Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90156 Case Number: LCR12927 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL AND - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the implementation of LCR No. 10554, regarding payments to teachers for "short courses".
Recommendation:
8. The Court is satisfied that the terms of LCR10554 and
subsequent letters of clarification leave no doubt that no
additional qualifications on the payment as claimed were implied
or intended. The Court is also of the view that no further
reasons were elicited on the occasion of this hearing which would
warrant any change in the terms of LCR10554 and the Court
therefore recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90156 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12927
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL AND
HORTICULTURAL COLLEGES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of LCR No. 10554,
regarding payments to teachers for "short courses".
BACKGROUND:
2. There are nine agricultural colleges in the Association, these
are privately owned and managed and are substantially funded by
Teagasc from State Grant and the European Social Fund. In 1986
the Union served a claim on the Association for an increase in
pay, on the basis that the workload of teachers had increased as a
result of the introduction of new short courses. This issue was
subsequently the subject of a Labour Court hearing and the Court's
recommendation was as follows:-
"The Court, is satisfied that the "package" which was the
subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. 5618 took into
account the teaching of short courses, and therefore is
applicable to this claim. The Court however also notes that
both sides acknowledge that short courses have developed to a
greater extent and intensity than could have been envisaged at
the time Labour Court Recommendation No. 5618 was agreed. The
Court accordingly recommends that all teachers the subject of
this claim should receive an annual payment of #300 for
conducting short courses for a minimum of 4 weeks."
(LCR NO. 10554 of 9th June, 1986 refers).
3. On 24th February, 1987 the Union wrote to the Court seeking
clarification and suggesting that the teachers should be paid #75
a week for each week conducting courses. On 23rd March, 1987 the
Court wrote to the Union stating that the recommendation applied
when a teacher had conducted 4 courses (on the basis that these
are normally of one week's duration), that the question of student
contact hours was not relevant and that the Union's suggestion of
a weekly #75 payment was not in accordance with the
recommendation (see Appendix A). On 6th March, 1987 the
Association wrote to the Court seeking clarification on a number
of points. These included, whether the recommendation was in full
and final settlement of all claims relating to any changes now and
in the future provided there was no interference with annual leave
entitlements, and stating that it was its view that for a teacher
to qualify there should be a minimum of twenty hours contact time
per week for the period and that the #300 payment should only
apply to teachers who satisfied this involvement qualification for
four weeks or more, etc. In April, 1987 the Court responded that
the recommendation did not purport to deal with situations of the
future, that pupil contact was not the basis for payment and that
the #300 payment was the maximum envisaged (see Appendix A). On
2nd July, 1987 the Association again wrote to the Court seeking
clarification as to whether the recommendation was in full and
final settlement of any claims related to future changes in the
courses, etc. and whether it was the Court's intention that only
the teacher with overall responsibility for the course would be
entitled to the payment. The Court's response of 13th July, 1987
stated that it could not recommend on future changes which may
take place and that the recommendation covered all teachers who
work a minimum of four weeks in connection with short courses (see
Appendix A).
4. On 5th October, 1987 the Association wrote to the Union and
informed it that as the Minister for Finances's budget statements
of March, 1987 provided that no special increases or improvements
in terms and conditions may be applied in the public service
except for those already approved and provided for in the budget
estimates, approval could not be given for the payment of the
additional allowances for conducting short courses. Following
this there was various correspondence between the parties on the
implementation of the recommendation. On 22nd December, 1988 the
Association wrote to the Union and in relation to the short
courses stated:-
" 1. Short Courses
Teachers are fully compensated for all teaching, short
courses and other work which takes place outside annual
leave periods. Therefore, there is no justification for
additional compensation for any work carried out during
the normal working year. However, the Association accepts
that it cannot prevent the union from processing claims.
The Association's acceptance of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10554 is without precedent or prejudice
to future situations."
5. On 21st April, 1989 the Union wrote to the Association seeking
payment back to the date of claim, i.e. 1986. On 4th July, 1989 a
circular was issued by Teagasc to the principals of each private
agricultural and horticultural college, outlining the basis for
deciding eligibility for the payment of the #300 (see Appendix B).
On 19th July, 1989 the Union wrote to the Association protesting
at the re-introduction of conditions such as minimum hours. On
10th October, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 19th February, 1990. The Union's position is that all teachers
who work a minimum of four weeks in connection with all short
courses should be paid the #300 and all payments should be
retrospective to 1986. The Association's position is that some
minimum criteria must be met (as per the July, 1989 circular)
before the #300 payment would apply. No progress was made at
conciliation and on 20th February, 1990 the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 27th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. After the issue of LCR NO. 10554, the Union made it clear
that the recommendation was acceptable, although a weekly
payment of #75.00 would have been preferred. However, the
Colleges, through the FIE, continued to make the same
arguments that were rejected by the Labour Court
and were attempting to introduce conditions attached to the
payment of the #300 which were never intended. After many
meetings and correspondence the matter appeared to be
resolved, when the Association accepted LCR NO. 10554 without
precedence or prejudice to future situations in a letter of
22nd December, 1988 (details supplied to the Court). However,
in July, 1989 when the circular instructing payment of #300
for short courses was issued, once again minimum hours were
introduced before payment was eligible (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The most recent attempt to frustrate the implementation of
the Labour Court recommendation was the suggestion that the
payment of the #300 only applied to specific short courses.
