Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91312 Case Number: AD9168 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION |
An appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (BC82/91 concerning promotional pay for a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was appropriate to the circumstances and should
stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91312 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6891
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
(BC82/91 concerning promotional pay for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker has been employed in the computer centre of the
College since 1st July, 1986. On 17th April, 1990, following
a competition, the worker was offered the position of
"systems' programmer" in the computer centre. The worker was
offered the 2nd point on the scale and has, as yet, not signed
his letter of appointment.
2. Prior to the offer of appointment as a systems'
programmer, the worker was employed as an "advisor". As an
advisor he was on the same scale (first point) as the systems'
programmer. The worker was offered two increments (i.e. 3rd
point). The Director of the College's computing services
recommended to the College that worker be offered the 3rd
point. The final offer as approved by the College Secretary,
was the 2nd point.
3. The worker was not satisfied with the offer and has not
accepted the position. When no resolution was possible
locally, the dispute was the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's hearing on 3rd May, 1991. The recommendation
as set out below was issued on 20th May, 1991:
"In the light of the above I do not believe that the
College Authorities have acted unfairly with regard to
the questions of salary scale in the case of the worker
and I recommend accordingly."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
4. The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
Union by letter dated 7th June, 1991 under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 25th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was assigned since June, 1989 to the position
of advisor in the computer centre. As advisor he was paid on
the 1st point of the systems' programmer scale. The advisor
works at the level of computer packages while the systems
programmer works at the level of the computer itself. The
level of responsibility is therefore higher. On being offered
promotion, the worker was informed by the Director of
Computing Services that two increments would be offered. This
was acceptable to the worker. The offer in any case was of
one increment. This was approved by the College Secretary,
whom the College argue is the only officer vested with
responsibility to make offers. The Union dispute this and is
aware of two workers who were offered increments by the
Director because one complained and the other threatened to
leave.
2. The worker is assigned as a systems' programmer for all
VAX computers and for student computing services. This is the
largest workload of a systems' programmer in the College. In
comparison to the previous assignment as an advisor, the new
position is one of more immediate pressure and working long
hours on many occasions is a requirement of the job. The
promotion to systems' programmer should be recognised as such
and the commitment entered into by the Director should be
honoured by a further incremental point.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Starting pay policy is vested with the College Secretary.
The Head of a Department can make a recommendation but it is
understood that the Secretary can approve a placing lower than
that recommended. In addition to the worker, the Director of
computing services submitted 3 offer requests as set out
below:
Director's Recommendation Approved Offer
1. 5th point 3rd point
2. 3rd point 2nd point
3. 3rd point 2nd point
2. The College's policy in the setting of a salary for
promotion of an existing staff member is to place them on the
same salary or move them up a maximum of 1 point on the new
scale. The worker, as an existing employee, received the most
favourable treatment in accordance with the practice of the
College and there is no question of his being treated
unfairly.
3. The worker has accepted that the College's Secretary has
the final authority on the question of starting pay. This was
acknowledged in his letter to the Personnel Officer of 30th
November, 1990. The issue has been discussed locally and the
worker has not availed of the internal appeals system.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was appropriate to the circumstances and should
stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
16th August, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.