LCR23262

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Application of the National Review for Public Laboratory Scientists including revised pay-rates and the establishment of the Chief Public Scientist grade.

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 5 January 2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 May 2026.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. Historically public laboratory scientists have been linked to medical laboratory scientists for pay purposes.
2. The HSE has confirmed in writing on a number of occasions that they accept the link between public laboratory scientists and medical laboratory scientists.
3. The HSE chose not to fill the Chief Public Scientist roles when sitting incumbents retired. The independent report by Kevin Duffy recommended that the Chief Public Scientist grade be reinstated.
4. Most public laboratory scientists have received the pay rise.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Duffy review recommendations required sanction and approval; they were not an agreed or authorised implementation of an enhanced pay rate.
2. At the time of agreeing terms of reference for the Duffy review, it was clearly communicated that recommendations regarding pay would be progressed through the PSA.
3. The appropriate mechanism for any cost-increasing proposal is the Local Bargaining process, where proposals can be assessed in a structured way with appropriate service-related measures and safeguards.
4. HSE Management respectfully submit that the claim should not be conceded as it is a cost-increasing claim.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties concerns the application of the National Review for Public Laboratory Scientists, including revised pay rates and the establishment of the Chief Public Scientist grade. The dispute arises from Labour Court Recommendation LCR20077, which recommended a review of the Public Analyst Laboratory service. That review was carried out between 2021 and 2023.

The review recommended that Laboratory Technicians be classified as Public Laboratory Scientists (PLS) and that the existing linkage between Medical Laboratory Scientists (MLS) and Public Analyst Laboratory staff in respect of pay and conditions should continue. The Union is seeking implementation of the report.

The Union submitted that the report prepared by Mr Kevin Duffy was intended to resolve a pay and grading dispute that had been ongoing since 2011, when a review had first been recommended. The issue returned to the WRC in 2015 because the independent review had not taken place. The WRC noted that the grades were aligned to the Medical Laboratory Scientist pay scale, which required a master’s qualification to progress to the senior scale, and again recommended an independent review in line with LCR20077.

Although the Employer had accepted Labour Court Recommendation LCR20077 and the 2015 conciliation agreement, the independent review had still not taken place by 2021, and the dispute was again referred to the WRC. On that occasion, terms of reference were agreed, and Mr Kevin Duffy was appointed as independent chair. Mr Duffy published his recommendations on 12 January 2023.

Mr Duffy recommended that the PLS grade should remain linked to Medical Laboratory Scientists in respect of pay and conditions, thereby reaffirming the existing linkage. The report also recommended the reintroduction of the three Chief Scientist positions. At point 10 of the report, Mr Duffy stated:

“It is agreed that the pay and conditions of employment of those covered by this review would remain linked to the pay and conditions of employment applicable to medical scientists and that nothing emerging from this review would disturb that linkage. For the avoidance of doubt, I recommend that HSE should definitely confirm to SIPTU that this remains their position.”

On 14 February 2023, the HSE wrote to Mr Duffy and the Union accepting the report. In that correspondence, the HSE also confirmed acceptance of the pay and conditions linkage between the Public Laboratory Scientist grade and Medical Laboratory Scientists, who were on a different pay code.

On 11 June 2024, the HSE published Circular HR/01/06/2024, which gave effect to the changes outlined in the report. Point 10 of that circular states:

“The HSE/HR National Employees have acknowledged that the pay and conditions of employment of those covered by the review would remain linked to the pay and conditions of employment applicable to Medical Scientists and that nothing emerging from this review would disturb that linkage.”

The current dispute arises from the publication of the Conal Devine report in January 2023, which recommended increases in pay for Medical Laboratory Scientists. Those increases were applied to Public Laboratory Scientist staff who were, in the main, on the same grade code. However, the increases were not paid to newer staff or to staff in the Galway Laboratory. The Union submitted that approximately three quarters of the staff have received the relevant pay increases.

The Union submitted that the Employer was fully aware of the outcome of the Devine report when it accepted the Duffy report and confirmed the linkage between PLS and Medical Laboratory Scientists in correspondence dated 14 February 2023 and, in the circular, dated 11 June 2024.

