Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86951 Case Number: LCR11087 Section / Act: S67 Parties: N.I.H.E. - and - FWUI |
Dispute concerning the incremental placing of (a) one library assistant, grade 1; (b) two secretarial assistants, grade 2 and (c) two lecturers.
Recommendation:
12. Having regard to the circumstances in the cases put before it
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
The Court does however consider that the parties should negotiate
a clear and consistent policy to apply to questions of staff
promotion and grading, and incremental placement within grades.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86951 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11087
CC861006 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11087
Parties: NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DUBLIN
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the incremental placing of (a) one library
assistant, grade 1; (b) two secretarial assistants, grade 2 and
(c) two lecturers.
Background:
2. In late 1985, the Union wrote to Management requesting
information on the incremental history of the three clerical
staff. Following Management's response, claims were submitted for
the payment of additional increments for those members. In June,
1986, the Union wrote to Management submitting a claim for the
payment of additional increments to two lecturers based on their
experience and skills. Local level negotiations failed to resolve
the issue and on the 10th June, 1986, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. An invitation to
conciliation was issued on the 12th June and a reminder was sent
on the 18th July. A response was received to the invitation on
13th September and a conciliation conference on the 16th October,
1986, failed to resolve the issue. On the 10th November the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 6th February,
1987.
Claim (a) incremental placing of one library assistant
Background:
3. The claimant joined the Institute in November, 1981, as a
library assistant grade 1 and was placed on the first point of the
library assistant scale. Prior to joining the Institute she was
employed in the library of the Institute of Public Administration
(I.P.A.) as a clerk/typist. Salary adjustments which were applied
at the IPA in February, 1982, and which were made retrospective to
June, 1981, highlighted that unknowingly she had incurred a
financial loss by joining the Institute. In March, 1982, her
salary was adjusted to the second point of the scale,
retrospective to the 9th November, 1981. The Union, however,
claimed that this did not fully make up for the loss of pay which
she had suffered and lodged a claim for incremental credit for her
three years' service.
Union's Argument:
4. (a) No account was taken of the claimant's four years library
experience in the IPA or of her two years spent as a
clerk/typist with the public libraries. Furthermore, the
reason she was given as to why no account was taken of her
two years' experience with the public libraries was
because her job was graded as clerk/typist even though her
actual work was that of library assistant.
Institute's Arguments:
5. (i) The National Institute for Higher Education Dublin Act
1980 refers under 9.(5):
"There shall be paid by the Institute to its officers
(including the Director) and servants such remuneration
and allowances as it, subject to the approval of the
Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for
Public Service may from time to time determine". This
clause clearly identifies the Minister for Education in
concurrence with the Minister for Public Service as being
the authority assigned with the responsibility for
approving salaries and allowances including any
subsequent increases in same.
(ii) The procedure at the time of the claimant's appointment
was that the Department of Education, through the Higher
Education Authority, sanctioned appointments proposed by
the Institute as well as starting salaries. The
Department of Education was the final adjudicator. The
general conditions for the award of increments stipulates
that the normal expectation will be that new entrants
will be admitted to the relevant salary scale at the
minimum point. Incremental credit may be awarded only in
respect of relevant experience in excess of that required
to qualify for appointment and where the experience in
excess of the minimum requirement is at a level
comparable to that of the post to be filled. The
starting salary of the worker concerned was, therefore,
in accordance with the general practice in relation to
recruitment procedures in the public sector.
(iii) The Institute does not accept that the experience
possessed by the claimant was in excess of that required
to qualify her for appointment.
(iv) A policy of incremental credit having retrospective
effect is totally unacceptable. The Institute would be
placed in an intolerable position if salaries offered and
accepted were to be subject to continual review and could
cause severe repercussions in that similar claims could
be expected from other members of staff in NIHE Dublin
and similar institutions.
(v) In LCR9402, the Court rejected a similar claim (details
supplied).
