FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CARLOW INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY JAMES CODY & SONS, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR239/99/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute concerns an allowance which was paid to a College Lecturer 1 since 1979. The employee has been employed as a lecturer since 1970. In 1999 he submitted a claim to a Rights Commissioner for the restoration of the allowance which he claimed had been discontinued in October, 1998, without consultation. The Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation on the 1st of October, 1999, as follows:-
"On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, I am satisfied the claimant should have been provided with the relevant information and an opportunity to discuss its implications.
I recommend that the allowance be restored pending the outcome of an investigation into its continuance."
The Institute of Technology appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10th of November, 1999, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Carlow on the 11th of May, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee concerned was the only Lecturer 1 in receipt of the 1979 allowance. The allowance was extinguished without notice or consultation. The employee was later informed that it was withdrawn because of new assimilation arrangements under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
2. Discussions were held in June, 1999, without reference to the employee or to his Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI) area representative, at which it was decided that the employee no longer had an entitlement to the allowance.
3. The employee is claiming the full restoration of his allowance. In addition, as he has effectively been promoted to Lecturer 2 from the 31st of August, 1996, he is entitled to an additional long service increment of circa. £2,300, with extra benefits for pension and gratuity entitlements. He is also entitled to apply for Senior Lecturer 1 positions.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW a new lecturer grade was established and existing Lecturer 1 staff were assimilated to the new grade. The employee concerned has been more than adequately compensated for the loss of the previous allowance. He has gained £5,046 more than other colleagues who did not hold the 1979 allowance.
2. The employee's grievance was properly addressed through the agreed process of referral to the National Interpretation Group. The Group is comprised of representatives from Institute Management across the country, the TUI and the Department of Education and Science.
3. The Institute has implemented the Group's decision that the 1979 allowance should be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the employee's starting salary on the new scale, and that this be carried out on more favourable terms than was applied to all other lecturing staff. The Group also advised that the allowance should not be restored.
DECISION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both parties.
This dispute arose as a result of the implementation of proposals on pay and conditions agreed as part of the PCW.
The Court is satisfied that this dispute when raised was dealt with by the agreed process for resolving such disputes.
The Court finds as fact that the Institute implemented the agreement reached by the National Interpretation Group, the appropriate body for addressing this issue.
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal and rejects the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th May, 2000______________________
D.G./B.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.