Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8922 Case Number: LCR12462 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THOMOND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim on behalf of the Head of the Education Department for upgrading to Principal Lecturer scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends that the post of Head of Education in Thomond College
be placed on the first 7 points of the Principal Lecturer's
scales. The present incumbent would therefore be placed on the
7th point of that scale.
This recommendation is to be implemented according to the terms of
Clause 3 of the current Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8922 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12462
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THOMOND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND FINANCE
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of the Head of the Education Department for
upgrading to Principal Lecturer scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Head of the Education Department is at present graded at
Senior Lecturer level and is paid on a salary scale which ranges
from #21,858 per annum to #28,830 per annum. The scale for
Principal Lecturer currently runs from #28,083 to #34,446 per
annum. On 3rd November, 1988, the Union formally lodged a claim
for the worker's upgrading and cited LCR No. 10606 of 3rd July,
1986 which recommended that the Heads of the Education departments
in the main Colleges of Education for Primary Teachers be paid on
points one to seven of the eight point Principal Lecturer, NIHE
scale. The Union claims that the worker's post has equal if not
greater responsibilities than the posts of Head of Education in
the Primary Colleges of Education and the same level of
responsibility as the post of Head of Department, NIHE which is
paid at Principal Lecturer rate. The claim was rejected by the
Department and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 30th
November, 1988 at which no agreement was reached and on 9th
January, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 22nd June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The role of Head of Education has escalated greatly since
the present holder's appointment. The College has undergone,
and continues to undergo, considerable change and development
in critical respects. New qualitative and quantitative
demands across the College highlight the fact that the work of
the Head of Education is at the centre of the College's role
and the post is central to all the major functions of the
College. The post demands the highest standards of personal
competence in many aspects and the capacity to operate at the
most senior levels of college policy and affairs. A high
standard of academic qualifications and leadership,
professional expertise and experience, and managerial
competence is required to become Head of Education. There is
a need for differential rewards in order to ensure that
recruitment at the appropriate standard is made possible.
2. The demands of the post of Head of Education exceed those
of other academic posts within the College both in qualitative
and quantitative terms. There are substantial differences
between the work of the Head of Education and that of the
heads of other Departments at the College in relation to
workload, responsibilities and leadership skills. It is
anomalous that senior staff, who report to the Head of
Education in relation to the professional preparation of
students, are paid at the same level as the Head of Education.
3. The College is an institute of higher education and as
such operates at a level and complexity of activity comparable
with NIHE. From its inception this College always had
identical conditions of entry and service with NIHE in respect
of all categories of staff. Initially, academic appointments
were made at assistant lecturer, lecturer and senior lecturer
level. Since then the grade of Principal Lecturer has been
created at NIHE but not at this College. The award of
Principal Lecturer grade to the Head of Education is now, and
has been for some time, necessary in order that candidates of
appropriate calibre are recruited to this post. Its
justification is clearly evident in the context of comparable
posts in the NIHE, Limerick and the withholding of this grade
constitutes a breach of parity between this College and NIHE.
The post of Head of Education is comparable with those of the
Heads of Department at NIHE Limerick which are paid at
Principal Lecturer rate and it is anomalous to withhold the
grade of Principal Lecturer from the Head of Education at this
College.
4. The College's academic, research and development and
inservice activities clearly surpass those of the primary
colleges of education. The responsibilities of the post far
exceed those of the primary colleges of education, where the
Head of Education is paid Principal Lecturer level (to point 7
of the scale) and the Department of Education in previous
Labour Court hearings has admitted that this College surpasses
the primary colleges of education in key respects (details
supplied to the Court). The Department also indicated at
previous hearings in 1981/82 that although the grade of
Principal Lecturer did not, at that time, apply in the College
there was provision for its introduction if it was felt
necessary at a later date. The conditions requiring the
introduction of the Principal Lecturer grade have now existed
for several years. The cost of conceding this claim is small
and there would be no repercussive effects.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim was conceded in the Colleges of Education for
Primary Teachers in recognition of the substantial difference
in responsibilities between the Head of the Education
Department and the heads of the other departments. In the
case of the Colleges of Education there was also the anomaly
that Heads of Education and some staff junior to them in their
own departments were on the same salary level. Neither of
these situations apply in this College.
2. The Head of the Education Department in this College does
not have the same degree of responsibility as his counterparts
in the Primary Colleges of Education. Staff numbers under a
Head must be taken into account as they are an indication of
the responsibility and burdens placed on a Head. The
Education Departments in the Primary Colleges have a
significantly bigger complement of staff than in this
College's Education Department both in absolute terms and
relative to other departments. This is an indication of the
substantial difference between the responsibilities of, and
the burden placed on, the Head of Education in a Primary
Training College and those applying to this worker's post.
3. The difference in responsibilities is also clear in terms
of the respective roles of the Education Departments in the
Primary Colleges and in this College in relation to the
programmes being run. Unlike the situation in the Primary
Colleges, the education component of the various programmes in
this College is not predominant and the Education Department
in the Primary Colleges plays a greater and more intensive
role in the training of teachers. The disparity between the
responsibilities of the Heads of Education in the Primary
Colleges and this worker is sufficient to show that he is not
entitled to the higher level of remuneration sought. The
worker is adequately remunerated at the present salary level
and no increase over and above that level would be justified.
While management is opposed to this claim, any award must be
dealt with under clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay in the
Public Service.