Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93437 Case Number: LCR14231 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CHURCH OF IRELAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (C.I.C.E.) - and - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS |
Claim by the Union on behalf of the Head of Education, for the application of Senior Lecturer (S.L. 9) scale to that post.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the arguments and information submitted the
Court is of the view that the Union claim should not be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14231
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CHURCH OF IRELAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (C.I.C.E.)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
and
IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of the Head of Education, for the
application of Senior Lecturer (S.L. 9) scale to that post.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Head of Education Department in the C.I.C.E. is graded at
the Senior Lecturer 7 scale. The Union's claim, which was
submitted in February, 1990, is for the upgrading of the post to
S.L. 9 (an extra two increments) on the basis of the
responsibilities of the post and internal/external comparisons.
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 29th January, 1993. As no agreement was reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st July, 1993 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th October,
1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The level of responsibilities of Head of the Education
Department are greater than those of other departments. As
well as the lecturing commitment, the duties of the post
include: the planning supervising and ongoing development of
all teaching practice, drafting up of the calendar, the
composition of time tables, the drawing up of student
assignment schedules, assisting with student registrations and
other administration duties of a College-wide nature allocated
by the Principal.
2. The Union is prepared to agree a similar compromise as was
arrived at in relation to the Head of English Department i.e.
regrading of the claimant to S.L. 9 on a personalised basis
without prejudice to the position of a future post holder.
3. Concession of the claim involves only an award of two
increments to the top of an existing scale and would not place
a financial burden on the College.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The C.I.C.E. is the smallest of the Colleges of Education
and each department has only one full-time staff member i.e.
Head of Department. The Heads of Education in other Colleges
have greater management responsibilities (details supplied to
the Court).
2. Management accepts that the claimant has specific
administrative and organisational duties in relation to
teaching practice. However, all Heads of Departments have
responsibilities in relation to supervision and assessment of
students on teaching practice. The claimant has a 5 hour
lecturing commitment per week while other Heads have 7/9 hours
each per week.
3. In comparison with the education departments in other
colleges it should be noted that in the case of C.I.C.E. the
subjects of Psychology, Sociology, History of Education,
Philosophy and some aspects of the curriculum are covered by
T.C.D. and not by the Education Department as in the other
Colleges.
4. Management has examined the claim in detail and compared
the duties and responsibilities of the claimant with the
duties and responsibilities of other Heads of Departments.
There is no difference in the overall level of duties which
would warrant the granting of the S.L. 9 scale over other
colleagues in C.I.C.E.
5. If the claim were conceded it would fall to be implemented
in accordance with the terms of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the arguments and information submitted the
Court is of the view that the Union claim should not be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-----------
27th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.