LCR23170

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1), 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 12 May 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.   A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 July 2025.    

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:  

1. The INMO argue that in keeping with the Department of Health Circular 112/99, the PHN grade should include ADPHNs.
2. The union argue that the refusal to pay the Location Allowance to ADPHNs creates inequality and serves as a disincentive for PHNs to seek promotion to the ADPHN grade.
3. The INMO reject that this is a cost-increasing claim, as the claim does not seek a new benefit or improved condition but seeks recognition and restoration of an existing entitlement.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. At the time of publication of the Public Sector Pay Commission report, location allowances were only payable up to CNM2 level or equivalent. The Employer argues that PHNs ae on a equivalent level to CNM2, however, ADPHNs are on a higher scale.
2. HSE HR Circular 005/2024 extended Location Allowances to CNM3 level, as recommended by the Expert Review Body. However, a similar recommendation was not made for ADPHNs.
3. The Employer argue that this is a cost-increasing claim and can therefore only be progressed through the local bargaining provisions of the Public Service Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

The dispute before the Court relates to the application of a Location Allowance to certain Assistant Directors of Public Health Nursing.

In 2019, Circular 021/19 extended the application of a Location Allowance to certain public health nurses who are engaged in the delivery of midwifery services as part of their duties, but do not hold a midwifery qualification. The Location Allowance is currently valued at €2,716 per annum.

The INMO contends that the HSE has failed to correctly apply the Location Allowance to 33 Assistant Directors of Public Health Nursing (formerly titled “Senior Public Health Nurses”) who they say are encompassed by Circular 021/19 and so entitled to the Allowance. It contends that an earlier Circular 112/99 gives authority to treat “Public Health Nurses” and “Senior Public Health Nurses” together as one group and the refusal by the HSE to apply the allowance is illogical as it creates inequities and acts as a disincentive for Public Health Nurses seeking promotion. This inequity is further exacerbated by the extension of location and specialist qualification allowances to the Clinical Nurse Manager Grade (CNM3), as confirmed by the Report of the Expert Review Body on Nursing and Midwifery.

The INMO seeks that the HSE apply the Location Allowance to those Assistant Directors of Public Health Nursing (formerly titled “Senior Public Health Nurses”) with full retrospection to 1 March 2019.

For its part, the HSE submits that there is no provision in Circular 021/99 - which gives effect to the recommendations of the Labour Court (LCR21900) and the Public Services Commission - to extend the Location Allowance to Assistant Directors of Public Health Nursing.

The HSE’s position is that the claim is cost-increasing and can only be progressed in accordance with the local bargaining provision of the Public Service Agreement. Notwithstanding that fact, it rejects an assertion by the INMO that any precedence has been created by extending allowances to the Clinical Nurse Manager Grade (CNM3). It further submits that discussions on the Assistant Director of Public Health Nursing grade are currently underway, and concession of this claim could result in claims for a location allowance from other groups.

The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.

The parties accept that Circular 021/99 was implemented on foot of an agreement reached between the parties in respect of nursing grades.

The relevant section of Circular 021/99 provides as follows: -

“Extension of Location Allowance to certain Public Health Nurses

The LCR21900 and 21901 recommended that the location allowance set out at 1 above be extended to those public health nurses not holding a midwifery qualification, but engaged in provision of midwifery services as part of their duties.

The arrangement will apply with effect from 1st March 2019”.

At the hearing, the INMO accepted that, as a matter of fact, there is no reference to the grade of Assistant Director of Public Health Nursing (formerly titled “Senior Public Health Nurses”) in the Circular.

Accordingly, in light of the above, it is evident to the Court that the grade of Assistant Director of Public Health Nursing (formerly titled “Senior Public Health Nurses”) was not encompassed by the agreement reached in 1999 between the parties and subsequently reflected in Circular 021/99.

The long-standing position of the Labour Court is to uphold collective agreements between parties, unless requested by the parties to do otherwise. The requirements of orderly industrial relations dictates that parties honour agreements unless and until they are voluntarily renegotiated or terminated by agreement.

Noting the submissions made at the hearing, it is clear from the union’s perspective that the issue in dispute needs to be resolved. The Court notes that there are agreed and established mechanisms in this employment to address such issues where they arise. In the view of the Court, it is open to the parties to progress the matter in dispute in line with those agreed mechanisms.

For the reasons outlined above, the Court cannot recommend concession of the union’s claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AM	______________________
29 July 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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