Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94261 Case Number: LCR14584 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of three workers in the Finance Department for regrading:- 1. Administrator to senior lecturer. 2. Senior administrative assistant to lecturer. 3. Administrative assistant to lecturer.
Recommendation:
The Court finds the proposals made by the University in good faith
included the workers in this case, and were accepted following a
ballot of the members concerned.
The proposals the Court considers should have been accepted by all
concerned as resolving outstanding issues in accordance with the
normal procedures for the resolution of disputes.
The University, in the view of the Court, had no obligation to
seek to further address the claims of the employees here
concerned. However, the Court notes that such an attempt was made
in an endeavour to amicably resolve the issues.
It is the view of the Court that, given the efforts made, and in
the interests of improving industrial relations, the parties
should accept the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer as
a basis for bringing the matter to finality.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94261 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14584
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of three workers in the Finance Department
for regrading:-
1. Administrator to senior lecturer.
2. Senior administrative assistant to lecturer.
3. Administrative assistant to lecturer.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In August, 1992, the Union presented a claim for the
regrading of the accountant from administrator to senior
lecturer grade. In March 1993, the Union presented a
claim on behalf of secretarial, administrative, computer
and other non-academic support staff, for the
introduction of a new grading structure in line with the
grading structure of the University of Limerick. An
agreement was reached which included ten extra posts.
2. Subsequently, the Union presented the claim for the
three workers in the Finance Department. The claim was
rejected by the University as it claimed that the
previous agreement covered all secretarial and
administrative workers, including the Finance
Department. As part of the previous agreement, the
administrator had been offered an upgrading to lecturer
but this had been rejected.
3. The claims were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 4th
October and 30th November, 1993. The Union sought an
independent evaluation of the posts and provided job
descriptions of the comparator posts in the University
of Limerick. The University rejected the job
descriptions as they were not by the University of
Limerick. It refused to deal with the group outside of
the package, which had been accepted by the
administrative group as a whole.
4. The industrial relations officer proposed that, in view
of the offer already made to the administrator, his post
should be the subject of an independent evaluation. The
claim in relation to the other two posts would be held
in abeyance pending the result of the evaluation. The
proposal was unacceptable to the Union. On the 4th May,
1994 the claims were referred to the Labour Court under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The
Labour Court investigated the dispute on 2nd June 1994,
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Throughout its negotiations on behalf of the secretarial
and administrative staff, the Union made it very clear
that it was going to pursue claims on behalf of the
finance group separately. The University has always had
a relativity for pay purposes with the University of
Limerick. The Union is seeking to maintain this
relativity.
2. The three workers are on grades that are lower than
those of their Limerick counterparts. This arises from
a restructuring of grades which occurred in the
University of Limerick in 1992. The University has
accepted that the administrator's pay scale is out of
line; however, it has not proposed a suitable
realignment with his University of Limerick counterpart.
The other two claimants are similarly out of line with
their counterparts (details supplied).
3. The Union is seeking that the three posts would be
evaluated against their equivalent posts in Limerick.
This evaluation should be done by an independent body
(details supplied). The Union is satisfied that such an
evaluation would establish the merits of its claim.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The organisational structures of the two Universities
are not directly comparable (details supplied). The
director of Finance has total responsibility for the
financial planning and control of all financial matters
for the University. The administrator has specific
responsibility for the accounting system and for the day
to day supervision of the finance office. The
administrator's alleged counterpart is at senior
management level (details supplied). There are no
grounds for a claim for parity.
2. The University's administrative staff, other than the
two other claimants, accepted the outcome of a ballot on
the administrative structure The Union accepted and
supported the finance workers in their non-acceptance of
the ballot result. No justification has been provided
as to why the three workers were not prepared to accept
the majority decision of their colleagues.
3. The Union has not supported its claim with any evidence.
The job descriptions put forward in evidence are not
official. The University is still prepared to offer the
administrator an upgrading to the position of lecturer.
It rejects the cases put forward by the other two
claimants.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds the proposals made by the University in good faith
included the workers in this case, and were accepted following a
ballot of the members concerned.
The proposals the Court considers should have been accepted by all
concerned as resolving outstanding issues in accordance with the
normal procedures for the resolution of disputes.
The University, in the view of the Court, had no obligation to
seek to further address the claims of the employees here
concerned. However, the Court notes that such an attempt was made
in an endeavour to amicably resolve the issues.
It is the view of the Court that, given the efforts made, and in
the interests of improving industrial relations, the parties
should accept the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer as
a basis for bringing the matter to finality.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.