Claim (b) - incremental credit for two secretarial assistants
Background:
6. In September, 1982, the Institute advertised for seven junior
secretarial assistants (now renamed secretary, grade 1). The
seven who were appointed had previously been working in temporary
capacities at secretary, grade 2 level and on their appointment
lodged a claim for upgrading in a permanent capacity from grade 1
to grade 2. Management rejected this claim and as the issue could
not be resolved at local level it was referred to the Labour
Court. LCR8225 was subsequently issued which stated that "having
regard to the circumstances surrounding the recruitment of the
claimants and to the approved number of secretarial posts in the
Institute, the Court recommends that the proposed examination of
the secretarial duties referred to by the Institute should be
carried out without delay. Should such an examination reveal that
the appropriate grading of the posts in question is that of
secretarial assistant and that the present approved allocation of
posts is incorrect, immediate steps should be taken to correct
that situation with due monetary reward being given in respect of
the length of service on such duties". This survey was completed
in October, 1983, and recommended upgrading to secretary grade 2
of the seven originally claimed. These upgradings were offered to
and accepted by the Union (details supplied to the Court). The
present claim is for incremental credit on the grounds of
secretarial experience prior to permanent employment.
Union's Arguments:
7. (a) In October, 1983, one of the two workers concerned was
up-graded to grade 2 as a result of the job evaluation
recommended in LCR8225. The Department of the Public
Service accepted the Court's recommendation only on the
basis that those concerned would accept being placed on
the first point of the scale with effect from 12th
November, 1982. However, since that date the Institute
has filled grade 2 positions at the fifth point of the
scale in the case of external and temporary staff
applicants with the result that grade 2 secretaries who
joined the Institute three years after this particular
worker are on a higher point of the scale than she.
(b) The second worker concerned was employed as a temporary
secretarial assistant 2 in October, 1981. She received
an increment in June, 1983, and was affected as appointed
as a permanent grade 2 on the second point of the scale
in April, 1984. She was placed on the third point of the
scale in June, 1984, which did not give her full credit
for all her service with the Institute.
Institute's Arguments:
8. (i) In November 1983, the Institute offered a package to the
Union which included nine upgradings (seven of which were
the subject of the Union's claim) conditional on certain
conditions being accepted. One of the specific
conditions on which the offer of upgrading was based was
the acceptance by the Union and the seven junior
secretarial assistants that they would be upgraded to
secretary grade 2 subject to their agreement to accept
the first point of the secretary grade 2 scale
retrospective to the date of permanent employment. The
Union and those concerned fully accepted the offer of
upgrading and associated conditions on which the offer
was made, and thereby waived any claim for additional
incremental credit for previous experience to be taken
into account (details supplied to the Court). It is
totally unacceptable to the Institute for the Union to
fail to honour the terms of a negotiated agreement.
Given the Union's unconditional acceptance of the
Institute's offer and associated conditions, it is not
appropriate for the Union to pursue this claim now before
the Court for incremental credit for previous secretarial
experience on behalf of the secretary in the School of
Business Administration.
(ii) In the case of the secretary in the Faculty of Education
Studies, she was also employed in the Institute in a
temporary capacity as secretarial assistant from November
1981 to March 1984. As part of the package on upgrading
offered to the Union in the letter dated 10th December,
1983, the Institute offered to make six temporary posts
permanent, including the post of secretary of the Faculty
of Education Studies. This was accepted by the Union.
The job holder applied for the post and was successful in
obtaining the post which had been evaluated at grade 2
level. She was appointed to the permanent post in April
1984. In line with the agreement reached with the Union
for the other secretaries upgraded from grade 1 to 2 and
in the interest of equity and consistency, she was
treated in the same manner the other secretaries whose
posts were upgraded and was not given incremental credit
for previous experience.
(iii) If this claim were conceded it would give rise to
consequential claims from other staff which would result
in significant extra costs for the Institute. In the
present financial climate this would be highly
undesirable. Furthermore, it would establish a principle
of retrospection not only for this Institute but for
other areas in the Public Service.
(iv) The staff members concerned accepted the salaries offered
and the Institute would be placed in an intolerable
position if the principle was conceded through this
claim, that salaries once accepted and agreements entered
into in writing can be subsequently rejected and
subjected to a claim to the Court.
