Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87429 Case Number: LCR11328 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CITY OF DUBLIN VEC - and - TUI |
Implementation of Labour Court Recommendation 10395.
Recommendation:
At the hearing of this case the parties agreed that there were
five issues in dispute and on which recommendations were needed.
The first two related to the definition of which teachers would
come within the new arrangements and the second two related to the
method of calculating the hourly rate of pay. The last concerned
the question of pension entitlement. The Court deals with each of
these issues in turn.
The new scheme should apply to teachers who are qualified for full
time posts and those who are not fully qualified but who are
regular teachers with some years service. In particular a teacher
should not be penalised solely because he/she does not have
proficiency in the Irish language.
The Court's view is that the same hourly rate of pay for the same
work should apply to part-time teachers but in all the
circumstances recommends that the Union accept that this be
introduced on a phased basis and that for the first year of
operation the new conditions should apply only to those teachers
whose class contact hours in the session are not less than half
those appropriate to a corresponding permanent wholetime teacher.
The parties should review the operation of this clause in the
light of experience in the first year with a view to reducing the
limit in subsequent years.
The Court recommends that incremental credit be given to teachers
on the basis of one point for each complete year of service as a
part-time teacher. That is, a teacher who has worked for two
years as a part-time teacher should be placed on the third point
of the scale irrespective of the number of hours worked during
those years.
The Court recommends that the parties accept the Union's method of
calculating the hourly rate.
The Court recommends that if there is provision within the
existing pension scheme for the inclusion of part-time workers
then teachers should be included on those terms.
The above recommendation should be implemented from the beginning
of the academic year 1987/88.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87429 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11328
CC8733 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11328
Parties: CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (CDVEC)
(REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
THE IRISH VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION)(IVEA)
and
TEACHERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Implementation of Labour Court Recommendation 10395.
Background:
2. The Labour Court, in LCR10395, issued on the 7th April, 1986,
recommended concession of a claim by the Union that the pay,
holiday and sick leave entitlements of part-time teachers in the
CDVEC be in proportion to those of full-time teachers doing an
equivalent job (LCR10395 is attached as Appendix I).
A meeting was held between the Union and the Department of
Education on the 18th July, 1986, to discuss the issues involved
and the Department indicated that it considered it necessary that
the IVEA, as the managerial body representing VECs, be involved in
future negotiations. A further local level meeting (including
representatives from the IVEA) was held on the 4th September at
which the Department put forward proposals on how the terms of
LCR10395 could be implemented. These proposals were unacceptable
to the Union and the meeting was adjourned. On the 3rd December,
the Union referred the matter to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on the 22nd
January, 1987, at which the Department undertook to put forward
revised proposals to the Union as soon as possible. Such
proposals were put to the Union by letter dated the 27th February,
1987 (attached as Appendix II). These proposals set out the class
of part-time teachers to whom the recommendation would apply and
proposed that a minimum threshold number of hours should also
apply in addition to how the pay of these teachers would be
calculated. They also rejected the Union's claims for incremental
credit and access to the superannuation scheme. The Union replied
on the 25th March stating that the revised offer had been
considered by its executive committee and that the decision of the
committee was that the offer was not in keeping with the spirit of
the recommendation and that it was seeking a further conciliation
conference. A second conciliation conference, held on the 30th
April, 1987, failed to resolve the issue and, on the 18th May, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 9th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union holds that any part-time teacher who is time-
tabled in advance to teach in the school or college must
be regarded as a regular part-time teacher. In this
regard the Union accepts that part-time teachers who are
employed at short notice on a casual basis only, to cover
some exigency in the school or college, are not regular
part-time teachers. This view of regular part-time
teachers is clearly in keeping with LCR10395. Further,
under the Burnham Scheme a regular part-time teacher is
one who is employed for a wide range of time periods: a
year; a term; or, for example, to replace a colleague on
maternity leave. Under the Burnham Scheme a regular
part-time teacher is one who is not a short notice
part-time teacher.
(b) The Union further holds that each regular part-time
teacher is entitled to receive pro-rata treatment without
regard to the number of hours per week worked or the
number of weeks worked per year. The Union believes that
the stipulation of a minimum threshold of hours per week
or weeks per year which must be taught by a regular
part-time teacher before being afforded pro-rata
treatment is not acceptable on the grounds that no
teacher would be time-tabled to work above such a minimum
threshold. In any event no such minimum threshold has
been recommended by the Labour Court in other relevant
recommendations. Further, in regard to the Burnham
Scheme, the Union has been advised as follows in respect
of minimum thresholds: (by its British counterpart, the
NAS/UWT)
"There is no minimum number of weekly hours or
minimum number of weeks which must be worked before
a teacher can be regarded as a regular part-time
teacher. In practice the number of hours/number of
weeks varies greatly from one employer to another
and also as between the different part-time
teachers in the employ of a single employer. This,
of course, is very different from having a
stipulated number of hours/number of weeks which
must be worked before a teacher can be regarded as
being in regular part-time employment. For this
purpose there is no prescription of an hours or
weeks threshold in practice and there is no such
prescription in the provisions of the current
Burnham Report."
