Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95111 Case Number: LCR14733 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - TWO WORKERS;MR J O'CONNOR |
Claim by the Registrar and Director of Finance and Physical Development Division at the University for a 10% increase in basic pay to give them parity of pay with their equivalent grades in University College Cork (U.C.C.) and University College Galway (U.C.G.).
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties involved.
The Court accepts that the claimants are prevented from pursuing
their case under the P.C.W. and the agreement on Reports Numbers
30 and 35 of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public
Sector.
However, the Court is of the view that good grounds exist to
support the claimants' case and recommends that the parties meet
to agree a solution for implementation on completion of the P.C.W.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95111 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14733
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
AND
TWO WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Registrar and Director of Finance and Physical
Development Division at the University for a 10% increase in
basic pay to give them parity of pay with their equivalent
grades in University College Cork (U.C.C.) and University
College Galway (U.C.G.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In June 1989, the University was established as an
independent statutory University. It employs 654
workers and had 6,155 students in 1994. The Registrar
and Director of Finance and Physical Development
Division are the two most senior officers in the
University reporting directly to the President. The
officers are paid on the professorial scale and are
seeking a 10% increase in basic pay to bring their
salary scales up to that of the holders of equivalent
posts in U.C.C. and U.C.G. The differential of 10% came
about because of a Labour Court Recommendation in 1981.
2. In December 1991, the claim was formally raised with the
Finance Committee of the Higher Education Authority
(H.E.A.) in the course of the University's annual
budgetary meeting with the Authority. The claim was not
addressed and it was raised on a number of occasions in
the following years (details supplied). In December
1994, the officers sought a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. On the instructions of the H.E.A., the
University declined to attend. It refused to consider
the claim until the findings of the Working Group on
University Management and Staffing Levels is published.
3. On 31st January, 1995, the claim was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute
in Limerick on 15th March, 1995.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The principle of parity between the University of
Limerick and U.C.C. and U.C.G. has been well
established. In the case of professorial salary scales,
parity between the University and U.C.C. and U.C.G. was
conceded with effect from 1989 when the University was
granted independent University status.
2. The officers are aware that the H.E.A. has a working
group in place examining the whole question of
University structures. It is not the function of the
working group to determine salary levels. The working
group has not indicated any time-frame for the issue of
its report and it is unreasonable that the officers'
claim has not been considered on its merits as a matter
of urgency.
3. The anomaly dates from 1989 and the issue should have
been addressed when parity with the professors in U.C.C.
and U.C.G. was awarded to professors of the University.
Because the anomaly dates from 1989, it is contended
that the provisions of the Programme Econmic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.) and Programme for Competitiveness
and Work (P.C.W.) do not apply as the anomaly predates
these agreements. The concession of the claim could not
have major repercussive effects.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The University is not in a position to process the
officers' claim under the terms of the P.C.W.. Since
the establishment of the University in 1989, the
officers have benefited from 3 special pay awards
(details supplied). The claimants have benefited
significantly and over and above any grade in the
University Sector. Any further increase over and above
the terms of the P.C.W. to the highest paid grade in the
University would be a recipe for unlimited industrial
relations problems.
2. While the merit or otherwise of the basis of the claim
is an issue which would be easily established through
independent assessments, the fundamental issue to be
addressed is how the claim can be adjudicated on in the
context of the P.C.W. without the results of the Working
Group on University Management and Staffing Levels being
available. The University is bound by the terms of the
P.C.W. and it is inappropriate that ad hoc settlements
be concluded before the findings of the Working Group
are published.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties involved.
The Court accepts that the claimants are prevented from pursuing
their case under the P.C.W. and the agreement on Reports Numbers
30 and 35 of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public
Sector.
However, the Court is of the view that good grounds exist to
support the claimants' case and recommends that the parties meet
to agree a solution for implementation on completion of the P.C.W.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.