FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARLOW INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hours of work and Lecturer Grade 1 (Unqualified) for one Lecturer.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a part time lecturer who has been employed since 1972. In the years 1987-1992 he was employed on an EPT Lecturer (unqualified) 8 hour contract. Under the worker's EPT contract he had an entitlement to pro rata conditions when he had 8 or more teaching hours per week. When the hours dropped below 8, the pro rata status was lost and he was paid an hourly rate. Since 1992 the worker has had various part time teaching contracts of 4 hours per week paid on an hourly basis. The Union has sought the restoration of the 8 hours Lecturer 1 contract. Management offered 7 teaching hours, paid on a pro rata basis, which would provide the claimant with a regular income until retirement. The Union rejected the offer. At a meeting held in May, 2002 the College gave an undertaking that it would endeavour to get 8 teaching hours per week for the claimant for the academic year 2002/2003. For a while the claimant was provided with 8 teaching hours but this could not be sustained.
This was not acceptable to the Union. 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 In March, 2003 in accordance with Section 2691) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Clonmel on the 10th June, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union understood Paragraph 3 of the agreement to mean that once the Institute had provided 8 hours per week for the claimant (which it did), it was then obliged to restore him to his Lecturer 1 post. There was no need for Management to seek sanction from the Department of Education and Science for the post as the claimant had already held the EPT contract from 1987 to 1992 and it was automatically activated once the 8 hours was attained.
2. The claimant is entitled to a contract as per the agreement to a salary of half of the first point of the Lecturer 1 scale which, on 1st September, 2002 stood at €35, 140 p.a. (i.e €17,570) plus the relevant allowances (as para 7.1 of the agreement) together with any increases accruing to this salary in accordance with National Agreements for the duration of the 2002/2003 academic year. He should ,therefore, now receive the difference between this figure and the payments actually received by him to date for the year.
3. The claimant is entitled to retain this level of teaching (8 hours) p.w. and the salary until his retirement in August, 2007.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The claimant's earnings in the academic year 2001-2002 were €4880. The offer of 7 teaching hours meant he would receive a salary of €11,815 per annum.
2. The Institute wrote to the Department of Education and Science seeking approval to provide the claimant with 8 teaching hours EPT(unqualified) contract, and, as is the case with all EPT contracts, to seek to have a post allocation for this sanction. The Department refused to sanction the approval.
3. It is not reasonable to assume that the claimant was entitled to an EPT contract some 10 years after he had previously held this position in the Institute.Management made it clear throughout that the Department would be approached on this matter The Department in its reply is of the same view in that the reply related to the inappropriateness of issuing an EPT contract in these circumstances.
4. The Institute will continue to provide the claimant with suitable teaching hours when these are available and wish to remunerate him on the basis of the pro rata Assistant Lecturer rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the comprehensive written and oral submissions made by both parties.
It is clear that this particular case has resulted in a breakdown in the trust one would normally expect in similar working situations.
It is also clear that major differences exist between the parties in relation to the interpretation of the agreement arrived at in May, 2002.
Having considered all of the issues involved in this case the Court recommends that the Union accepts the management offer, as outlined in its submission to the Court, "to provide the claimant with 7 teaching hours per week". This, management states would provide him with "a regular income until his retirement".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd June, 2003______________________
TOD/BRFinbarr Flood
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.