Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91638 Case Number: LCR13594 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 15 technicians concerning permanent status and the implementation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the
parties, oral and written, and recommends as follows:-
(1) Tenure 'B' contracts should apply to all technicians
who have successfully completed 18 months probation.
(2) The salary scales originally fixed in 1986 should be
updated by reference to any standard national increases
applied meanwhile.
(3) In any case in which a technician's up-to-date salary,
following the most recent revision, is below the figure
that would apply on the basis of the application of the
next point on the scale plus Phase 1 of the P.E.S.P. (4%),
the higher figure should be paid with effect from the date
of the most recent review.
(4) Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P. (3%) should be applied
generally with effect from 1st January, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91638 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 15 technicians concerning
permanent status and the implementation of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The technicians concerned are employed by the National
Microelectronics Research Centre (N.M.R.C.) which was
established in 1981 as a semi-autonomous unit of the University.
The technicians perform experiments on the instructions of a
research scientist, test results, write reports and install,
maintain and repair equipment and facilities. All N.M.C.R.
staff fall into one of three categories of tenure.
Tenure 'A': Contract is permanent and pensionable.
Approximately 19 staff are employed under Tenure 'A'
contracts. They are mainly administrative, engineering and
research scientists. Five technicians were appointed to
Tenure 'A' jobs in 1981/82. Technicians have not been
appointed to Tenure 'A' jobs since.
Tenure 'B': Contract is full-time and pensionable. Under
this contract an employee may be employed up to the age of
65. The contract may be subject to 3 months notice on
either side. Approximately 8 staff are employed under
Tenure 'B' contracts, including one technician who was
appointed in 1987. No other technicians have been
appointed to Tenure 'B' since then.
Tenure 'C': Contracts are for a fixed term of one year
with no guarantee of a contract at the end of that year.
Some technicians have been signing these contracts for up
to 6 years.
3. The Union maintains that the policy of using fixed term
contracts denies the staff security of appointment and basic
employment rights. It also allows the University to maintain an
inferior salary structure, which has not been increased since
1986. The Union claims that the technicians on Tenure 'C'
contracts should be awarded contracts under Tenure 'B' and that
the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.) should be applied to current salaries retrospective
to 1st January, 1991. The University has rejected the claim.
As no agreement could be reached locally, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission on 12th June, 1991. Conciliation conferences were
held on 31st July, and 25th October, 1991. During the course of
discussions at conciliation the University indicated that it was
prepared to review the status of technicians after 5 years
(without commitment) and would apply Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P.
(3%) from 1st January, 1992. This proposal was rejected by the
Union and on 29th November 1991, the Commission referred the
dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
matter on 5th February, 1992, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union claims that all staff with one year's
service be appointed to Tenure 'B' contracts. This would
give them security of employment and basic employment
rights. It also allows the University, should funding
require it, to terminate contracts. Staff would enjoy
membership of a pension scheme and would not be constantly
under the threat of not knowing if their contracts would be
renewed.
2. The University has argued that it cannot appoint
people because it is subject to outside funding. This
argument is rejected by the Union as the N.M.R.C. has been
in existence since 1981 and has grown consistently since
then. Tenure 'B' contracts allow for the possibility of
diminished funding. A number of staff already enjoy Tenure
'A' and 'B' contacts, doing work of similar importance as
their Tenure 'C' colleagues who suffer inferior conditions.
3. The University, has created an atmosphere of
intimidation and insecurity by using these contracts as a
mechanism to keep employees under the threat of not having
the contracts renewed or not progressing up the scale
unless performance is satisfactory.
4. The University's offer to review contracts after 5
years service is nothing more than the longest probation
period in the country. One year is more than enough to
assess new staff. By its offer, the University obviously
accepts the principle of appointing staff to Tenure 'B'
contracts. The only cost in conceding this particular
claim relates to the extension of the pension scheme to
cover these employees.
5. The technicians are being paid according to 2 separate
payscales; one for Tenure 'A' and the other for Tenures 'B'
and 'C'. In 1986, a new scale was unilaterally introduced
for technicians employed on a contract basis. The scale
was inferior to that of technicians employed in the
University (as opposed to N.M.R.C.). The introduction of
the scale was not resisted at the time because of the
insecure tenure of the technicians concerned. It was
assumed that the scale would attract the normal annual
adjustments for cost of living increases; however, the
scale has remained constant since then.
6. Whenever a technician worked his way to the top of the
scale a new grade was added on with a new set of
increments. This has led to a situation where the scale
ranges from £5,200 to £19,000 over 25 points compared with
Tenure 'B' scale of £9,656 to £22,405 over 19 points.
Under the old scale a technician progressed up the scale in
a steady manner. In the new system, progression is
performance-related. This progression depends on both the
technician's relationship with his supervisor and the
supervisor's assertiveness in arguing a case for a pay rise
with the N.M.R.C. administration. This assertiveness
factor also influences a technician's starting position and
instances have arisen where a technician with a few years
service finds himself on the same point as a new entrant.
7. Until 1986, all staff were on the same Technician's
Tenure 'A' salary scale which was adjusted in line with
national awards. The University has honoured the P.E.S.P.
for all University staff and for Tenure 'A' technicians in
the N.M.C.R. who have also progressed up their scales with
service as is the norm with salary scales. The fact that
the technicians concerned progressed up the incremental
scale is no justification for not adjusting the scale in
line with nationally agreed awards.
8. The University, by its offer to pay the 2nd Phase of the
P.E.S.P. and there-after to pay national awards, has in
effect conceded that the Union's claim is justified. In
fact the technicians could have claimed that the scale be
adjusted by the national awards since 1986, but chose to
take a more responsible attitude which will result in an
ongoing cumulative loss.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Only 25% of the N.M.R.C.'s funding is from the State
and this is for specific posts. Contract income varies
year to year and dropped by over £1m between 1990 and 1991.
Contract income, which funds most positions, is usually for
a 2-3 year period; however, many projects are reviewed
annually when the decision to continue or abandon is taken.
Given these circumstances a one-year fixed term contract is
the only realistic basis of employment, particularly as
these contracts are used by competitors.
2. Tenure 'B' contracts were introduced to facilitate the
N.M.R.C. and to provide a more secure tenure for key staff.
These contracts have been filled on the basis of
performance and length of service and a number of
technicians have such contracts. It would be inappropriate
to apply this type of employment to all staff given the
nature of the funding and the increased costs involved.
3. The salary increase awarded to each technician
exceeded the percentage increase provided for under the
P.E.S.P. If all the technicians concerned were to progress
up the salary scale by one increment and the salaries
adjusted by the terms of Phase 1 of the P.E.S.P. (4%), the
salary increase would be less than that awarded to
technicians. (Details of individual increases provided to
the Court).
4. The N.M.R.C.'s salary review procedure has resulted
in increases exceeding national awards because of the
significance given to performance as a measure of reward.
The Union is effectively seeking a double payment of Phase
1 of the P.E.S.P. despite the fact that this has already
been awarded as part of each individual's salary review.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the
parties, oral and written, and recommends as follows:-
(1) Tenure 'B' contracts should apply to all technicians
who have successfully completed 18 months probation.
(2) The salary scales originally fixed in 1986 should be
updated by reference to any standard national increases
applied meanwhile.
(3) In any case in which a technician's up-to-date salary,
following the most recent revision, is below the figure
that would apply on the basis of the application of the
next point on the scale plus Phase 1 of the P.E.S.P. (4%),
the higher figure should be paid with effect from the date
of the most recent review.
(4) Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P. (3%) should be applied
generally with effect from 1st January, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
11th March, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Brian O'Neill, Court Secretary.