(c) The Union believes that the pay of regular part-time
teachers should be pro-rata - taking account of the hours
worked - the pay of the equivalent wholetime colleague.
This is what was stated clearly in LCR10395. The salary
scales of the "equivalent wholetime colleagues" are known
and the application of these salary scales to regular
part-time teachers taking account of the hours worked is
a simple task. The Union does not accept the
Department's method of calculating the hourly rate (using
an annual figure) and instead suggests that it is more
appropriate to use a weekly basis. Indeed, the employer
who will be performing this administrative calculation
has recommended concession of the Union's claim before
the Labour Court issued LCR10395. In this regard the
Union believes that inherent in the application of
pro-rata treatment to regular part-time teachers is the
right to proceed through the salary scale of the
equivalent wholetime colleague. If the Union was to
accept the Department's approach to this issue, the
claimants would continue to be paid a low hourly rate
calculated on the minimum point of the scale of their
equivalent wholetime colleague as opposed to pro-rata
payment vis-a-vis that equivalent wholetime colleague
and because of this will continue to be discriminated
against in that their individual skills and years of
service will not be recognised.
(d) The Department's approach to the implementation of
LCR10395, would also mean that part-time teachers would
lose money in that their present inadequate wages would
be paid monthly over the twelve month calendar year - as
opposed to monthly over the academic year - thereby
eliminating the social welfare payments they have to-date
received during their periods of unemployment throughout
the calendar year. The 1987 Budget provisions in regard
to social welfare payments mean that it is now
practically impossible for part-time teachers to fulfil
the eligibility criteria for social welfare payments in
that the number of contributions required for eligibility
to receive such benefits has been increased by 50%, going
from 26 to 39 contributions. It is virtually impossible
for a part-time teacher to have gained this number of
stamps in the previous tax year which is one of the two
conditions which must be fulfilled before one can now
receive social welfare payments;
(e) In respect of the superannuation of regular part-time
teachers, the Union believes that such teachers should
have an entitlement to opt into superannuation on the
basis of paying 5% of salary. This option is the basis
on which the superannuation of regular part-time teachers
is dealt with under the Burnham Scheme. Further, at
present the Department of Education recognises part-time
service for superannuation purposes if and when a
part-time teacher becomes wholetime and this recognition
by the Department is based on the payment of 5% of the
annual salary earned for the part-time service given by
the teacher concerned.
Department's arguments:
4. (a) The Court, in LCR10395, stressed that a distinction
should be drawn between part-time teachers employed on a
regular basis and those employed on a casual basis. The
Court will be aware that there is a wide variation of
part-time teaching situations ranging from people with
other full-time jobs who give evening lectures or classes
on particular topics for a small number of hours to
people who teach for a substantial number of hours each
week and are wholly dependent on their part-time
earnings. In that connection the Official Side gave
considerable thought to how the word 'regular' in the
Court's recommendation should be interpreted. It
proposes two main criteria: one, that 'regular'
part-time teachers should have the same qualifications as
whole-time teachers doing an equivalent job, and two,
that regular part-time teachers are those for whom
teaching is their main and not a subsidiary occupation.
In practice that is taken to mean that their teaching
hours should not be less than half those of their
wholetime counterparts, a concept which is consistent
with the guidelines for the Civil Service Job-sharing
scheme referred to in the Court's recommendation.
Accordingly, in its offer to the TUI on 27th February,
1987, the Official Side proposed that the Recommendation
should apply only to those part-time teachers
(i) who are fully qualified, and
(ii) whose class contact hours in any given session
would be not less than half those appropriate to a
corresponding permanent whole-time teacher.
(b) On the basis of (ii) above, the minimum annual teaching
hours requirement would range from 280 hours in Category
III (Lecturer scale) to 400 hours in Category I (teacher
in 2nd level Vocational School). These hours would
equate to average weekly hours of 8 and 11, respectively.
The Department has been advised by the IVEA and by the
City of Dublin VEC that it is their view that any scheme
which did not provide for a minimum threshold as proposed
would be almost impossible to administer.
