Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Hospital

Representatives

Derek Reilly

INMO

Aoife McGookin

IBEC

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 - 00006025

08/01/2026

This two-day hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021)  the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. However the hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 8th of January 2026.

As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private and the recommendation is anonymised.

The Complainant was represented by an Official from her representative body. The Complainant brought a number of witnesses to provide evidence in support of her case. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 8th day of January 2026.

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:  

This claim concerns a long-running grading and remuneration anomaly arising from Ms [Complainant] discharging full Head-of-Function Bed Management responsibilities over a prolonged period without Grade VIII recognition or remuneration.

Between 2007 and 2015, Ms [Complainant] was the most senior and sole operational lead for Bed Management, with 24/7 escalation authority, responsibility for admission and discharge control, site-wide patient flow and surge capacity, and direct engagement with senior site management.

No formally designated Head of Bed Management post existed during this period, but the function clearly existed in practice.

In 2015, the Bed Management function was formally restructured into Unscheduled Care (Grade VIII) and Scheduled Care (Grade VII) posts, confirming the seniority of the original function.

Following engagement with HR it remains Ms [Complainant]’s position that she was the de facto senior Bed Manager for the relevant period; however, HR stated they were not in a position to concede the claim but they agreed to cooperate with referral of the matter to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full representation at the hearing as the Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC.

The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 11th of May 2026. The Respondent representative challenged the case made by the Complainant and her witnesses as appropriate.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have reviewed the respective positions of the parties together with the material submitted in support of those positions. In conducting my investigation, I have taken account of all relevant oral and written evidence presented by the parties.

At the outset, it is important to note that the events giving rise to this dispute are now of considerable vintage. The Complainant lodged her complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission in January 2026 seeking, in essence, a review of matters affecting her role and contribution within the workplace during the period from 2007 to 2015.

The Respondent has, unsurprisingly, highlighted the difficulties inherent in attempting to establish the facts surrounding events that occurred between eleven and nineteen years ago. It submits that, given the passage of time, it is no longer possible to obtain a complete understanding of all of the circumstances, considerations and organisational arrangements that existed during the relevant period. Witnesses are no longer available, records have been lost or destroyed, organisational structures have changed and it is inherently difficult to determine with precision the duties attaching to particular posts almost twenty years ago.

The Complainant, however, feels strongly that she was treated unfairly and has brought the matter before the Commission seeking an independent and objective assessment of her position. In fairness to the Complainant, she maintains that the nature and extent of the alleged injustice only became apparent to her in 2025 and that it was only then that she came to appreciate the basis upon which she now advances this complaint.

As I understand it, HSE HR Circular 006/2007 concerned the implementation of an Employment Control Framework in relation to the filling of senior management posts within the HSE. In broad terms, the Circular provided that Management and Administrative Grade VIII posts and above could not be filled without a specific approval process being followed. The effect of the Circular was that Grade VIII and higher management positions were to be treated as senior management posts subject to a greater degree of responsibility, authority and accountability.

It is generally accepted that as an employee advances through the management structure, the level of responsibility, authority and accountability attaching to the role increases correspondingly. Senior managers are therefore expected to be answerable for decisions taken within their remit and to exercise an appropriate degree of oversight and governance.

At or around the same time (2007), the HSE engaged Capita, an external management consultancy, to examine the bed management function across acute hospitals and to recommend a framework for the classification of hospitals and the grading of associated management positions.

The Complainant's evidence is that, in or around 2007, the Complainant was appointed to a Grade VII administrative role, having previously worked as a Clinical Nurse Manager. I have been furnished with a Contract of Employment dated 7 October 2007. It is noted that the contract records a commencement date of February 2007. Under that contract of employment, the Complainant was appointed to the position/role of Permanent Bed Manager (Grade VII). I have had sight of the Contract of Employment which remained in operation for a number of years and which appears to have been updated in or around 2011.

The Complainant asserts that the position required substantial clinical knowledge and experience and that, in practical terms, she assumed responsibility for all bed management across the entire hospital. The hospital was subsequently classified as a Category A Hospital, a designation applied to major acute hospitals providing the highest level of services within a particular region.

The Complainant described the role as complex and demanding, requiring the continual balancing of competing clinical and operational priorities. She stated that difficult decisions were required on a daily basis and that ultimate responsibility for those decisions rested with her. She rejects any suggestion that the role was shared in any meaningful way and maintains that she was widely regarded throughout the hospital as the person responsible for bed management.

Three former colleagues gave evidence in support of the Complainant's assertion that she was effectively the head of the bed management function and the principal point of contact in relation to bed management issues.

A central feature of the Complainant's case is her contention that, in 2007, and without her knowledge, discussions between the HSE and trade unions concerning the grading of bed management posts were reaching a conclusion and being implemented following the Capita review.

In particular, the Complainant relies upon HSE HR Circular 004/2007, dated 20 February 2007, which dealt with the grading of Head of Bed Management posts in Category A, B and C hospitals. From the Complainant's perspective, the salient features of that Circular were as follows:

• Head of Bed Management in a Category A Hospital was assigned a Grade VIII designation.
• Head of Bed Management in a Category B Hospital was assigned a Grade VII designation.
• Head of Bed Management in a Category C Hospital was assigned a Grade VI designation.
• Existing substantive post holders were to have their posts upgraded to the appropriate grade.
• Individuals who had occupied the substantive post continuously for at least one year, and where no substantive post holder otherwise existed, could be confirmed in the upgraded grade from a current date.
• All other appointments were to be filled by way of open competition.

