Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A CNM II

A Private Hospital

Representatives

Caroline Brilly,  Psychiatric Nurses Association

 HR Director

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 - 00004267

09/05/2025

The Worker is a Psychiatric Nurse with the Employer and since May 2022 has been in a series of senior nursing roles on a succession of specific purpose contracts. The employment continues, with the Worker lodging a grievance on the application of a nationally agreed pay matter where she has been denied the application of the pay scale to her post.

The Worker referred their dispute on 09/05/2025 bringing them within statute and the Employer has not objected to the hearing of the dispute under the Act and is properly on notice

Background and Roles The Worker qualified as a psychiatric nurse in 2008 a. She undertook CBT training, completing a professional qualification in 2019 and a Master’s degree in 2024. On 18 May 2022, she began working in the CBT ward under a Specified Purpose Contract (SPC) and was paid at the CNMII salary scale while covering a colleagues’ leave.

Movement Between Posts In August 2023, permanent CBT staff returned, and the Worker was instructed to revert temporarily to her staff‑nurse post, requiring significant changes to her shift pattern, parental and annual leave arrangements, and childcare. During this period, she continued providing CBT services and received a CNMII acting‑up allowance. After three weeks, due to staff absence, she returned to the CBT Department and continued to be paid at acting‑up CNMII level until May 2024. In May 2024 she successfully interviewed for and resumed a CNMII SPC post.

Pay‑Scale Positioning Throughout the time from May 2022, the Worker was either on the CNMII scale or receiving CNMII‑equivalent acting‑up payments. The Worker sets out she was on Point 9 of the CNMII scale for more than one year by September 2023, and for two full years by May 2024.

Claim Based on LCR 22828 Recommendation 45 of LCR 22828 provides that CNMII employees on Point 9 for at least one year as of 30 September 2023 should advance to Point 10, and later to Point 11 (LSI) based on further service. The Worker sets out that she met these criteria and should have advanced to Point 10 in September 2023. Instead, she did not move to Point 10 until May 2025. It is estimated she lost approximately €5,000 in retrospective pay as a result.

Representation and Referral Efforts by her union representatives to resolve the issue internally with hospital HR were unsuccessful. Following the internal processes, the matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

Relief Sought The Worker asks the WRC to apply LCR 22828 to her service and accept that she met the qualifying criteria for retrospective CNMII progression and award her the unpaid retrospective sum.

The Employer

The Employer is an independent, not‑for‑profit health care provider. It operates outside the HSE and does not receive State funding. As such, it is not bound by public‑sector pay agreements.

The Worker

The Worker commenced employment in 2008 as a psychiatric staff nurse. She has held various specified‑purpose roles at Clinical Nurse Manager 2 (CNM2) grade, including work as a CBT therapist. When these temporary contracts ended, she returned to her substantive grade of staff nurse but sometimes “acted up” into higher duties.

The Dispute

In her dispute the Worker states that she was denied the application of an additional CNM2 PayScale point arising from Circular 2/2024 (recommendation 45). This adjustment allowed eligible CNM2 staff to receive retrospective pay from September 2023.

Employer Position

• Circular 2/2024 was issued by the Department of Health to the HSE and National Community Services Agencies—not to the employer.
• The Employer nonetheless chose voluntarily to apply Recommendation 45 for recruitment and retention reasons.
• Eligibility required that, on the reference date (30 September 2023):

• 1. the individual was paid on the CNM2 scale, and
  2. had been on that scale continuously for at least 1 year.

The Employer sets out that the Worker did not meet these conditions because:

• On 17 July 2023 she had reverted to her substantive staff nurse grade.
• From July 2023 to May 2024 she was paid on the staff nurse scale, with CNM2 “acting up” allowance applied intermittently.
• She did not again hold a specified‑purpose CNM2 contract until 27 May 2024.

On this basis the Employer determined she was ineligible for the retrospective payment.

Internal Grievance and Appeal

The Worker raised an internal grievance, and the original decision was upheld.  The Worker appealed internally, arguing:

• She continuously performed CNM2‑level specialised work and received CNM2‑equivalent pay through acting‑up arrangements.
• Other specialised therapists not holding nursing roles received retrospection.
• She had been flexible and continued providing CBT services throughout the relevant period.

The Director of Human Resources heard the appeal and concluded:

• Eligibility depends on holding a CNM2 contract, not merely receiving CNM2 equivalent acting‑up payments.
• Because the Worker reverted to her substantive grade for approximately seven months, she did not meet the criteria in Circular 2/2024.
• The decision not to apply the adjustment was correct.

This decision concluded the internal process, and the Worker was informed she could refer the matter to the WRC.

The Employer  submits that:

• It was not part of the national process establishing the revised CNM2 salary arrangements.
• It applied Circular 2/2024 strictly and consistently.
• The Worker did not meet the Circular’s eligibility rules because she was not employed on the CNM2 scale on the reference date.
• The Employer requests a recommendation in its favour.

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

I note that the Worker is within the statutory timeframe, and the Employer has not objected to the hearing of the matter.

 I am cognizant of the discussions at the hearing that there is a concern on the part of the Employer that the granting of the application of the Circular in this instance would have a knock-on effect on other roles under this circular and perhaps under other circulars.

I note the assurance given by the Worker representative that no other claims would be pursued by their organisation if the recommendation was for the application to the Worker where it was “red-circled”. It was discussed that whilst this may forestall the hand of that organisation, it would not necessarily do so for other nursing organisation or indeed representatives of other trade union bodies in relation to other national agreements.

Clearly the Employer in this regard was never obliged to implement the Circular to staff who came within strict criteria, given its non-public status, but have done so for commercial reasons.

The question for me is if the Worker is encompassed by the Circular 2/2024 and to make a recommendation to the parties on the merits of the dispute.

The Employer sets out that the Workerdid not meet the Circular conditions because in July 2023 she had reverted to her substantive staff nurse grade and from July 2023 to May 2024 she was paid on the staff nurse scale, with CNM2 “acting up” allowance applied intermittently.

The Worker did not again hold a specified‑purpose CNM2 contract until 27 May 2024. On this basis the Employer determined she was ineligible for the retrospective payment on a strict reading of the Circular.

I have to agree with the Employer in these circumstances, on a strict reading, due to a serious of unforeseen events on the part of the parties the Worker does not qualify under the nationally negotiated agreement between Government and ICTU

It is clear to me that the Worker does not fall within the scope of the Circular, and to recommend that she now be brought within its scope would be problematic for the Employer and create dangerous precedents. For these reasons I cannot make a recommendation in favour of the Worker.

Dangerous precedent, strict criteria, eligibility.