ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008608
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Nurse | A Health Care Provider |
Representatives | Noel Treanor Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation | Mr Eamonn Ross, HSE |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00011295-001 | 12/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
This dispute relates to a Community Registered General Nurse (CRGN) who is employed in a Hospital as a Public Health Liaison Nurse. The worker is seeking that her position be regraded to that of Clinical Nurse Manager 2 (CNM2) |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker is seeking a regrading of her post to that of CNM2. The worker contends that the role she has carried out as a Public Health Liaison Nurse since 2008 has evolved to such an extent that the role should be aligned to the CNM2 grade. The worker is seeking the regrading on the basis of the additional duties and responsibilities attached to the role. The worker contends that the role of Public Health Liaison is extremely complex with increased responsibility across a number of areas. The worker’s position is that she has additional responsibilities within the post such as dealing with HR issues, training, attending family and patient meetings, attending multi-disciplinary meetings, liaising with CNM2’s on each ward and ensuring the placement of specialist equipment in the home to ensure patients clinical needs are met once discharged. The worker contends that the responsibilities of the role have continued to expand while there is a significant reduction in the number of staff within the Public Health Liaison team. The worker contends that her predecessor in the role was paid a higher salary level and that comparable workers in other areas are also paid at higher levels. The worker is seeking retrospective application of the CNM2 grade to her post. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer rejects the worker’s claim. The employer’s position is that the worker is correctly graded and paid for the role she carries out. The employer contends that the worker had the opportunity to apply for newly created CNM2 (Discharge Co-ordinator) posts in 2014 but did not do so. The employer stated that the duties and responsibilities of the Discharge Co-ordinators and the Public Health Liaison Nurse are not comparable and that the Public Health Liaison role has changed since the introduction of the Discharge Co-ordinator posts. In addition, the employer contends that the worker or her representatives could have sought regularisation in accordance with the terms of Circular 17/2013. The employer contends that Circular 17/2013 provided that staff who worked in roles they considered to be at a higher grade could apply for regularisation at the higher grade. The employer’s position is that a review was carried out of similar posts around the country which found that there was no merit in the posts being graded at CNM2 level. The employer also stated that promotional posts are subject to National Recruitment guidelines and must be advertised through open competition. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker in this case has sought an upgrading of her post from CRGN to CNM2 on the basis of the duties and responsibilities attached to the role and on the basis that the role has continually evolved and grown over the years. The employer, while acknowledging the excellent level of work carried out by the worker, is of the view that the grade and pay levels attached to the role are correct. The employer stated at the adjudication hearing that it had “looked at” the worker’s situation but found that the post did not warrant an upgrading. The parties are also in dispute in relation to the applicability of Circular 17/2013. The employer contends that it could have resolved the worker’s difficulties had it been invoked at the time. The Worker contends that Circular 17/2013 would have had no application to the issue as the circular allowed for those acting up into promotional posts to be regularised in the higher grade. Having considered the written and verbal submissions of both parties, I am of the view that the role has expanded in terms of the duties and responsibilities outlined by the worker. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In all the circumstances of this case, I recommend that an independent evaluation be carried out of the role carried out by the worker. If the evaluation deems the post appropriate to the CNM2 grade, the position should be advertised in line with nationally agreed recruitment practices. |
Dated: 17.4.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Job evaluation, regrading, Clinical Nurse Manager2, CNM2, Public Health Liaison. |