FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has submitted a claim for loss of earnings on the basis that her post should have been upgraded some years ago. She claims that there has been an erosion of differential with her colleagues in U.C.D and that she has been substantially underpaid in comparison to her counterparts in other colleges.
Management rejects the worker's claim and states that her job was evaluated under the agreed "Job Evaluation Scheme" for the college and was found to be properly graded. This decision was upheld following an appeal by the claimant.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court, on the 15th May, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court. The Court carried out its investigation on the 12th October, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker ccommenced temporary part-time work in the College in 1971. In March 1972 the worker was appointed Senior Executive Assistant and reached the top of her scale in 1976. She remained there for the remainder of her twenty-eight years with the College.
2. The Administrative and Secretarial Staff Association was formed in the 1970s. From this a promotional system was introduced for secretarial staff. As a result, Faculty Secretaries were automatically up-graded to the post of Administrative Officer. The worker lost out in this regrading process.
3. The student numbers at the college increased substantially and this expanded the duties the worker had to deal with. Furthermore, in 1990, the worker's responsibilities were further increased when a new Student Residence was built on campus.
4. The worker's salary was significantly lower by comparison with others in similar positions.
5. The worker's position was analysed by the IPC and she was informed verbally that her post would qualify for upgrading.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is for loss of earnings when if fact it is a claim for regrading which has already been evaluated under the Job Evaluation Scheme and the claim rejected again after appeal.
2. The claimant's pay differential with her colleagues on the same grade has not been eroded as she has progressed through the proper scale and has had national pay increases applied as appropriate.
3. The worker accepted the 5.5% application of Clause 2(iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) in full and final settlement of all productivity claims.
4. Concession of the claim is cost increasing and is outside the terms of the current national agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to both the oral and written submissions made by both sides. The employee was placed on a point on the scale, which reflected her experience, thereby bringing her to the maximum point of the scale within a short number of years. Following which, the employee's duties expanded thereby giving an impression that she should be regraded.
The Court is satisfied that the employee's duties were assessed as part of the Job Evaluation Scheme and that she had the right of appeal, which she exercised. These were the agreed mechanisms within the college for evaluating jobs and were accepted as such by the employee. There are no mechanisms for regrading outside of the appeals structure other than her right to refer her case to a third party for investigation.
Having examined all aspects of the case, the Court is satisfied that despite the excellent effort which the worker obviously put into her work which is acknowledged by the college, there is no reason to consider that her job was incorrectly graded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24 October, 2000______________________
LW/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.