(v) The placing of the secretaries whose posts were upgraded
from grade 1 to 2, at the first point of the secretary
grade 2 scale was in accordance with the Institute's
policy at that time regarding first appointments, i.e.
the normal expectation was and will continue to be that
appointees will be admitted to the relevant salary scale
at the minimum point of the scale.
(vi) In LCR9402 the Court rejected a similar claim (details
supplied).
Claim (c) - incremental credit for two academic staff
Background:
9. In August, 1985, the Institute advertised internally and
externally for suitably qualified persons to fill lectureships in
Business Administration. The two claimants, who were employed as
assistant lecturers for three and three and a half years
respectively, applied for the posts and were successful. On being
appointed, they were placed on the second point of the lecturer
scale, which Management claimed was in accordance with established
promotional procedure in the Institute. The Union is now claiming
that because the claimants were successful in obtaining the posts
through open competition, they should be treated in a similar
manner as appointees to lecturer posts from outside the Institute
and given incremental credit for their experience as assistant
lecturers in the Institute.
Union's Arguments:
10 (a) During 1983 and 1984, a large number of assistant
lecturers began to complain about their grading. Claims
were submitted to Management but with no success and the
case finally went to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
At the hearing, Management, for the first time, presented
the Union with a proposal for a promotions policy for
assistant lecturer to lecturer. The Court's
recommendation was that the two sides negotiate on the
basis of this proposal and reach agreement by the end of
1984. Such agreement has still not been arrived at.
(b) Apart from the actual grading of assistant lecturers, part
of the original claim referred to the discrimination based
on the amount paid. The Union demonstrated that there was
discrimination for assistant lecturers who were promoted
not as a result of the promotion policy but through a
publicly advertised vacancy - because irrespective of
their age and experience, they were placed on the bottom
point of the lecturer scale.
(c) The present case for revision of the point on the scale
for assistant lecturers promoted to lecturer is clearly a
demand for the removal of an anomaly. This anomaly is
expressed in the fact that where a highly qualified and
experienced assistant lecturer gets a lecturer post,
he/she will go to a much lower point on the scale than if,
with the exact same age, experience, etc, that person had
got the lecturer job as a result of having applied from
outside the Institute. Both claimants were appointed to
the lecturer grade as a result of a public competition.
Institute's Arguments:
11 (i) The staff members concerned were placed on the second
point of the lecturer scale in line with established
promotional procedure in the Institute. The promotion
procedure is that appointment to the new scale is at the
minimum of the scale plus one increment - or the next
highest point plus one increment when the scales overlap.
The scales in this case did not overlap and, therefore,
the claimants were placed on the second point of the
lecturer scale in accordance with established promotion
procedure in the Institute. The Institute's promotion
policy is in line with generally recognised practice in
third level educational institutions. This was
recognised by the Court in Labour Court Recommendation
No. 7896 dated 16th March, 1983.
(ii) All academic posts are advertised internally and
externally and are filled through open competition.
Internal applicants competing for posts in open
competition are aware of the Institute's promotion policy
and of the fact that experience at a lower grade in the
Institute is not recognised on a year-for-year basis for
incremental purposes when appointment is made to a higher
grade. Since the Institute was established, 19 members
of academic staff have been promoted and the Institute's
promotion procedure has been similarly applied.
(iii) If this claim were conceded it could give rise to
consequential claims from other members of staff and
could have repercussive effects in other 3rd level
educational institutions whose promotion policy is
similar to that of the Institute's.
(iv) The Institute's policy with regard to first appointments
is that new external appointees normally enter at the
minimum point of the scale but Management may take into
account previous relevant experience in excess of the
minimum required for the post at a level comparable to
that of the post being filled. Also taken into account
is where current salary exceeds the minimum of the scale.
However, this is a prerogative of Management and confers
no rights on the claimants. In this instance the
claimants were placed on the Lecturer scale in line with
established promotion procedure.
Recommendation:
12. Having regard to the circumstances in the cases put before it
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
The Court does however consider that the parties should negotiate
a clear and consistent policy to apply to questions of staff
promotion and grading, and incremental placement within grades.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
28th April, 1987 ________________
DH/PG Deputy Chairman