The Devine report was accepted in full by the HSE and the Department of Health. There is no basis for not paying the enhanced rates to HVOs. What the Department is proposing would introduce two rates of pay for SMS based on where they work. This has never been discussed or agreed with the Union and is a completely new departure from existing arrangements. The HSE had the opportunity in 2020 to negotiate with the Unions to agree a distinct HVO grade code but chose not to do so and cannot now be allowed to do so by stealth. The vast majority of HVOs are being paid on the enhanced scale. In 2022, the HSE agreed to end a longstanding anomaly; it is now seeking to create a new anomaly.

The Employer submitted that it does not accept that the SMS pay scale is the correct rate of pay for the HVO role, as this is a distinct role. It submitted that HVOs were not included in the Devine report and that there is no automatic entitlement for HVOs to receive the enhanced rate. It further submitted that the application of the increase to this cohort of workers was a bona fide error. However, in respect of current staff, and taking account of the fact that 90% had received the enhanced rate, it was prepared to consider same as part of the PSA local bargaining process.

The Employer stated that, as the majority of HVOs employed were from a nursing background, it believed the correct rate of pay was the existing SMS scale and not the enhanced rate under the Devine report.

It also argued that the claim was a breach of PSA 2024–2026, as it was a cost-increasing claim. While accepting that the agreement had now expired, the Employer submitted that, while there are pay anomalies, they should be

Page 2

negotiated through the local bargaining process of the expired national agreement and should not form the basis for a permanent entitlement to the enhanced SMS scale.

Discussion

It is clear to the Court, from the submissions it received and the appended documents, that from 2008 until 2022, following on from Labour Court Recommendation LCR 19168, the Employer had the opportunity to engage with the Unions to agree an appropriate pay scale for HVOs and chose not to do so. As a consequence of that failure, the issue was referred to the WRC in 2022, the outcome of which was that the parties entered into a collective agreement that linked the rate of pay for HVOs to the SMS scale. At the time of that agreement, the Devine review was in full flow, and there was no carve-out in the collective agreement to exclude the outcome of that report from being applied to HVOs. Nor is there a carve-out in the Devine report, in fact the Devine report lists Senior Medical Scientists Hemovigilance Officer as one on the jobs it reviewed.  It was not disputed between the parties that the HVO’s regardless of their background all carried out the same work and were interchangeable.   The implementation circular issued in 2024 did not exclude this group of workers from the enhanced rate.

The fact that 90% of the grade have had the enhanced scale applied to their salary is a clear indication that it was never indicated or discussed that this group were to be excluded. The decision to exclude was a unilateral decision by the Employer some months later, without any engagement with the Unions and contrary to the collective agreement it had entered into under the auspices of the WRC in 2022.

The Court has consistently taken the view that where parties conclude a collective agreement, they are bound to honour its terms for the duration specified or, in the absence of a defined term, until it is voluntarily renegotiated. In this instance, the Employer is asking the Court to release it from a collective agreement which it freely entered into. It is not the Court’s role to do so.

The Court has also consistently expressed the view that it will uphold collective agreements unless and until all parties to the agreement indicate that they wish to change them. On that basis, the Court recommends the implementation of the collective agreement in respect of maintaining the pay linkage with Medical Laboratory Scientists. Any outstanding issues arising from achieving that outcome should be finalised in the context of the prospective Public Sector Pay talks/agreement.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
31/07/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.

Page 3