FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI (GALWAY) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Remuneration.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who has been employed at the NUI Galway since 1987. He is an Associate Professor in Pathology and has been Acting Head of the Department of Pathology since 1990. In 1999 the Union negotiated the provision of an allowance of €7618 to the Professor in recognition of the additional duties carried out as Acting Head of Department.The University agreed that the allowance would be added to his salary for the purposes of Superannuation. However, the University subsequently stated that the rules of its Pension Scheme prohibited the allowance from becoming reckonable for pension purposes.The Union claimed that the allowance should be added to the Professor's salary with effect from 1st January, 2000. The University rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission . A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission in September, 2002. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 12th February, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The University's decision not to enable the allowance to be fully pensionable has a significant bearing on the employee's final pensionable salary. In June, 2000 the University indicated its intention to enable the allowance to be fully pensionable. However it then rescinded the decision. The University should endeavour to honour the agreement reached in 2000.
2. The employee has taken on considerable extra responsibility over the past ten years. The Union seeks the addition of the allowance to his basic salary with effect from 1st January, 2000, on a ring fenced basis, thus enabling the final figure to be fully pensionable.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The University did give an undertaking that the allowance could be incorporated into the employee's salary thereby making it pensionable, however Management made this decision without the full knowledge, as it subsequently discovered, that such an allowance could not be incorporated into the basic salary. Were the University to make to make this allowance pensionable it would require a change in the pension scheme and a change in the University's Statutes.
2. The ramifications within the University and the Public Sector would be extensive were the University to concede the claim.
3. The University was willing to explore the possibility of a buy out of the allowance but this was rejected by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having examined the oral and written submissions of both sides, it seems to the Court that management in good faith in June 2000, entered into an agreement to consolidate the allowance of €7,618 into the salary of the claimant and consequently to eliminate the allowance. Subsequently, management realised that their decision to absorb the allowance could not be acted upon for several reasons.
Due to the unique circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the effect of reversing the agreement is so great as to be grossly unfair. Accordingly, in the circumstances the Court recommends that the University should honour its agreement and recognise the adjustment in salary effective from 1st July 2000, especially for superannuation purposes.
The Court recommends that the claimant should in these circumstances agree to carry out his duties in accordance with the requirement of the post for the past 12 years.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st February, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.