Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Colleen Minihane SIPTU

 In-House HR

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 - 00004161

22/04/2025

This dispute concerns a claim by the Worker that a 2017 industrial relations agreement providing for the regrading of her post to Clinical Nurse Manager 1 (CNM1) was never properly implemented. The Worker is employed in a nurse-led therapy department within the Employer’s mental health service since 2009. Following an earlier dispute in 2016–2017 regarding the grading of her post, a written settlement was reached in June 2017 between the Employer and the Worker’s trade union under which her post was to be regraded to CNM1 on a “personal-to-holder” basis, with 12 months’ retrospection of pay. The present referral was made under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, seeking implementation of the 2017 agreement in full, including the provision of an appropriate CNM1 contract, payment of arrears, and pension adjustments.

The Employer argues that the 2017 Agreement allowed it to create a CNMI position where none previously existed and that the job specification sent out to Worker reflects the spirit and content of that agreement.

The Worker submits that although she accepted the 2017 settlement in good faith, the Employer failed to implement it in substance. She states that the contract subsequently issued to her was styled as CNM1 but carried the duties and reporting structures of a staff nurse, including reference to working “under the supervision” of a CNM2. This, she argues, directly contradicts her actual duties, which are managerial in nature. She described her role as managing the Activities-Based Therapy Unit, coordinating clinical and therapeutic programmes for patients with enduring mental health conditions. She is responsible for staff coordination, clinical oversight, programme development and multidisciplinary liaison—functions which, in her view, align to CNM2 duties nationally and at the very least are consistent with CNM1 responsibilities.

The Worker stated that she declined to sign the 2017-issued contract because it did not reflect her actual role. When she later signed up in October 2024, she annotated the document noting the irregularity in the job description; the Employer deemed that amendment invalid. She has since continued to be paid at staff nurse rates, with no CNM1 pension or arrears applied. She maintains that this represents a breach of the 2017 agreement, which clearly provided for regrading, retrospection, and recognition of the CNM1 post on a personal-to-holder basis. She requests that the adjudicator recommends implementation of the 2017 agreement in full, payment of the CNM1 rate of pay retrospective to June 2017 including pension adjustments, and formal confirmation of the CNM1 grading in her contract and duties. The Worker emphasised that she is not seeking a promotion or added terms, only to have the original settlement honoured as intended.

The Employer confirmed that an agreement was reached in June 2017 with the Worker’s union following a WRC referral at that time. The terms provided for regrading of the Worker’s post to CNM1, a personal-to-holder arrangement, 12 months’ retrospection, and withdrawal of the 2017 WRC claim. The Employer submits that this was a final and comprehensive settlement, negotiated and accepted in good faith, and that no further claim arises.

A revised CNM1 contract and job specification were issued to the Worker in July 2017. The Employer states that the job description was a bespoke document, created specifically to reflect the hybrid nature of the Worker’s duties within the therapy unit. There is no direct national comparator post. According to the Employer, the Worker’s refusal to sign the contract prevented full implementation. The Employer reissued the contract several times and, upon receipt of a version bearing handwritten alterations, advised that such modifications could not be accepted and reissued a clean version.

The Employer stressed that it has never reneged on the 2017 agreement. It stands ready to implement the CNM1 pay and conditions once the contract is executed as issued. The Employer further pointed out that the Worker has already previously pursued the same claim under the guise of equality and grading complaints to the WRC and Labour Court, both of which were not upheld. It maintains that the 2017 agreement remains valid, that the contract provided accurately reflects it, and that there is no contradiction between the agreement and the documentation issued. Once the Worker returns a signed, unamended contract, the Employer is prepared to process the appropriate payment and pension adjustment.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The following are my conclusions:

1.       The 2017 Agreement: The documentary and oral evidence confirms that in June 2017, an overarching and good-faith industrial relations settlement was reached between the Worker (via her union) and the Employer. The agreement created a unique “personal-to-holder” CNM1 position where none previously existed, designed to resolve a live dispute concerning the Worker’s grading at the time.

2.       Nature of the Contract: I am satisfied the contract subsequently issued was intended to put the agreement into practice. While the Worker believes that the duties listed resemble those of a staff nurse, the evidence shows the specification was bespoke to reflect her hybrid management and clinical role. Viewed through the prism of normal industrial relations practice, the contract is not objectively onerous, nor does it contradict the 2017 settlement. The Employer’s requirement that contracts be signed without handwritten amendments is reasonable and standard administrative practice.

3.       Responsibility for Non-Implementation: The delay in full implementation primarily stems from the Worker’s non-execution of the contract, rather than deliberate non-compliance by the Employer. I have considered also that the Worker did not utilise the internal grievance procedure but instead sought other ways to progress the claim under a different appearance by way of an Equality claim, which was unsuccessful both at the WRC and the Labour Court.

4.        Industrial Relations Considerations: The 2017 agreement was a specific compromise that balanced the Worker’s claim for recognition with the Employer’s operational structures. To reopen or reinterpret it beyond its agreed scope would undermine finality in collective settlements. Both parties expressed continued willingness to honour the 2017 terms; what remains is procedural completion. I recognise that the Worker is a conscientious and respected employee in her field, but she is clearly unhappy in how her role is defined and recognised. However, regardless of the outcome of the case, the plain fact of the matter is that her job remains the same and there is no knock-on effect for any other employee or patient.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969