Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87492 Case Number: LCR11493 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NAT. COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN - and - MS. M. GIBBONS |
Claim by the Registrar of the College for Principal Lecturer salary scale.
Recommendation:
The Court, having given careful consideration to the arguments of
all concerned is satisfied that the current offer made to the
Registrar is fair and reasonable and recommends it be accepted.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87492 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11493
CC87514 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11493
Parties: NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN (N.C.A.D.)
(Represented by the Departments of Education and Finance)
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Claim by the Registrar of the College for Principal Lecturer
salary scale.
Background:
2. The Registrar of the National College of Art and Design was
appointed in 1973 on a salary scale approximating to that of
Higher Executive officer in the Civil Service. In 1979 she served
a claim for parity with the Registrar, National Institute of
Higher Education (N.I.H.E.) Limerick. This claim was referred to
a Rights Commissioner, who recommended its concession with effect
from 1st January, 1977. The Departments of Education and Finance
appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court and the Court
upheld the appeal and decided that the salary attaching to the
post of Registrar should be fixed at #10,089 - #11,735. This was
the equivalent of Senior Lecturer Grade I scale of the City of
Dublin Vocational Education Committee (C.D.V.E.C.). At that time
the academic scales in the College were related to those in the
C.D.V.E.C. The Assistant Director of the College was on this
scale also.
3. In early 1985 agreement was reached to align the salaries of
academic staff in the N.C.A.D. with those applicable in Thomond
College, Limerick, with retrospection to 1st July, 1984. (See
Appendix A). This agreement did not apply to the Registrar. In
June, 1985 the Registrar submitted a claim for Principal Lecturer
(N.I.H.E.) scale (there is no Principal Lecturer grade in the
NCAD) with effect from 1st July, 1984. The Registrar of the NIHE,
Limerick is on this salary level. A sub-committee of the Board of
the College recommended in December, 1985 that the claim be
conceded on a personal to holder basis with effect from 1st July,
1984 (the scale was #21,431 - #26,310, seven increments).
Negotiations then took place between the Board of N.C.A.D and the
Higher Education Authority. In July 1986 the Registrar was
offered by the Board of N.C.A.D. the highest point of the Head of
Faculty scale, plus the differential awarded by the Labour Court
in 1980, to bring her salary to #22,831, the equivalent of the
third point of the Principal Lecturer scale. This would also be
equivalent to the Assistant Director's scale. The Registrar did
not find this offer acceptable. In January, 1987 the Board
offered her the Head of Faculty salary scale with effect from 1st
July, 1984. This offer was again rejected by the Registrar (who
is currently on the C.D.V.E.C. Senior Lecturer 1 scale) and she
referred her claim for Principal Lecturer salary scale to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 27th March 1987. A
conciliation conference held on 4th June, 1987 failed to resolve
the matter and it was referred to a full hearing of the Court.
The hearing took place on 8th October, 1987 - the earliest date
suitable to all parties.
Registrar's arguments:
4. (i) The Registrar's claim is for the Principal Lecturer
Grade of the NIHEs which is the next highest grade
above that of Senior Lecturer awarded to heads of
Faculty under the alignment agreement. This would
maintain the previous relationship enjoyed by the
Registrar prior to the alignment of the academic
grades. The method of assimilation should be on the
same basis as for other grades, i.e., nearest cash
point plus two increments for those serving 3 years or
more at the top of their existing scale. Further
incremental credit should be awarded to compensate (a)
for the failure to submit alignment proposals for the
Registrar (as was done for all other grades in the
College other than the Director), (b) for the failure
to automatically concede alignment with the Registrar
of Thomond College of Education as was provided for and
(c) for the delay in processing the claim. The date of
implementation should be the same as for all the other
grades under the alignment agreement, i.e., 1st July,
1984.
(ii) The post of Registrar is one of only two statutory
posts in the NCAD. The other statutory post is that of
Director. The post carries considerable
responsibility, accountability and status. The claim
is an individual one without knock-on effects since the
Registrar is willing to accept the grade and salary of
Principal Lecturer on a personal to holder basis. This
will not create a precedent outside the College and it
can be expected that in time the College Heads of
Faculty will attain Principal Lecturer level on the
basis of salary movements elsewhere.
(iii) Under a Labour Court agreement the application of the
Principal Lecturer grade to the Heads of Education in
the three Colleges of Education (Mary Immaculate
College, Limerick, St Patrick's College, Drumcondra and
Our Lady of Mercy, Carysfort) was conceded subject to
the application only of Points 1 to 7 of the scale.
This is an example of precedent and indicates where
this scale was applied outside the NIHEs. There are
also precedents within the College for placing staff
members on salary and grade on a personal to holder
basis.
(iv) In a letter dated August 1980 from the Department of
Education to the Board of the College it was stated
that should the NCAD salaries and grades be aligned
with those of the NIHEs, one of the consequences of
such an alignment would be to align the Registrar's
post with that of the Registrar NIHE Limerick. (The
NCAD runs one of its degree courses jointly with the
NIHE Limerick).
(v) The least that should have been automatically conceded
was the alignment of the Registrar's grade with that of
the Registrar of Thomond College of Education when the
alignment with Thomond was agreed to in the case of the
academic staff. This could have been done without
prejudice to any claim that might be made subsequently
by the Registrar and without prejudice to the College's
position.