This again was not part of the recommendation which the Union
believes was fully clarified in the Court's letter of 13th
July, 1987 which stated that the recommendation covers all
teachers who work for a minimum of four weeks in connection
with short courses. The Union accepted LCR NO. 10554 from the
outset, despite requesting a small adjustment and has been
more than patient in continuing to co-operate with short
courses in the intervening period. All payments should be
made retrospective to 1986 and the original Labour Court
recommendation, as clarified by Labour Court letters, should
be implemented to cover all teachers who work a minimum of
four weeks in connection with any short courses.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Court in LCR NO. 10554 stated that it was satisfied
that the package which was the subject of LCR NO. 5618 took
into account the teaching of short courses and was therefore
applicable to this claim. This therefore suggests that at the
time of LCR No. 5618 teachers were being renumerated for short
courses. As a result of the development of the short courses
since LCR No. 5618 the Court recommended a #300 payment for
conducting short courses for a minimum of four weeks. It can
therefore only be deduced that a certain level of involvement
warranted the #300 payment. Management cannot accept the
Union's position that any involvement no matter how small over
the four week period would entitle teachers to #300. If
management were to accept this, one hours involvement would
warrant payment and for a period for which the teachers are
already being recompensed. The period over which these "short
courses" are run excludes the six week annual leave period and
teachers are already paid for this time.
2. Despite the question mark over the logic of the Labour
Court recommendation the Colleges have been prepared to
implement the recommendation and it has been applied in the
Colleges from 1988. Payments before 1988 were excluded as a
result of budgetary restrictions. The word "conducted" was
used both in the Labour Court recommendation and in a letter
of 23rd March, 1987 from the Court to the Union (details
supplied to the Court). Management's criteria outlined in the
circular of 4th July, 1989 are the normal involvement of a
teacher when conducting a course. The criteria outlined are
based on facts gathered from information returned from the
various colleges. These facts are based on a normal workload
and this is the criteria which should be met before payment of
the #300. The Union should accept the application of LCR No.
10554 from 1988 and on the basis of the criteria as outlined
in the 4th July, 1989 circular.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court is satisfied that the terms of LCR10554 and
subsequent letters of clarification leave no doubt that no
additional qualifications on the payment as claimed were implied
or intended. The Court is also of the view that no further
reasons were elicited on the occasion of this hearing which would
warrant any change in the terms of LCR10554 and the Court
therefore recommends concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___22nd___June,____1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX A
COURT'S CLARIFICATION OF 23RD MARCH, 1987
Management side submitted on their written statement to the Court
(Page 3) that the short courses which were the subject of the
dispute "are normally of one week's duration. The Court's
recommendation therefore applies when a teacher has conducted 4
such courses. The question of student contact hours etc. is not
relevant. Your suggestion that they be paid #75 per week for each
week they conduct short courses is not in accordance with the
recommendation as the Court specifically stated that payment would
be due when a minimum of 4 were conducted.
I trust this letter will resolve the problem.
COURT'S CLARIFICATION OF APRIL, 1987
Your letter of 6th March, 1987 refers and the Court wishes to
clarify LCR NO. 10554 as follows:-
The Recommendation is in respect of the specific claim put forward
and does not purport to deal with situations of the future.
Pupil-contact was not the basis on which payment was recommended
and #300 was the maximum payment envisaged.
COURT'S CLARIFICATION OF 13TH JULY, 1987
Your letter of 2nd July and previous correspondence refers. As
already stated the recommendation was in respect of the specific
claim. The Court could not recommend on changes anticipated or
unanticipated which may take place in the future, as it is not in
a position to adjudicate on the effects any such changes might
have on the conditions of work of the employees.
The Court's recommendation covers all teachers who work for a
minimum of 4 weeks in connection with short courses. It is not
the intention of the Court that only one teacher can get credit
for each short course or that only the teacher with "overall
responsibility" for the course qualifies for payment.
APPENDIX B
CIRCULAR OF 4TH JULY, 1989
Re: Implementation of Labour Court Decision No. 10554 on Payment
of #300 to Each Teacher who Works a Minimum of 4 Weeks in
Connection with Short Courses.
It has been agreed that the payment as recommended by the Labour
Court should be made to eligible teachers, for 1988. The
administration and payment of this should be done at college level
as soon as convenient and the amount paid may be recouped from
Teagasc. (Note: the usual deductions in respect of PAYE and PRSI
will apply).
In deciding on eligibility college principals should note that the
average time spent per week by teachers in private colleges in
connection with the one year course is as follows:-
- teaching 15.8 hours;
- work in connection with a farm enterprise 5.0 hours; and,
- other (games, supervision, counselling, etc.) 6.7 hours.
(This is exclusive of preparation time).
Weekly involvement of this order of magnitude on short courses for
an average of 4 weeks is required for a teacher to be eligible.