Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88966 Case Number: LCR12322 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the salary alignment of a worker (an associate professor).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the arguments made, the Court is satisfied
that, as originally established, the salary of the post of
associate professor was set at a point within the salary scale of
professor so reflecting the status and privileges attached to the
grade.
Whilst accepting that the fixed salary did not bear a fixed
relativity to any particular point on the professorial scale, the
Court accepts the claimant's case that the exclusion from the
system of professorial salary awards, simply by virtue of a
cut-off point chosen by extraneous considerations, is unfair and
has a potentially detrimental effect in his role and status in the
future.
The Court therefore recommends that the worker's claim be
conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88966 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12322
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the salary alignment of a worker (an
associate professor).
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed statutory lecturer in
Zoology in 1970 and was promoted to the position of Associate
Professor of Zoology in 1978. The salary is a single point with
no incremental scale and stood at #25,931 per annum on the 31st
October, 1986 (at the time of the application of the AP/PO Award).
The claimant maintains that there has been a direct relationship
between professors and associate professors since the time the
latter grade was established. Up to October, 1986, adjustments to
salary scales were governed by the Devlin pay increases. This was
replaced by the Gleeson and the AP/PO awards. Under the new
arrangement, civil service grades with a salary scale maximum in
excess of #28,470 received the Gleeson award while those on a
salary scale maximum of less than this figure received the AP/PO
award. The College placed the professors within the Gleeson
scheme and put all others, including the associate professors, on
the AP/PO scheme. The claimant refused to accept the application
of the AP/PO award, claiming that there was an established link
between his salary and that of professors and sought instead the
application of the Gleeson award. This was rejected by the
Management. Following the failure of local discussions, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 7th October, 1988. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference on the 13th December (earliest suitable
date) and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Galway on the 14th February, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The application of the AP/PO award to the worker's salary
and his consequent exclusion from the Gleeson pay award and
relativity, constitute an alteration in the pay structure and
relativity between his salary and the salary scale of
professors as existing on 31/10/86. Such an alteration
constitutes a deterioration of his then existing salary and
pension expectations and is an unwarranted and inequitable
deterioration in his conditions of employment. The alteration
detracts from his actual and perceived status as a professor
of the College.
2. The associate professor position carries a single point
salary with no incremental scale. It falls therefore to be
determined how is is to be treated with respect to relativity
schemes affecting incremental scales. There is for instance,
no corresponding point on the statutory lecturer grade to
which it corresponds. The associate professor salary lies
entirely outside the statutory lecturer salary scale. It is,
however, clearly within the salary scale of professors and can
be directly related to their salary. Since 1981 and
continuing until October, 1986 it represented a point
approximately 55% up the professorial scale. Adjustments
arising out of alterations in pay scales could be applied to
the associate professor by reference to the appropriate
adjustments in the professorial scale. The salary scale of
professors is, therefore, the natural and logical comparator
and benchmark for the single salary point of the associate
professor. To treat the single point as a scale maximum is
not correct, it could just as properly be considered as a
minimum point. In logic it is a point within the professorial
scale. On salary grounds alone it cannot be contended that
the associate professor was ever anything else but a post
(however special) within the professorial scale. It was
never, nor was it ever meant to be, a full incremental staff
grade separate from the professorial rank.
3. The associate professor post is a post within the
professorial structure of U.C.G. as can be seen below:-
(a) It carries the title professor.
(b) Associate professors are full statutory members of the
Academic Council in which they rank equally with
professors. Only professors can be members of the
Council as of right. It is the members of the Council
who manage, jointly, the curriculum of the College.
(c) On retirement, associate professors are eligible with
other professors for appointment as emeritus professors;
this privilege does not attach to non-professorial posts.
(d) Associate professors rank equally with professors in
computing the statutory complement of university
professors necessary for valid graduation ceremonies of
N.U.I. This distinguishes them from non-professorial
posts.
(e) In the only U.C.G. statute providing for rotating
departmental Headship, associate professors rank equally
with professors for appointment (as Head of the
Department of Physics). Other non-professorial staff
within the department are not eligible for headship as
the professors and associate professors are.
4. It is contended from these examples that with regard to
function, status and privileges, the associate professor is
rightly a post securely within the professorial structure of
U.C.G. The associate professor post cannot rightly be
considered separate from the professorial grade. While it is
not claimed that their salaries should be identical, it is
clear that the scale attaching to the one is the appropriate
comparator in considering the single point of the other. To
treat the associate professor post as something other than a
post within the professorial structure is to misinterpret its
position within the staff structure and functional
characteristics of U.C.G. In determining how the single
salary point of the post is to be properly accommodated in
relativity schemes devised for salary scales, the proper and
correct course is to consider it as a post lying within the
professorial scale and to apply to it whatever relativity
scheme applies to the professorial scale.
