LCR23142

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 26th of March 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial  

Relations Act, 1990.  

A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th of May 2025. 

UNION'S ARGUMENTS. 

1. The 2023 Devine Report on Medical Scientist grades, which resulted in a new enhanced senior medical scientist payscale, specifically included a Haemovigilance Officer and the role of Haemovigilance Officers as part of its assessment which resulted in a new enhanced senior medical scientist payscale. Additionally, Medical Scientist HVOs are specifically contracted as senior medical scientists and should be paid on the revised payscale.
2. The Unions assert that the large majority of HVOs who were migrated to the new scale should be allowed to remain on the payscale and that those HVOs for whom the increase was withheld should be paid at the new payscale retrospective to 1st January 2024 in accordance with clause 4.4.1 of the Public Service Pay Agreement 2024-2026. 

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS. 

1. The 2022 process to provide a standard rate for Hemovigilance officers, culminating in HR NER Memo 8 of 2022 was to address outstanding issues from the 2008 LCR 19168 and was very clearly based on a need to create pay parity between Haemovigilance Officers only. 
2. As the 2022 agreement was not based on any assessment or equivalence of the Haemovigilance Officer role, the new pay scales for Medical Scientists from January 2024 as set out in HSE Circular 5/24 and DOH Circular 3/24 do not have relevance to the pay of Haemovigilance Officers.

RECCOMENDATION:

This claim is in respect of 120 Hemovigilance Officers (HVO) represented by the MLSA and the INMO. The Unions on behalf of their members are seeking the application of the Senior Medical Scientist (SMS) pay scale following the application of the Devine report to be applied to this cohort of Workers. The HVO role was created in 1990 and was filled by Medical Scientist and Nurses (CNM2) with each cohort retaining their own terms and conditions. This resulted in staff doing the same work being paid at two different rates. This matter came before the Court in 2008 at that point the Court recommended that the two grades should be on the same rate of pay and that the parties should agree the appropriate rate for the HVO’s (LCR 19168).  In 2022 with the assistance of the WRC Conciliation services, agreement was reached that the HVO’s on the nursing scale would be moved to the higher SMS scale, and that the parties would engage and agree an appropriate scale for HVO’s going forward. To date no engagement has taken place on that issue. 

Separately the MLSA had a long standing pay dispute in respect of Medical Scientist grades resolved when Labour Court recommendation LCR 22780 recommended the introduction of a new increased pay scale from 1 January 2024.  This new pay scale was applied to some HVO’s from both a medical scientist and nursing background around the country but not all. The Department of Health then instructed the HSE not to apply the revised medical scientist pay scale to HOV’s. The parties engaged at conciliation, but no resolution could be found   

 It is the Union’s submission that the pay increases awarded to Medical Scientists were implemented on foot of a formal assessment of Medical Scientist grades undertaken by Conal Devine Associates.  The Devine process included an assessment of a Medical Scientist Hemovigilance Officer from a level 4 Hospital. The Devine report was fully accepted by the HSE and Department of Health and it was never raised that this cohort of staff would be excluded. Medical Scientists HVO’s are required to be CORU registered, and many participate on the out-of-hours on call rota or work part of their contracted hours as Senior Medical Scientist (SMS) on the bench in Blood Transfusion. The Unions stated that it is just not tenable to have two rates of pay for a single grade with SMS on HVO work staying on the old salary scale and all other SMS on the new scale as recommended by Devine.  

No engagement has taken place with the Unions as to why the Employer believes the old scale is the appropriate scale, or how that will work operationally when staff move between roles.  Despite the Employer promising since 2022 to have talks on an appropriate pay scale for HVO’s no discussions have taken place.  The agreement that was done in the WRC in 2022 placing staff from a nursing background and staff from a medical scientist background on the same pay rate clearly states that the HVO’s are linked to the SMS grade, and they carry the same grade code on the system. To date about 85% of HVO’s around the country, have been paid the higher rate. The attempt by the Employer to introduce a two tier pay band in the SMS grade is unacceptable. 

The Employer in their submission to the Court accepted that in 2022 it was agreed that all Hemovigilance Officers would be paid at the rate of SMS higher scale. More recently it has been agreed between the HSE and the Department of Health that a new Hemovigilance Officer pay grade would be added to the consolidated pay scales and it would be pitched at the 2022 existing SMS pay rates. They confirmed that they had not had any discussions with the Union around this new rate. 

 It was their submission that setting the rate of pay at the 2022 SMS level was an acknowledgement that all HVO’s should be paid the same. However, they submitted that this was not an acknowledgement that the HVO’s were linked to the SMS pay scale, and it did not automatically follow that if the SMS grade got an increase that the HVO grade would get an increase. 

 The Devine report assessed Medical Scientist grades. While Medical Scientists can apply for HVO posts the HVO is not a Medical Scientist grade as it is also open to Nurses. Medical Scientist can also apply for SMS posts but a Nurse who can apply for HVO posts cannot apply for other SMS posts. The Employer expressed a concern that if they were to concede this claim for the 100-to120 Haemovigilance Officers it could lead to potentially other claims from about 80 other staff in grades who are looking for the new Medical Scientist scale. While the Employer accepts that one Medical Scientist Haemovigilance Officer was interviewed as part of the Devine process it is their position that the HVO’s as a group were not considered. 

Discussion 

  In response to questions from the Court the Employer and the Unions confirmed that there had been no engagement despite the commitment given in 2022 in relation to agreeing the appropriate pay rate for this cohort of workers. The Employer confirmed that they had not risk assessed their proposal to have two rates of pay for SMS linked to the area they worked in. They had not considered how this would play out in terms of day-to-day operations where Medical Scientists working in HVO posts also carried out other Senior Medical Scientist work. They had not given any consideration to how going forward staff would move between HVO and other posts in circumstances where there were different pay rates. The Unions indicated that they had tried to raise these and other issues at Conciliation, but the Employer would not engage.   

 Recommendation 

 The Court having read the parties submissions and listened carefully to the oral submissions made on the day, has concerns that the issues in this case have not been fully explored prior to coming to the Court. While the Employer was able to point to the fact that if the Court were to concede the Unions claim, there would be knock on claims from 80 other workers, they were unable to answer questions around the impact of having a single grade (SMS) with two different pay rates. The Employer also indicated that they had agreed a new pay rate amongst themselves but had not had any discussions at all with the Unions about the rate. 

 It is clear to the Court that a discussion needs to take place between the Employer and the Unions around the implications of the Devine report for the HVO’s and the consequences arising from either the implementation of the rates in the report or the non-implementation of the rates in the report  for HVO’s, including engaging on finalising the rate of pay for this cohort of workers going forward.  To this end the Court recommends that the parties re engage as a matter of urgency with the assistance of the Conciliation services of the WRC if appropriate, with a view to addressing these issues to finality. Pending the outcome of that engagement the status quo should be maintained in respect of staff who have been paid the higher rate of pay. 

The Court so recommends. 

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
30 May 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.