FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No: ADJ-00004915 CA-00006955-001
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim that he has been demoted by a change in his reporting relationships following a review by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). The Employer rejects the Claimant's claim as there has been no loss of title or salary following on from the HIQA review. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 7th July, 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued her Recommendation as follows:
...as the contract of employment and the revised one following the agreement in 2009 states that the reporting relationship is with the Residential Services Manager, I recommend that the complainant report to the Services Manager on a ‘red circle’ basis....
On the 14th August, 2017 the Union on behalf of its member appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10 April, 2017.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court is an appeal by an Area Manager Community Residential Services (Area Manager) against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ00004915. The Appellant claimed that he had effectively been demoted when the management structure was changed and CNM III's were recruited to assist Area Managers. He sought to be restored to his position at the second most senior management level, reporting directly to the Residential Services Manager. Furthermore, he sought to have the duties/responsibility of “Person In Charge” (PIC) removed from him. The Adjudication Officer found that his contract of employment had been changed without his agreement and recommended that he should report to the Service Manager on a “red circled” basis. She also recommended that he should agree to fill the role of PIC.
The Union on behalf of the Appellant stated that he was never informed of the implications of the introduction of the new senior grade and it was portrayed to him by management as providing him with the support that he and his colleagues had been seeking. The Union submitted that the introduction of the new layer of management would have an impact on his career progression as while he has a long career in health service management, he does not have a nursing qualification.
The Union submitted that the role of PIC should be removed from the Appellant as it had been imposed on him and now its the responsibility of persons at CNM II grades who had applied for such roles.
Management stated that Area Managers, including the Appellant, had operated as PIC since 2013 as it was deemed the appropriate role by new HIQA regulations.
Due to new HIQA regulations and to concerns raised by the Appellant and his colleagues, management stated that it introduced a CNM III grade to support the Area Managers. It stated that the new posts were clinical posts that were identified following a review of governance arrangements and it was bound by HIQA findings to introduce such positions. In addition, management had increased CNM II posts from four to seven, which reduced the Appellant’s PIC workload. Management said that the Appellant has been assured at all times that this was not a demotion and all his terms and conditions of employment have been preserved.
Management stated that it did not appeal the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation but rather implemented it as means to resolve the issue.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court notes that it was imperative to introduce a new level of management at CNM III grade in order to comply with HIQA requirements. This development also dealt with the concerns raised by the Appellant and his colleagues who sought assistance with their workloads which they indicated had reached crisis point. The Court concurs with the Adjudication Officer and upholds her recommendation that the Appellant should continue to report to the Service Manager on a “red circled” basis. In recognition of that function as a senior manager, the Court recommends that he should continue to chair those committees he previously had responsibility for as Chairman. Furthermore, the Court understands that the major part of his role involves the duties of PIC, therefore the Court also upholds the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation that he should continue to fulfil that role.
On that basis the Court upholds the Appellant’s appeal in part. The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
JD______________________
24 April 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.