FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 744/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two workers - senior technicians in the civil engineering department - who, the Union claims, should benefit from a 10% salary increase awarded for obtaining higher qualifications.
A scheme has existed in the University for a number of years whereby senior technicians, having secured an additional qualification over and above that giving eligibility to senior grade, may apply for a 10% salary increase. Over time, the level of qualification became a matter of debate between the parties, and in 1989 the scheme was referred to an independent assessor for review. The assessor's report from 1990 for a new scheme was accepted by both sides. Part of the report stated that the qualifications should be relevant and also that senior technicians considering such a course should obtain formal approval.
The two workers have submitted as a basis for the 10% award a BA qualification begun in 1988 and completed in 1992. Both workers took mathematics as one of their subjects and it is this mathematics element on which the claim is based.
The examining body charged with assessing whether qualifications merit the 10% award is the University's Technical Staff Advisory Group (Group). In June, 1994, the Group decided in both the present cases that the BA degrees were not sufficiently relevant. A second review, at the request of the Union, had the same result.
In June, 1996, the Union again made a claim on behalf of the two workers, but the claim was refuted by the College. The Union referred the claim to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the College concedes the Union claim
in this instance with effect from an agreed date."
The College appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of August, 1998, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both workers applied in 1993 for the 10% salary award but had actually started their courses in 1988 when the rules of the old scheme (i.e. pre 1990) applied to them. The BA qualifications they received were sufficient under the old scheme to merit the award. It was the only scheme available to them at the time.
2. Senior management in civil engineering has supported the case of the two workers (the Union supplied copies of a number of letters from management). Previous applications for the 10% award based on similar qualifications were successful. Of 32 candidates who applied, only five were refused and these five appealed and subsequently won their cases. There will be no knock-on effect if the two workers receive the award.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the terms of the new scheme from 1990, qualification for the 10% award has to be relevant and appropriate, and be of a scientific or technical nature. In the view of the Group which examined the two cases in 1994, the BA degree including the mathematics component was not sufficiently relevant. A further thorough review of the case reaffirmed the Group's decision.
2. The need to submit a course for approval had been outlined to the Union in 1987 in a letter dealing with the 10% award scheme. In the case of the two workers, the courses they had undertaken were completed before the Group was approached. The workers could not have had any expectation of entitlement to the award.
DECISION:
It is accepted by both parties that under the new agreement reached in 1990"appeals to a third party may be based only on an observance of procedures and fairness in the application of those procedures".
The Union argues that the claimants fall outside the procedure as they had commenced their studies before this agreement came into operation and followed the rules as they were applied at the time.
The University argues that they are covered by the new agreement and, therefore, the Rights Commissioner cannot adjudicate on their claim.
The Court, having considered the arguments made, is of the view that the claimants come under the old system.
The Court recommends that the merits of the case be referred to an agreed third party for adjudication as in the old system.
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal and decides that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be amended as above.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th October, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.