The Complainant asserts that, at the time of her appointment as Permanent Bed Manager, there was no formally designated or filled Head of Bed Management post within this Category A Hospital. Consequentially the Complainant asserts that she was the de Facto Head of Bed Management in a Category A Hospital and entitled to recognition as such. The Complainant maintains that she was the most senior operational lead within the function for many years after 2007. She further contends that her position was never upgraded and that no open competition for the position of Head of Bed Management was ever conducted.

The Complainant maintains that, at the relevant time, she was unaware that the duties she was performing may properly have been regarded as those of a Grade VIII position, together with the higher level of remuneration associated with that grade. While she accepts that there is no certainty that she would have been successful in any open competition for such a role, she contends that, had such a competition been conducted, the appointment of a dedicated Head of Bed Management would, at a minimum, have provided additional managerial support and established a clearer reporting and management structure. She asserts she would not felt so pressurised.

In essence, the Complainant's case is that she was required to perform functions ordinarily associated with the head of a department, without receiving the remuneration, status, authority or organisational supports that would normally accompany such a senior management role.

The Complainant continued in this capacity until approximately 2015, at which point she returned to a clinical role within the Orthopaedic Department. It was not until some ten years after that that she became aware of the circulars upon which she now relies. She contends that these documents demonstrate that the role she had been performing ought properly to have been graded at Grade VIII level, with the corresponding salary, pension and other benefits attaching to that grade.

The Complainant has advanced a claim for compensation in the sum of €357,000, representing what she says is the financial loss arising from having been remunerated as a Grade VII rather than a Grade VIII employee between 2007 and 2015. These calculations have been carried forward to the present date. To be fair to the Complainant, it was I that asked for some sort of calculation to be made of what the perceived loss might be and given that  the calculations range over nineteen years they were expected to be high. However, an average purported loss of over €18,000.00 per year was surprising to me.

The Complainant further submits that, following her departure from the role in 2015, the duties she had performed were assumed by both a Grade VII and a Grade VIII member of staff. She says that this lends support to her contention that the responsibilities she discharged exceeded those ordinarily associated with a Grade VII position. However, there is little contemporaneous evidence before me as to the rationale for those arrangements in 2015, any more than there is evidence explaining the Respondent's thinking in 2007.

For its part, the Respondent maintains that Circular 004/2007 never applied to the Complainant. It submits that the circular applied only to existing managers occupying the substantive post of Head of Bed Management and who had already held that substantive appointment for at least one year. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant was never appointed to the substantive position of Head of Bed Management and, therefore, could not come within the scope of the circular.

The Respondent further maintains that the Complainant's duties did not involve responsibility or accountability for the overall effectiveness of service delivery, which it says would be indicative of a head of function or departmental management role. The Respondent points out that the Complainant reported to the Director of Nursing until 2011 and thereafter to the Chief Operations Officer, a member of the Executive Management Team.

The Respondent has urged me to find that the absence of any documentation evidencing the creation, approval or occupancy of a higher-graded post presents a significant obstacle to the Complainant's claim for retrospective regrading and associated pension adjustments dating back many years. It submits that there is no documentary basis upon which it can be concluded that the Complainant was ever appointed to, or recognised as holding, a Grade VIII post.

The Respondent goes on to assert in its submission:

On balance, I am not satisfied that the Complainant was appointed to the position of Head of Bed Management in 2007. There is nothing before me to suggest that such an appointment was intended by either party at that time. I acknowledge the support expressed by a number of the Complainant's colleagues, who appear to regard her as having been the sole individual responsible for the Bed Management function within the Hospital and, on that basis, they believed that she ought to have been re-categorised and regraded accordingly. However, these witnesses could not give evidence concerning the Complainant’s accountability. I am not persuaded that their understanding of the situation accurately reflects the reality of the position as it existed at the time.

Owing to the passage of time, it is now extremely difficult to establish with any certainty what was known, understood or intended in relation to the Hospital's management structures during the relevant period. The Complainant may well have considered herself to be in charge of the day-to-day operation of bed management. However, that is materially different from being formally accountable for the function. Accountability at the level contended for by the Complainant would ordinarily entail responsibility to senior management, the HSE and, ultimately, the Department of Health. The Complainant has not suggested, nor is there evidence before me indicating, that her level of responsibility or accountability extended to that degree.

In any event, given the limited evidence available concerning the Hospital's organisational structure at the relevant time, any finding that contradicts the Complainant’s status as Bed Manager would be based largely on conjecture.

Regarding the existence of the Circulars opened to me, there is no evidence before me to suggest that anything improper or deliberate occurred and, to be fair to the Complainant, she has not advanced such a case. The information in the Circulars concerning the existence and status of a Head of Bed Management role was, in my view, known or ascertainable. There is no evidence that such information was concealed from the Complainant.

Ultimately, I am finding that if there was ever a basis upon which to raise a grievance, query or complaint regarding her grading or responsibilities, the appropriate time to do so was while she was performing the role in question, or within a reasonable period thereafter. In the circumstances, I do not consider a delay of approximately ten years to be a reasonable period within which to raise an issue of this nature.

I regret that I cannot assist the Complainant, whom I accept was and is a valued and hardworking member of the nursing organisation. However, it is not within my remit to retrospectively reconstruct the organisational arrangements that existed many years ago or to rewrite history in the manner sought by the Complainant.