Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89738 Case Number: LCR12865 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY - and - IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION |
Claim on behalf of an Associate Professor of Pathology for an increase in remuneration.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made by the parties, both at the hearing and subsequently. The
Court notes the historical background to the manner in which
relevant salary rates in U.C.G. were established and the changes
which have occurred in the medical faculty over the last number of
years.
Taking all aspects of the case into account, the Court is
satisfied that the level of the claimant's remuneration is not
unreasonable.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89738 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12865
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of an Associate Professor of Pathology for an
increase in remuneration.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant was appointed Associate Professor of Pathology in
June, 1986, on promotion from being a lecturer in
Medical Jurisprudence/Forensic Medicine. This part-time post was
established by Statute in 1985. At the time this post was created
the previous Associate Professorship of Pathology (established in
1971 but never filled) was abolished under Statute, along with the
vacant Associate Professorship of Medicine. The College's
Governing Body, after due consideration, decided that the salary
for the new post should be #6,000 (the claimant had been in
receipt of #4,606 as a lecturer). In December, 1986, the claimant
wrote to the Registrar of the College, indicating that the stipend
paid to him was less than that paid to most of the part-time
lecturers and, in the case of Pathology, less than that paid to
lecturers. In the absence of any developments, the IMO wrote to
the College Registrar in February, 1989, requesting that the
anomaly in the payment structure be rectified. On the 4th May,
1989, the Academic Secretary wrote to the IMO stating that "the
academic staffing committee of the governing body, having
carefully considered the matter, regrets that it is unable to
accede to your Organisation's request." On the 4th July, 1989 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference in Galway on the 19th October
(earliest suitable date) failed to resolve the dispute and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute in Galway on
the 14th February, 1990 (earliest suitable date).
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant is involved in the teaching of systemic
pathology to third year medical students. This includes
taking about one-third of the formal lectures in Pathology and
about 50% of the seminars on practical classes. He is also
involved with counselling the students during the year and has
a group of about 12 students allotted to him during that time.
He monitors this group and ensures that they are keeping up
with the course and if they are not progressing
satisfactorily, he endeavours to ascertain the reasons why
this is so. He is also involved in post-mortem teaching to
students, particularly at weekends and he shares the
examination duties in May and June with other colleagues. He
also shares duties with the extern examiner for third medical
part one when oral examinations are being taken. Furthermore,
he also shares in the formal lectures, practicals and seminars
given to the second medical students in the introductory
course in Pathology during the third (Trinity) term.
2. He is totally responsible for the course in Forensic
Medicine/Medical Jurisprudence which is taken by the fourth
year medical students in the first terms with the university
examinations (third medical part 11). This course involves
from 12 to 20 lectures on diverse but important topics ranging
from medical negligence to poisoning. He is responsible for
setting the examination and correcting papers with the extern
examiner. In addition, he regularly gives post-graduate
lectures to the Non-Consultant Hospital Doctors in the
hospital studying for higher degrees, including doctors from
abroad taking the Master of Medical Science Degree. He
encourages young doctors in training in the Department to get
involved in research projects and to publish interesting and
unusual cases.
3. The following rates of pay apply to the professorial and
associate professorial post as per statutes of 1971, 1983,
1984 and 1985.
Professor Associate Professor
1971 Statute # 2,200 # 2,000
1983 Statute #12,617 #10,346
1984 Statute #13,027 #10,682
1985 Statute #14,235 # 6,180
The position of Associate Professor was not filled until June,
1986 when the claimant was appointed to the post.
3. 4. There are two lecturers in Pathology who are in receipt of
remuneration in excess of that paid to the claimant. The
following are the comparable rates of pay:-
Lecturer Associate Professor
May, 1986 # 9,965 #6,180
Jan, 1987 #10,164 #6,304
May, 1987 #10,367 #6,340
5. As Associate Professor in Pathology, he is paid less than
the lecturers. This is anomalous as the grading structure for
the post is as follows:-
1. Professor
2. Associate Professor
3. Lecturer
The salary of the part-time Clinical Professors (Surgery,
Medicine, Psychiatry, Pathology, Bacteriology) is half that of
a full-time professorial salary. The salary of the part-time
Associate Professor in Pathology should be half of the salary
of the full-time Associate Professor. This would retain the
link which is in existence between full-time professors and
part-time professors.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Lectureship in Pathology salaries adduced for
comparison were based, within a specific context of total
remuneration, on external factors and disadvantages which have
long since ceased to apply - namely the prohibition on private
practice for those Lecturers in Pathology. Any vacancy
occurring therein will only be filled at a salary well below
the current one. In a period of transition, an anomaly case
cannot properly be based on the weakest link in the chain.
2. On promotion, the claimant received a salary raise of
30.3%, compared with the raise of 14.3% paid to full-time
colleagues promoted to Associate Professorship. His promotion
was affected only after strenuous representations by the
College on his behalf with the due authorities. The agreement
of those authorities was obtained on a specific undertaking by
the College that there would be no further subsequent pay
repercussions.
4. 3. The claimant's existing salary of #8,344 is generous when
compared with rates pertaining elsewhere: in UCD an Associate
Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology carries a salary of
#5,261 and an Associate Professorship of Paediatrics, #5,131.
In UCC an Associate Professorship of Medical Biochemistry has
a rate of #5,047. On the other hand the salary of the
Lectureships in Pathology in UCG (#13,455) is grossly out of
line with rates elsewhere, where salaries range from #8,650 to
#4,400. Two such posts in UCD carry a salary of #9,912 -
#13,998 (nett) but 50% of their time must, by Statute, be
devoted to teaching duties (as compared with a limit of 25%
imposed by the Western Health Board in the case of UCG).
4. The comparison of part-time Associate Professorships with
part-time Professorships on the same basis as full-time
Associate Professorships with full-time Professorships is
inadmissible, given the very significant administrative
responsibilities of the part-time Professor as Head of
Department. The Associate Professorship carries no such
responsibilities.
5. The post of Associate Professor was accepted by the
claimant on the terms and conditions offered in 1986.
Acceptance of the post involved no substantial changes in his
duties or responsibilities.
6. Concession of this claim would have serious repercussions
for the present salary structure and for the future. To
accept that there is any merit in the claim would be to accept
as the norm for Lectureships, a uniquely high salary rate
determined in a previous era, by reference to external
considerations which no longer apply. This would have the
effect of setting a new salary bench mark for whole time
Consultants employed by the College as part-time Lecturers,
which:-
(a) would, in absolute and relative terms, be grossly
inflated, based as it is on remuneration structures
which have long since been abandoned;
(b) would mark a major departure from the principle of total
remuneration in the Public Sector, by disregarding the
current enjoyment of private practice income, prohibited
at the time those salaries were determined;
(c) would create new anomalies viz-a-viz at least three
existing full Professors and six part-time Lecturers in
the College;
(d) would widen the existing anomalies with other Colleges;
(e) would entrench the College's already anomalously high
cost structure in the Medical Faculty, by eliminating
the possibility for further movement towards a realistic
pay structure.