(vi) The offer of point 3 of the Principal Lecturer scale
was not acceptable because this meant that the
Registrar would no longer be on a recognisable salary
scale and would not therefore be entitled to any
increments. In view of the fact that the Registrar had
previously spent a total of 7 years endeavouring to be
placed on a proper salary scale, this offer was seen as
a retrograde step. The offer of Senior Lecturer
(NIHE/Thomond) Points 1 to 9, (the same as Head of
Faculty) scale represents an erosion of the previous
relationship enjoyed by the Registrar viz a viz the
Heads of Faculties and Heads of Departments.
(vii) The proposed scale for the Registrar represents not
merely an alignment with the scale for Head of Faculty
but for 7 of the 9 points of that scale it represents
an alignment with the Heads of Departments, i.e., a
double downgrading of salary alignment. (Details
supplied of erosion of differential).
(viii)At present, almost two and a half years after the
academic staff alignment was implemented, the
Registrar's salary position has been seriously eroded
and is less than all the Heads of Faculties, almost on
a level with one Head of Department and about one
increment above 8 academic staff on the Lecturer scale.
(ix) The history of the Registrar's salary is
unsatisfactory. The Registrar considers that she has
not been dealt with in a reasonable and consistent
manner. The merits of her case were originally
recognised by the Board of the College (the direct
employer) and only later revised by the Higher
Education Authority and the Department of Education.
The College, and the other agencies, should ensure that
fairness and equity are observed and implemented.
Management's arguments:
5. (a) The Principal Lecturer scale which is being sought by
the Registrar exists only in the N.I.H.E.'s. The scale
offered by Management is at the same level as that
applying to the Registrar in Thomond College. As the
duties of Registrar are largely determined by the size
of the College Management contends that Thomond College
is more appropriate for comparison purposes than the
N.I.H.E.s, which are much larger institutions, as is
shown by the following figures relating to the academic
year 1986/87.
| Full-time | Academic Staff | Non-academic
| Students | | Staff
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
N.C.A.D. | 540 | 48 | 63
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
Thomond | 686 | 68 | 63
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIHE Limerick | 2489 | 155 | 193
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
NIHE Dublin | 2090 | 115 | 150
(b) The Directors of the NCAD and Thomond College are on
the same salary level as a result of a recommendation
by the Devlin Review Body in November, 1981. In the
same report the Review Body recommended higher salaries
for the Directors of the National Institutes for Higher
Education.
(c) The Registrar is now, in effect, claiming the same
level of salary as she claimed in 1980 and was rejected
by the Labour Court. At that time the Court took
cognisance of the rates being paid to Registrars in
other national institutions. The following are the
salary scales for those posts, then and now -
1/3/1980 1/5/1987
Registrar, NIHE 12,758 - 15,020 24,268 - 29,792
Registrar, Thomond 10,708 - 13,956 18,864 - 24,917
Registrar, Colleges 10,089 - 11,735 18,864 - 24,917
of Education
-------------------------------------------------------
Registrar, NCAD 10,089 - 11,735*a 18,864 -24,917*b
(Rate fixed by (offered by
Labour Court) management)
*a 78.13% of NIHE rate *b 83.64% of NIHE rate
Management's offer ensures that the post of Registrar
in the NCAD not only does not lose ground but improves
its salary position relative to that of other Registrar
posts.
(d) It is the view of the Departments that there are no
grounds for the payment to the claimant of a
differential over the grade of Head of Faculty, i.e.
the highest academic grade in the College.
Traditionally the salary scale for the Registrar in
each third-level institution, other than universities,
is equated with that of the highest academic grade
within the institution. Concession of a differential
to the claimant would mark a departure from that
long-established principle and would have repercussions
in the other institutions. Heads of Faculty in the
College have sought the intervention of the Labour
Court in a claim for Principal Lecturer status. The
Departments are resisting the claim, but, if it were to
succeed, it would result in the Registrar being placed
on a higher rate of remuneration than the Registrars in
the NIHE's, should the principle of giving her post a
differential over the top academic grade (Head of
Faculty) be conceded. This would be totally
unjustifiable given the disparity in size between the
NCAD and the NIHE's.
(e) The NCAD, alone, among third level educational
institutions, has a post of Assistant Director. The
Registrar has been offered, and has rejected, the same
level of salary as has been accepted by the Assistant
Director of the College. It was the Labour Court which
placed her at that level.
(f) The Minister for Finance in his Budget speech stated
that the Government was seriously concerned at the size
of the public service pay and pensions bill and the
problem of financing it. Pay and pensions costs, if
unchecked, would necessitate severe curtailment of both
the level of public services and of non-pay
expenditure. He indicated that the Government had no
option, given the present state of the public finances,
but to direct that no public service employers should
pay any special increases other than those already
approved by the date of his statement i.e. 31st March,
1987 and for which provision has been made. The
budgetary allocations for 1987 do not contain any
provision for the payment of any increase in excess of
the terms of the offer made to the claimant.
Therefore, the claim cannot be accommodated within the
Government decision.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having given careful consideration to the arguments of
all concerned is satisfied that the current offer made to the
Registrar is fair and reasonable and recommends it be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
1st December, 1987 --------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman
Appendix A
The following is the grading structure in the NCAD before and
after alignment:
Before Alignment After Alignment
(VEC 3rd Level grades) (Thomond College of Education)
--------------------- --------------------------
Assistant Lecturer Assistant Lecturer
(new appointees only)
Lecturer I ] Lecturer
(Teaching post) ]Same Scale
]
Lecturer I ] Senior Lecturer
(Head of Department) ] (Points 1 to 7)
Lecturer II Senior Lecturer
(Head of Faculty) (Points 1 to 9)
Note: The Heads of Faculty and Heads of Department were aligned
to the one salary scale of Senior Lecturer (NIHEs) with a bar at
the 7th point for Heads of Department.