(c) The understanding of the Official Side at the Labour
Court conciliation conference on 22nd January, 1987 was
that the method of calculation of the pay entitlements
was the most important single issue as far as the Union
was concerned, and that if agreement was reached on that
issue, negotiations could then proceed on the other
matters. Arising from this the Department wrote to the
Union on 27th February, 1987, proposing, inter alia, that
the pay entitlements of regular part-time teachers should
be calculated by dividing the minimum of the appropriate
salary scale for whole-time teachers by the maximum
number of tuition hours per session for the relevant
category of teacher and multiplying the result by the
total number of hours to be worked by the part-time
teacher in any given session. This formula provides for
the pro-rata payment of part-time teachers during all
normal school closures.
(d) It is not proposed to allow incremental credit for
part-time teaching service because part-time teachers
would be employed on a session by session basis.
Moreover, incremental credit is not allowed in the case
of temporary wholetime teachers.
(e) The superannuation of vocational teachers is governed by
the Local Government Superannuation Code which is
administered by the Department of the Environment.
Accordingly, superannuation credit for part-time teaching
service in VECs is a matter for the Department of the
Environment and should be separately pursued through that
Department.
Union's general arguments:
5. (a) The Department of Education accepted the recommendation
but continued its policy of delay and obstruction without
regard to the industrial relations consequences of this
policy. The result was that the Court's recommended date
of operation of new structures for the workers concerned,
namely "the beginning of the academic year 1986/87" was
reached and passed. This in effect meant that the hopes
of the workers concerned were dashed and they had to
continue without the pro-rata pay and conditions with
their wholetime colleagues which had been claimed by the
Union in late 1984, conceded by their employer in May,
1985 and recommended by the Court on 7th April, 1986.
(b) A major part of the Department's policy of obstruction is
the repeated pretence that LCR10395 is very complex and
the Union has not made clear how it would wish to see it
implemented. This policy is illustrated by the
Department's repeated reference to the position of
wholetime teachers, solicitors or other professionals who
are employed part-time to teach adult education for a few
hours in the evening time. This repeated raising of
wholetime teachers being paid pro-rata with themselves
for part-time adult education work further illustrates
the perverse approach of the Department in this matter.
The Department's approach has continued despite the
Union's repeated statement that such wholetime teachers
or other professionals in the adult education area were
not included in the Union's claim. Indeed, it should now
be clear to the Court that the Department has accepted
LCR10395 but has refused to implement it honestly and has
then, as a matter of policy, sought to confuse and
complicate what is essentially a straightforward drawing
up of pro-rata pay and conditions for one group of
clearly definable workers with another group of clearly
definable workers all of whom are in the employ of the
one employer.
Department's general arguments:
6. (a) A major factor which has to be taken into account by the
Official Side in implementing LCR10395 is the cost
involved. In that connection the Court's attention is
drawn to the speech of the Minister for Finance when
introducing this year's Budget. In his speech the
Minister stated that the Government was seriously
concerned at the present, and the prospective, size of
the public service pay and pensions bill and the problem
of financing it. Pay and pensions costs, if unchecked,
would, he said, 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 and for which
provision had been made. When the offer was made to the
TUI on 27th February, 1987, it was ensured that the
necessary funds would be available for implementation of
the terms of the offer. The budgetary allocations for
1987 do not contain any provision for payments in excess
of the terms of the offer made on 27th February, 1987.
Anything in excess of that offer could not be
accommodated within the terms of the Government decision
as set out in the speech of the Minister for Finance, and
the cost could not be met from existing allocations.
Recommendation:
At the hearing of this case the parties agreed that there were
five issues in dispute and on which recommendations were needed.
The first two related to the definition of which teachers would
come within the new arrangements and the second two related to the
method of calculating the hourly rate of pay. The last concerned
the question of pension entitlement. The Court deals with each of
these issues in turn.
The new scheme should apply to teachers who are qualified for full
time posts and those who are not fully qualified but who are
regular teachers with some years service. In particular a teacher
should not be penalised solely because he/she does not have
proficiency in the Irish language.
The Court's view is that the same hourly rate of pay for the same
work should apply to part-time teachers but in all the
circumstances recommends that the Union accept that this be
introduced on a phased basis and that for the first year of
operation the new conditions should apply only to those teachers
whose class contact hours in the session are not less than half
those appropriate to a corresponding permanent wholetime teacher.
The parties should review the operation of this clause in the
light of experience in the first year with a view to reducing the
limit in subsequent years.
The Court recommends that incremental credit be given to teachers
on the basis of one point for each complete year of service as a
part-time teacher. That is, a teacher who has worked for two
years as a part-time teacher should be placed on the third point
of the scale irrespective of the number of hours worked during
those years.
The Court recommends that the parties accept the Union's method of
calculating the hourly rate.
The Court recommends that if there is provision within the
existing pension scheme for the inclusion of part-time workers
then teachers should be included on those terms.
The above recommendation should be implemented from the beginning
of the academic year 1987/88.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th July, 1987 John M Horgan
DH/PG -------------
Chairman