Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91327 Case Number: LCR13380 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN (N.C.A.D.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for pay parity on behalf of six (6) Heads of Departments with Head of Department in Thomond College.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions recommends that:
1. the claim in respect of Heads of Faculty be formalised
and the parties have direct discussions in respect of the
merits of such claim.
2. The parties arrange for a survey to be carried out with a
view to establishing the merits or demerits of the claims
being put forward.
3. The outcome of the survey be the subject of negotiation
between the parties in accordance with the provisions of
the Agreement on Pay and Conditions between the I.C.T.U.
and Employer Organisations.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91327 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13380
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN (N.C.A.D.)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for pay parity on behalf of six (6) Heads of Departments
with Head of Department in Thomond College.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1984 the College's pay scales were linked to those of
Thomond College. When the alignment took place there was no Head
of Faculty grade in Thomond. Heads of Department in Thomond
College were on either the Lecturer or Senior Lecturer scale. It
was agreed at that time that the Senior Lecturer scale (9 points)
should be applied to Heads of Faculty in N.C.A.D. and that the
first 7 points of the scale should be applied to the College's
Heads of Departments.
3. In March, 1990, the Union lodged a claim for parity on behalf
of the College's Heads of Departments with Head of Department in
Thomond College who had recently been upgraded i.e. on full Senior
Lecturer salary scale. The Union is also pursuing, separately, a
claim for an increase in basic rates, on behalf of Heads of
Faculty. The College rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court in July,
1990. Conciliation conferences were held on 20th July, 1990 and
14th March, 1991. At the conciliation conference the Industrial
Relations Officer (I.R.O.) put forward a suggestion that a work
survey be carried out to establish if there is a similarity
between the work of the Heads of Departments of both Colleges.
The suggestion was subsequently rejected by the Higher Education
Authority (H.E.A.) and the Department of Education.
4. As no agreement was possible the parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 22nd July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As parity already exists between Assistant Lecturer and
Lecturer grades with corresponding grades in Thomond, it is
logical that Heads of Departments should enjoy similar parity.
2. The anomaly which now exists arose because when the
present structures were put in place, there was no Head of
Faculty or equivalent grade in Thomond. The College's Head of
Faculty was equated to Thomond College's Senior Lecturer
scale. In order to have a differential between the Head of
Department scale and the Head of Faculty scale, the Head of
Department scale was set at the first seven (7) points of the
Head of Faculty scale.
3. The duties and responsibilities of the Heads of
Departments have increased over the years as a result of an
increase in the number of students and the up-grading of
courses at the College.
4. The Union would accept the I.R.O.'s suggestion that a work
survey be carried out.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It was agreed in 1984 between the College, the Union, and
the Departments of Education and the Public Service following
a conciliation conference, that the Head of Department scale
would be £600 greater than the Lecturer scale. This amount
was considered insufficient and it was subsequently increased
to £900.00. The College considers this agreement as binding.
Concession of the Union's claim would interfere with this
agreement and lead to repercussive claims.
2. The present pay scales are a result of agreement between
the parties. There have been no changes which would justify
the renegotiation of the agreement at this stage.
3. The claim falls to be dealt with in accordance with the
agreement on pay and conditions which forms part of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions recommends that:
1. the claim in respect of Heads of Faculty be formalised
and the parties have direct discussions in respect of the
merits of such claim.
2. The parties arrange for a survey to be carried out with a
view to establishing the merits or demerits of the claims
being put forward.
3. The outcome of the survey be the subject of negotiation
between the parties in accordance with the provisions of
the Agreement on Pay and Conditions between the I.C.T.U.
and Employer Organisations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
16th August, 1991. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.