5. Prior to U.C.G.'s action the claimant enjoyed a salary
relativity with professors which has endured unaltered since
June, 1981 and he could anticipate future salary and pension
adjustments linked to changes in the salary of professors.
This treatment of the associate professors' salary with that
of professors underpinned the status and perception of the
associate professor post both within U.C.G. and in comparison
with University and quasi University posts elsewhere. Salary
relativities underlie many job comparisons and job status
perceptions. To alter the relativity so that the claimant no
longer enjoys a salary treated in the same scheme as
professors but treated instead with that of lower paid
non-professorial grades in U.C.G. is a serious deterioration
in the perception of his role and function as a professor and
represents a real threat to his future salary and pension
expectations.
6. The post of associate professor is one awarded for
outstanding merit and is above the career grade of U.C.G. (the
post of statutory lecturer is the career grade in the
College). At no stage has the claimant acceded to or even
been given an opportunity to express a view on U.C.G.'s
change in his salary and its relativity with professors. The
alteration is an unjust and unfair alteration in his
relativity with serious effect on the perception of his status
and function in the academic community. He has opposed this
alteration since 1986 and he now requests the Court to
recommend on his position.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No direct percentage relativity was ever established
between the grades in question. While some regard might have
been had at the outset to the professorial scale in the sense
that the stipend for associate professors was fixed close to
the first increment of that scale, no established link ever
applied either then or subsequently. In this context, it is
worth noting that direct percentage links with particular
grades do exist within the U.C.G. structure. For example,
medical professors have always had their salary fixed by
precise reference to the general professorial scale (50% of
the maximum point) and medical lecturers have had their
salaries fixed by precise percentage reference to the medical
professors (details supplied to the Court).
2. The relationship between college grades and those
operating in the Civil Service has been the subject of much
disagreement in the past and the Labour Court has considered
the question on at least five occasions. All of the cases in
question concerned the application of increases awarded to
civil service grades to comparable grades in the universities.
This included the application of the Devlin increases to
comparable university staff. All of the claims in question
were upheld by the Labour Court. The link thus established
has been maintained since the last Labour Court involvement in
1981. The cases in question make it clear that increases
awarded at EO/HEO, AP/PO and Devlin increases should be
applied to the relevant university academic grades, i.e.
Junior Lecturers, Statutory Lecturers, Associate Professors
and Professors. This has, in fact, happened since 1981 and
arguably beforehand.
3. In 1986, the AP/PO grades were the subject of a special
pay award of 17% to be introduced on a phased basis with
effect from 1.12.86. In line with previous practice, the
trade unions representing academic staff sought implementation
of the increase on the basis of the AP/PO relativity (details
supplied to the Court). On receipt of the claims in question,
U.C.G. applied the designated increases in line with
established practice. At the time, 1.12.1986, the rates of
pay for associate professor and professor at U.C.G. were:
Professor : #22,879 - (7) - #28,470
Associate Professor: #25,931
Thus, having regard to the scope of the AP/PO award, an
increase of 17% was awarded to associate professors. The
claimant refused to accept the increase which, as a result,
was not paid to him. All other persons in the same category
(associate professors and associate secretaries - 12 - in all)
accepted the increase.
4. It might be argued that since U.C.G. uniquely in the
N.U.I. structure, has fixed the stipend for associate
professors as a single point, the associate professors are
disadvantaged when compared with U.C.D./U.C.C. where a scale
operates for the associate professors grade. It must be
noted, however, that the maximum points of the scales in
question are below #28,470 so the AP/PO award rather than the
Gleeson award has been applied.
RECOMMENDATION
5. Having considered the arguments made, the Court is satisfied
that, as originally established, the salary of the post of
associate professor was set at a point within the salary scale of
professor so reflecting the status and privileges attached to the
grade.
Whilst accepting that the fixed salary did not bear a fixed
relativity to any particular point on the professorial scale, the
Court accepts the claimant's case that the exclusion from the
system of professorial salary awards, simply by virtue of a
cut-off point chosen by extraneous considerations, is unfair and
has a potentially detrimental effect in his role and status in the
future.
The Court therefore recommends that the worker's claim be
conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
16th March, 1989.
D.H./J.C. Deputy Chairman