THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	881/03

APPLICANT:	Anna Maria Tate

RESPONDENT:	Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the applicant’s remuneration and the tribunal orders the respondent to pay the sum of £805.75 to the applicant in respect of those deductions (such sum is broken down in the body of the decision).

Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Mr J O’Neill of Thompsons McClure, Solicitors. 
The respondent was represented by Mr E O’Loan of Tughans, Solicitors.

Summary Reasons

1.	The applicant was employed by the respondent at the time of her application to the tribunal in the capacity of Superintendent Radiographer 4.

2.	With effect from June 2001, Mrs Susan Clarke who worked in the Ultrasound Department under the supervision of the applicant was re-graded to Senior 1 Radiographer.  This was because a colleague in the Department had left the employment of the respondent and the respondent accepted that Mrs Clarke was ‘a Diagnostic Radiographer undertaking ultrasound work with a large degree of independent reporting’.

3.	It was common case between the parties that the applicant had been re-graded to Superintendent Radiographer 4 with effect from in or around October 1990.  This was carried out on the basis that she was in charge of two to eight qualified staff and assistants in accordance with 2.62.2 of the Whitley Agreement.

4.	As a consequence of Mrs Clarke’s re-grading, the applicant contended that she was entitled to be re-graded to Superintendent Radiographer 3 on the basis that she was a Radiographer who was ‘in charge of a unit carrying out highly skilled and specialised work with at least one Senior Radiographer 1 grades under 2.63.1 below’.

5.	The respondent’s Employee Relations Manager rejected this contention indicating that as Mrs Clarke rotated on a one in two basis with the applicant, the applicant was therefore not in charge of Mrs Clarke.

6.	The tribunal heard some evidence from the respondent suggesting that to be ‘in charge of’ Mrs Clarke, the applicant needed to have disciplinary and grievance resolution responsibility for her, and she did not.  The respondent also contended that the applicant should have the right to authorise unpaid leave to be deemed ‘in charge of’ Mrs Clarke.  The tribunal noted that the respondent was seeking to argue that to be ‘in charge of’ a person, the applicant needed to have staff management responsibility.  The tribunal did not accept this contention, because the respondent’s predecessor in title the Armagh and Dungannon Trust had previously agreed that the applicant was ‘in charge of 2 to 8 qualified staff and assistants’.  The tribunal found that the applicant had been declared to be ‘in charge of 2 to 8 qualified staff’ and found no evidence to support the contention that she required staff management responsibility to be ‘in charge’ for the purposes of another section of the Whitely Agreement.  The tribunal also found that as the applicant was already Superintendent 4 in charge of ultrasound, she fulfilled the terms of the Whitley Agreement for re-grading to Superintendent 3.

7.	The applicant was re-graded to Superintendent 3 with effect from April 2003.

8.	The only basis for the requirement of staff management responsibility was ‘the logic’ and ‘common sense’ of Mrs Helen Walker, the Human Resources Manager, which the tribunal found was an insufficient basis upon which to find in favour of the respondent.  For all of the above reasons the tribunal found that from 20 November 2001 to April 2003 the applicant was entitled to be graded as a Superintendent 3.  Consequently the applicant was entitled to received from the respondent a sum representing the deductions from her remuneration during this period, calculated as set out herein:-

The periods and method of calculation were roughly agreed between the parties.

(1)	The applicable period of deduction was from 20 November 2001 to 21 March 2003.

(2)	The claim period was split into two periods:

(a)	Mid June 2001 – Mid June 2002 for which £693.00 was claimed.
(b)	Mid June 2002 – 21 March 2003 for which £360.00 was claimed.

(3)	There was an additional claim for protected pay for calls from mid June 2001 to 30 November 2001 being five and one-half months at £119.62 = £657.91 (being shortfall of £1.69 x calls per month).

(4)	Given the applicable period of deduction found at 8(1) above the claim at 8(2)(a) above was reduced by 5/12 to:						£405.75.

The claim at 8(2)(b) remains unaltered at:							£360.00.

The protected pay for calls claim was reduced to the period for 20 to 30 November 2001 to give a total of:							  £40.00 

Total shortfall:											£805.75

9.	This is a relevant decision for the purposes of The Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.    	

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	3 December 2004, Belfast.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: