FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Union is on behalf of 12 Senior Experimental Officers (SEO) to be regraded as Senior Scientific Officers (SSO), which is on the Administrative 1 scale. The claim was first made in 1993. (The Union supplied examples of the SEO's work under the headings - academic, research and administration.)
The grades of SEO and Experimental Officer (EO) were established in Trinity College in 1973. It was not until the 17th of October, 1997, that a meeting took place between the parties. The College maintained that it could only make a pay offer within the terms of Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW, which would give a 5.5% increase at maximum. At the meeting on the 17th of October, 1997, the College made the following offer:
0.67% with effect from (WEF) the 1st of June, 1995
0.67% WEF the 1st of June, 1996 and;
0.66% WEF the 1st of June 1997.
It also offered the granting of 2 additional increments at the top of the SEO scale, equivalent to the 3rd and 4th point on the Administrative I scale. Access to the latter would only apply to 3 SEOs. (At present 2 SEOs receive an off-scale allowance of £2,600 per annum.)
The Union rejected the offer, claiming that not only should the 3rd and 4th points be available to all SEOs, but that the 5th and 6th (maximum) points should be available as well, to create a new scale for a new grade. The current relevant scales are as follows:
SEO - £25,949 to £32,979 (7 point scale),
Administrative I Grade (SSO) - £25,193 to £40,726 (6 point scale)
A review group had been set-up in 1995 to examine the SEO's claim. A questionnaire was sent to each SEO in June, 1996, and a memorandum was submitted by the SEOs in February, 1997. The review group completed its report in October, 1997, but the contents were not made known to the SEOs. The Union wrote to the College seeking an improvement of its offer of the 17th of October, 1997. The Union had also been pursuing a claim on behalf of the SEOs to maintain their traditional pay relationship with Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLTs). The College's position was that it would pay the MLT claim in return for a number of management objectives, provided there was no further cost-increasing claim by the Union. The College claims that the Union agreed that it would be bound by the PCW and Partnership 2000. The MLT award was paid in February, 1999.
As no progress was made, the issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission in February, 1998. A conciliation conference took place on the 4th of February, 1999. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of October, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the past 26 years, the role of SEO has changed dramatically in response to the unprecedented growth in student numbers and research activity in departments. SEOs in the College are now typically qualified to Phd. level.
2. Advertisement of an EO job issued by the College stated that "candidates should be qualified to doctorate level or equivalent". SEOs who came up through the technician ranks have generally found it necessary to acquire doctoral qualifications in order to fulfil the functions of the position.
3. The salary scale for SEOs at present is considerably lower than that for academic or administrative groups in the College, and lower than lesser or equivalent grades elsewhere. The salary range is also seriously out of line with that which obtains for EOs in Teagasc and Enterprise Ireland (details supplied to the Court).
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The review group, which completed its report in 1997, found that the group of workers concerned was not a homogenous one. The duties, roles and functions of each SEO differed in many respects. There were no clear patterns which would suggest a change in the grading structure. The College is currently paying an administrative allowance of £2,702 per annum to 2 SEOs who are undertaking administrative duties.
2. The work of the SEOs conformed to the responsibilities of an EO as set out in the generalised job description (details supplied to the Court).
3. The College made it clear at all times that any increase in salary could only take place within the terms of Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW. The offer made by the College was rejected by the Union.
4. The application of the MLT award to the SEOs has resulted in a narrowing of the gap between the Administrative I (SSO) scale and the SEO scale by £1,329, or from 30.5% to 23%. This will have a serious impact on the College's unit cost position vis-�-vis other universities. The MLT award is the financial limit of what the College can offer the SEOs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both parties made comprehensive written and oral submissions to the Court.
It is clear that there are a number of issues involved in the background to this claim, including additional responsibilities taken on by the senior scientific officer grade, and the fact that all of the senior scientific officers have been on the top of their scales, some for a significant period of time.
The Court notes the University arguments that any agreement reached has to be in the context of various pay agreements, but it is also conscious that the employer has indicated a willingness to explore with the Union ways and means of addressing the issues giving concern to the group.
It is clear to the Court that, for a number of reasons, discussions have been quite limited on this claim, and options that might be available have not been discussed.
The Court, having considered all of the background to this particular claim, recommends that the Union accepts the employer's invitation to enter into discussion on this claim, with a view to trying to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
16th November, 1999.______________________
CON/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.