Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93438 Case Number: LCR14242 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COLLEGES OF EDUCATION - and - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS |
Claim by the Union on behalf of three (3) Heads of Education for the application of the Principal Lecturer (P.L.) Scale 8 to those posts.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has also taken into account the events which led up to the Union
submitting the claim. These included the details surrounding
Labour Court Recommendation No. 10606 and the relevant references
made by the parties to Report No. 33 of the Review Body on Higher
Remuneration in the Public Sector.
Following this examination the Court is of the view that the
"vacating" of the 8th point of the P. L. Scale by the President is
not of itself a valid reason for extending the 7 point scale as
recommended in LCR10606 to 8 points.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93438 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14242
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: COLLEGES OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
and
IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of three (3) Heads of Education
for the application of the Principal Lecturer (P.L.) Scale 8 to
those posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Heads of Education are on the Principal Lecturer (P.L.)
salary scale Point 7. The scale has 8 Points. In 1986 the Labour
Court recommended that Points 1.7 of the P.L. scale be applied to
the Heads of Education at St. Patrick's College Drumcondra, Our
Lady of Mercy College, Carysfort (now redeployed to U.C.D.) and
Mary Immaculate College Limerick (L.C.R. 10606 refers). At that
time the Presidents of the Colleges were on the maximum Point 8 of
the scale. Following a recommendation from the Review Body on
Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector (Gleeson, Report 33) the
Presidents vacated the P.L. scale. In 1990 the Union submitted a
claim for the application of Point 8 of the P.L. scale to the
workers concerned. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on the 12th March, 1992 and 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 the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim presented at the Labour Court Hearing in
1986 was for payment of the full P.L. salary scale (8 points)
but it accepted at the time of issue of L.C.R. 10606 that only
7 points could be expected as the 8th point was being used
to remunerate the Presidents of the Colleges. The Union's
claim is now justified since the Presidents have 'vacated' the
scale.
2. The Gleeson Report, in so far as it may refer to changes
in salaries below those of Presidents only occurring through
horizontal relativity connections with appropriate grades in
the civil service, is not challenged by the Union. The
adjustment now claimed is a once-off rectification of a
particular irregularity and will not give rise to repercussive
claims. The Union accepts that in the future all special
movements in the scale for Heads of Education will relate only
to the Principal Lecturer Scale elsewhere.
3. Concession of the claim involves only awarding one
increment to the top of the existing scale to three employees
and will not place a financial burden on the Colleges.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. L.C.R. 10606 recommended that the application of the P.L.
scale to the Heads of Education in the three Colleges should
be conceded subject to the application of points 1 to 7 of the
scale.
2. The Gleeson Report stated that the rates recommended for
the Presidents of the Colleges "should not give rise to any
increases in the remuneration of any other posts in the
Colleges...."
3. The fact that the Presidents have "vacated" the 8th point
of the P.L. scale is not a valid basis for awarding a pay
increase to the claimants. Concession of the claim would have
significant repercussive effects in the third-level education
sector generally, particularly Regional Technical Colleges.
4. If the claim were conceded it would fall to be implemented
in accordance with the terms of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has also taken into account the events which led up to the Union
submitting the claim. These included the details surrounding
Labour Court Recommendation No. 10606 and the relevant references
made by the parties to Report No. 33 of the Review Body on Higher
Remuneration in the Public Sector.
Following this examination the Court is of the view that the
"vacating" of the 8th point of the P. L. Scale by the President is
not of itself a valid reason for extending the 7 point scale as
recommended in LCR10606 to 8 points.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
9th November, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.