ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003620
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Health Worker | A Health Provider |
Representatives | A Nurses Association |
|
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00003620 | 06/01/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Date of Hearing: 06/10/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following 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 information relevant to the dispute. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged.
Background:
The worker submits that there was a failure to pay for Acting into a Higher Grade and failure to comply with collective agreements. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker commenced employment in 1998 and utilised the employer’s grievance procedure to resolve his dispute but his dispute was not upheld. He had been paid an allowance which was withdrawn in 2013. He is seeking implementation of a 2015 JRG Report agreement to be paid correctly. The employer has failed to implement an agreement and are seeking that this agreement be implemented including LCR 21104 which sets out that staff who act in to higher positions should be paid no less favourably than that which would apply in respect of permanent promotion to the position. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The dispute had been received on 06/01/2025 and the employer had objected on 25/02/2025 to the dispute proceeding but their objection had been received after the 3 weeks provided for and the hearing proceeded.
The worker had attended a Stage 3 grievance on 12/11/2024 and was seeking that his long term acting allowance be recognised as grounds for conversion to grade of CNM3 and his grievance was not upheld. It was submitted that the worker was looking for an amendment to a collective agreement and that the 2015 JRG Agreement remains valid. The employer submits that whoever is doing the role receives the responsibility allowance and that the worker does not have an entitlement to an acting allowance.
Case law cited included Adj 27197 a Clerical Officer v a Railway Company, LCR22478 Iarnród Éireann v a Worker, LCR22838 Haleon Glaxcosmithkline v Workers, |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I note that the dispute was received on 06/01/2025 and the employer had objected on 25/02/2025. Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (as amended), provides that an objection to investigation of a trade dispute by an Adjudication Officer has no effect unless it is received within three weeks of the date the notification of the dispute was sent by post to that party. Where an objection is received after this statutory time-limit, the dispute will proceed to Adjudication and as the employer’s objection had been received after the specified 21 days the hearing proceeded
Under LCR 22478 Iarnród Éireann v a Worker the Labour Court set out that “The long-standing position upheld by the Labour Court is to uphold collective agreements between parties, unless requested by the parties to do otherwise”.
Reference was made to the 2015 JRG Report which I note outlines “was accepted by both management and staff sides”. This report further outlines that “nurse management/hr will issue specific purpose contracts for the acting CNM3 positions”. The employer outlines that the worker is not in an Acting CNM3 position and has in fact responsibilities on occassion.
I find in all the circumstances that the worker appears to be carrying out CNM3 responsibilities which appear to be granted on rotation basis and the worker is not therefore in a CNM3 acting position and I find that the dispute is not well founded and I dismiss the dispute.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I find in all the circumstances that the worker appears to be carrying out CNM3 responsibilities which appear to be granted on rotation basis and the worker is not therefore in a CNM3 acting position and I find that the dispute is not well founded and I dismiss the dispute.
|
Dated: 02nd of November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Allowance, rotation, acting, responsibilities |
