LCR23209

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral of a trade dispute 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 30th September 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th January 2026.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. Since 1960, the Union acknowledged the historical linkage between the pay scale applicable to Perfusionists and Medical Scientists. The Union is seeking the pay relationship to be reinstated.

2. Given it was accepted for decades, that the work of Perfusionists was equivalent to that of Medical Scientists, it is rejected by the Union that the Devine Report cannot be applied at this point.

3. The HSE has implemented all other Expert Group Report recommendations, and it is unclear whether there is a lack of understanding of the pay relationship and previous agreements.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The HSE acknowledges the existence of the prior historical pay linkage but submits that the linkage was severed on 1 January 2024, since the implementation of the Devine report.

2. The HSE recognises different eligibility and criteria for Perfusionist and Senior
Medical Science Roles.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Dispute
This dispute concerns the HSE’s (‘the Employer’) failure apply a revised pay scale to Perfusionsists (‘the Workers’) employed across five hospitals in circumstances where the revised pay scale was applied from 1 January 2024 to Medical Scientists employed by the Employer. It is common case that there had been an established and agreed pay linkage between the Workers and Medical Scientists since approximately 1960.

The Union’s Submission

The Union submits that the historical linkage between the pay scale applicable to the Workers and that of Medical Scientists reflects the fact that the original Perfusionists were Medical
Scientists and that academic requirements for both professions are on a par i.e. possession of a Level 9 postgraduate qualification in an appropriate scientific discipline. The Union also submits that the foregoing underpinned a collective agreement between it (and its predecessor union) and the employer in respect of the pay relationship between the Workers and their colleague Medical Scientists.

The Employer’s Submission

The Employer acknowledges the existence of the prior historical pay linkage but submits that the linkage was severed on 1 January 2024 when effect was given to an express provision in
the current Public Service Pay Agreement to implement Labour Court Recommendation LCR22780 that provided for enhanced pay arrangements for Medical Scientists. It is the Employer’s submission that it had no sanction to apply the enhanced pay arrangements to other groups that had a historical linkage to the pay scales applicable to Medical Scientists.

Recommendation

The consistent practice of this Court since its inception has been to uphold collective agreements. It is common case between the Parties that they (and their respective
predecessors) had collectively agreed a linkage between the Workers’ pay and that of Medical Scientists and that linkage had been observed consistently from 1960 until 2024. The Employer unilaterally breached that agreement with effect from 1 January 2024 when it applied a revised pay scale to Medical Scientists but not to the Workers. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court recommends that the revised pay scale applied to Medical Scientists be applied to the Workers with retrospective effect from 1 January 2024.

The Court so recommends

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
JNF	______________________
13 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.