FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - AND - THREE SENIOR OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Restoration of salary relativity.
BACKGROUND:
2. A claim has been submitted on behalf of three senior officers of the University of Limerick for the maintenance, on a personal basis, of their existing agreed salary arrangements. In 1995, the remuneration level of two of the officers of the University (Registrar and Director of Finance and Physical development) was at professorial level. In that year the claimants sought to have their terms of contract adjusted to bring them into line with their counterparts in University College Cork and the National University of Ireland, Galway, whose remuneration level was professorial salary plus 10%.
In September, 1999, an additional position was established - Vice President Academic. The remuneration set for this post was similar to the terms applicable to the other two officers - professorial salary plus 10%.
Resulting from the recommendation of the Buckley Report No. 38, the Higher Education Authority authorised the University to apply the special increase of 14.8% to the professorial salary scales. This increase was applicable to the claimants. In Buckley Report No. 39, a revised salary structure was set out for Senior Officers. It is argued, on behalf of the claimants, that the revised structure is applicable to new appointees to Senior Officer positions and does not override the existing terms of employment under which the present Senior Officers serve.
Management rejected this argument. It states that the claimants agreed to their inclusion in the review by the Review Body. As part of a group representing Registrars, Secretaries and Bursars they participated in that review and, as outlined in Report No. 39, they made submissions to the Review Body, including the presentation of oral evidence. Management claims that it is unacceptable that the claimants should now attempt to overturn the recommendation of the Review Body.
As the parties failed to agree, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in January, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th May, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The cost of implementing the claim in respect of the claimants is estimated at €15,000 in a full year.
2. It is clear that the remuneration of the existing Senior Officers is clearly and contractually based on the Professorial salary scale plus 10%.
3. In the application of the Buckley Reports, four out of six other Universities have continued to honour existing agreed arrangements for their Senior Officers. These Universities recognise that the existing agreed arrangements take precedence over the Buckley Report No. 39.
4. The Review Body set up to determine remuneration has as its primary role the determination of salaries, but the claimants argue that any such review body cannot overturn existing agreed arrangements. Any such changes in salary recommended by the Review Body can only apply to new incumbents to those positions.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The position of both the Ministers for Education and Science and Finance is that there is no basis for changing the salary levels of the posts concerned which result from the recommendation of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector and the decision of the Government to accept and implement those recommendations.
2. In the case of the claimants and equivalent posts in N.U.I. Galway, Dublin City University and N.U.I. Maynooth the Review Body recommended a revised salary which, in this case entailed an increase of 10.3%. The Review Body concluded that a higher salary was appropriate in the case of Registrar, Secretary and Bursar posts in TCD, UCD and UCC.
3. It would be totally inappropriate to concede this claim and thus interfere with the recommendation of the Review Body which carried out an exhaustive and independent examination of the posts covered by its terms of reference.
4. Concession of the claim would also have serious implications for the coherent pay structure for senior public service posts arising from the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Review Body in Report No. 38 and 39.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submission of both sides. The three senior officers of the university sought the maintenance on a personal basis of their existing agreed salary arrangements of professorial salaries plus 10%. This relativity has been altered as a result of implementation of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, Report No. 39 (Buckley report No.39).
The Court was given evidence of Professor R's contract when he was appointed as Vice President of Academics whereby it was agreed to pay him a non-pensionable allowance, equal to 10% of his current salary. It was confirmed for the benefit of the Court that the claim in relation to Professor R is for the retention of this allowance. The Court is of the view that the allowance was not covered by the terms of the Buckley Report No. 39 and, therefore, the Court recommends that it should be paid in accordance with the terms of his contract.
In relation to the claim by the two remaining senior officers the Court notes that their salary levels were determined by Buckley Report No.39 in the full knowledge of their pay relationship with professors,vizparagraph 4.4. The Court also notes that they participated in the review process itself.
4.4 The current salaries of Registrars, Secretaries and Bursars are based on professorial salary or professorial salary plus a percentage, which varies from 10% to 13%. As in the case of other groups we were not constrained by the existing pay relationships in arriving at our conclusions on appropriate salary levels. While we accept that the salaries of Registrars, Secretaries and Bursars should be above professorial level, we consider that the internal relativity between these posts and heads of universities should also be taken into account.
The Court is of the view that paragraph 4.4 is clear; the review body in Report No. 38 recommended an increase of 14.8% in Assistant Secretary salaries ( the grade to which professors have a direct relationship with ) and Report No. 39 recommended an increase of 10.3% in Registrars, Secretaries and Bursars salaries. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the relativities which existed prior to the report are no longer sustainable and the Court is not satisfied that there are grounds for the retention on an individual basis of the previously established relativity.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th June, 2003______________________
LW/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.