In respect of the Chief Scientist positions, the Union submitted that the HSE unilaterally chose not to fill the posts after they became vacant. The Duffy report recommended that the Chief Scientist positions be reinstated. The Union submitted that while the HSE accepted the report, it has not implemented this recommendation.

The Employer submitted that it acknowledges the historical complexity of the issue, including previous pay relationships, the Duffy review of the Public Analyst Laboratory service, and the fact that staff were historically paid on Medical Scientist scales. However, the Employer submitted that historical arrangements cannot create an automatic entitlement to the Medical Laboratory Scientist scales.

The Employer submitted that the Devine report was implemented following a Labour Court recommendation and an express implementation provision contained in the Public Service Agreement 2024–2026. Public Analyst Laboratory staff were not mentioned in that implementation provision. Therefore, the Employer submitted, the claim is cost increasing and can only be considered through the local bargaining process of the current agreement.

The Employer further submitted that when it agreed that Mr Kevin Duffy would review the Public Analyst Laboratories, it had indicated that any cost element arising from the process would have to be addressed in accordance with the applicable public service pay agreement framework. The Employer does not dispute that the Duffy report recommended maintaining the linkage, or that it accepted that report. However, it submitted that sanction from the Department of Health and DPER would be required before any cost-increasing recommendation could be implemented.

The Employer did not dispute that some people in the PLS grade have received the increases. It maintained that the claim is cost increasing and that the local bargaining process is the appropriate avenue through which to pursue it.

Discussion

The Employer accepted that both the Devine report and the Duffy report issued in January 2023. It did not dispute that, in February 2023, an Assistant Director of HR Community Operations advised, in response to a query from the Union,  that National Employee Relations had confirmed the pay and conditions linkage between Public Analyst Laboratory Technicians, to be known in future as Public Laboratory Scientists, and Medical Laboratory Scientists.

The Employer also accepted that, in the circular dated 11 June 2024, titled Public Analyst Laboratories Review, it stated at paragraph 10 that:

“The HSE/HR National Employees have acknowledged that the pay and conditions of employment of those covered by this review would remain linked to the pay and conditions of employment applicable to Medical Scientists and that nothing emerging from this review would disturb that linkage.”

By that point, the Employer would have been fully aware of the Devine report. If the Employer’s position was that the Devine report severed the linkage, the Court would have expected that position to be clearly stated, instead, the circular reaffirmed the linkage.

The Court notes that, in an email to Mr Kevin Duffy, copied to the Union, which provided documentation concerning the Public Analyst Laboratories review, the Employer stated that any cost-increasing elements would have been progressed through Building Momentum, which ran from 2021 to 2022.

It is clear to the Court from the written and oral submissions, and from the documents exchanged between the parties at the relevant time, that the Employer entered into a collective agreement with the Union to maintain the linkage between Public Laboratory Scientists and Medical Laboratory Scientists. That agreement was entered into after the issuing of the Devine report, when the Employer would have been fully aware of its implications. The Court also notes that it was not disputed that approximately three quarters of the Workers covered by this claim have received the increases arising from the Devine report.

The Court has consistently taken the view that where parties conclude a collective agreement, they are bound to honour its terms for the duration specified or, in the absence of a defined term, until it is voluntarily renegotiated. In this instance, the Employer is asking the Court to release it from a collective agreement which it freely entered into. It is not the Court’s role to do so.

The Court has also consistently expressed the view that it will uphold collective agreements unless and until all parties to the agreement indicate that they wish to change it. On that basis, in respect of this aspect of the complaint, the Court recommends the implementation of the collective agreement in respect of the maintaining of the pay linkage with Medical Laboratory Scientists. Any outstanding issues arising from achieving that outcome be finalised in the context of the prospective Public Sector Pay talks/agreement.

In respect of the claim concerning the replacement of the three Chief Scientist posts, the Court notes that the Duffy report, which was accepted by the Employer, recommended that the process of obtaining approval for the three posts, now to be Chief Scientist posts with one assigned to each laboratory, should be expedited. The Court further notes that the Employer did not address this aspect of the claim in its submission.

The Court therefore recommends that the parties should now engage on this element of the report and the Employer should set out the current position in respect of where they are in respect of obtaining approval for the three posts.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
06/07/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.