Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86668 Case Number: LCR11100 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: U.C.D. - and - I.F.U.T. |
Access to Statutory Lectureship.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim that
"College Lecturers should be given access to (statutory)
Lectureships at least on reaching the maximum point of their scale
and subject only to the establishment of satisfactory performance
of their duties.
However, the Court recognises that special and possibly unique
considerations apply in the case of the grading of academic staff.
Account ought to be taken of the fact that the distinction between
the duties and responsibilities of a College Lecturer and those of
a Statutory Lecturer is minimal. Furthermore, the senior grade is
not in a position of responsibility over the junior one and may in
particular circumstances be academically less qualified. Bearing
these factors in mind and having regard to the present adverse
promotional prospects of a large number of staff at the top of the
College Lecturer scale, the Court recommends to the College that
it abandon the pursuit of any fixed ratio of junior to senior
staff.
The present problem arose because there was an uneven pattern of
recruitment in the past and consequently the age structure of the
academic staff is skewed. This is not unique to U.C.D. However,
having regard to the special considerations which ought to apply
to academic staff, the Court recommends that for the next five
years the proportion of College Lecturers promoted to senior level
should be increased to the same proportion as was promoted in the
years 1968 to 1973. The Court therefore recommends that
sufficient Statutory Lectureships be created to achieve this
objective.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86668 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11100
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11100
Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
Subject:
1. Access to Statutory Lectureship.
Background:
2. There are five grades of academic staff in U.C.D. viz (a)
Assistant Lecturer (b) College Lecturer (c) Statutory Lecturer
(d) Associate Professor and (e) Professor.
The first two grades are regarded as junior posts and the
remainder are senior posts. At the moment a ratio of 60/40 is
maintained between junior and senior posts. On 11th July 1985,
the Union wrote to U.C.D. claiming that College Lecturers should
be given access to (statutory) Lectureships at least on reaching
the maximum point of their scale and subject only to the
satisfactory performance of their duties. On 16th July, 1985, the
college replied to the Union, and rejected the claim on the
grounds of the 60/40 ratio. On 21st October, 1985, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences took place on 19th March, 1986, and 15th
July, 1986, (the earliest dates convenient for the parties). No
final agreement was forthcoming at these conferences. On 18th
August, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
30th October, 1986 (the earliest date convenient for the parties).
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There is in reality, no meaningful distinction between
the work of a College lecturer and that of a
(statutory) lecturer. Nor is there any basic
difference between those on the maximum point of the
college lecturer scale who get promoted to (statutory)
Lecturer grade and most of those who do not. Although
criteria such as merit and length of service are used,
the number of persons who can meet these is far greater
than the number of (statutory) lecturerships available,
owing to the rigid 60/40 ratio-cum-quota. There have
been recent cases of college lecturers, who were not
successful in gaining (statutory) lecturerships in
U.C.D., being subsequently appointed to Professorships
in other Universities in Ireland and Britain.
(ii) U.C.D. is unique within the context of the colleges of
the National University of Ireland, and also Trinity
College Dublin, in having such an unfavourable ratio of
junior to senior staff (details with Court).
(iii) The maximum of the college lecturer scale compares
unfavourably to that available to others of similar
age, experience, and qualifications elsewhere in the
employment market. This coupled with the poor
promotion prospects, is having an adverse affect on
staff morale and motivation within the College. The
Union also believes that the current situation is
having an adverse impact on staff recruitment. The
Union believes that the College authorities are not
oblivious to these factors (details with Court).
(iv) The financial implications of the Union's claim are not
great, as the difference in the maxima of the two
relevant scales (college lecturer and (statutory)
lecturer) is #3,135. The Union estimates that the
claim would cost U.C.D. an extra 1% per annum. The
Union is not seeking automatic promotion. It finds no
difficulty in the application of an agreed criteria for
promotion which would protect the academic standards of
the College.
College's arguments:
4. (a) The 60/40 ratio is common in other countries. In
Britain this ratio is laid down by the University
Grants Committee (U.G.C.) and is strictly applied to
all British universities.
(b) The College has, as a result of negotiations with the
Higher Education Authority and the Department of
Education, succeeded in improving the Senior:Junior
ratio. It has done so by including part-time staff on
a full-time equivalent basis in the calculations. As
few part-time staff are statutory, this has recently
provided eighteen additional statutory lecturerships.
A request to upgrade ten statutory lecturerships to
Associate Professorships is still under negotiation.
The stated objective of these negotiations is to
improve the ratio in H.E.A. funded faculties to 50:50,
and it is hoped to achieve this in time.
(c) While the College has endeavoured to provide more
senior posts it regards any proposal for automatic
progression to senior level as unacceptable. This
could have the effect of making the staff almost 100%
senior in view of the embargo on additional
recruitment. The College submits that an arrangement
whereby staff proceed to a higher scale solely on the
basis of certification by a Head of Department of
satisfactory performance of duties leads to an
automatic progression. At the moment transfer from
Assistant Lecturer to College Lecturer is based on
promotion, and is recommended by a Committee on
Promotions and Tenure. There is no case on record in
which a Head of Department has certified that the
academic staff member has not carried out his duties
satisfactorily. Satisfactory performance of duties is
not accepted by the Committee as a reason for
promotion; they also have regard to doctorate degrees
and research activity as evidenced by publications.
(d) Almost all senior posts, except for professorships, are
filled by internal junior applicants. Assessment
Boards are set up to determine the relative merits of
applicants and to advise the appropriate College
Committee as to the areas in which the lecturerships
should be established. All new lecturerships, and all
others as they become vacant, are untitled and can be
allocated to any area outside the Faculty of
Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine. To automatically
promote academic staff would destroy the basis of
excellence on which promotions and appointments are
currently based.
(e) It was argued by I.F.U.T. at conciliation that all
academic staff performed the same functions and should
thus reach the same grade. This, it is submitted, is
an inherently false argument. It could be applied
equally to bank officials, solicitors and accountants.
Although all perform the same functions, they do so at
different levels and with differing degrees of
expertise and responsibility. Their remuneration
reflects this distinction, and the same is true of
academic staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim that
"College Lecturers should be given access to (statutory)
Lectureships at least on reaching the maximum point of their scale
and subject only to the establishment of satisfactory performance
of their duties.
However, the Court recognises that special and possibly unique
considerations apply in the case of the grading of academic staff.
Account ought to be taken of the fact that the distinction between
the duties and responsibilities of a College Lecturer and those of
a Statutory Lecturer is minimal. Furthermore, the senior grade is
not in a position of responsibility over the junior one and may in
particular circumstances be academically less qualified. Bearing
these factors in mind and having regard to the present adverse
promotional prospects of a large number of staff at the top of the
College Lecturer scale, the Court recommends to the College that
it abandon the pursuit of any fixed ratio of junior to senior
staff.
The present problem arose because there was an uneven pattern of
recruitment in the past and consequently the age structure of the
academic staff is skewed. This is not unique to U.C.D. However,
having regard to the special considerations which ought to apply
to academic staff, the Court recommends that for the next five
years the proportion of College Lecturers promoted to senior level
should be increased to the same proportion as was promoted in the
years 1968 to 1973. The Court therefore recommends that
sufficient Statutory Lectureships be created to achieve this
objective.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
___________________________
Deputy Chairman
6th April, 1987
P.F./U.S.