FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Exclusion from interview.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of two employees who were excluded from interview for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Structured) in the printing area. Under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) Agreement the recruitment at College Teacher, and Lecturer 1 level ceased as from 1st September, 1998. The new academic grading structure was introduced as follows:
Assistant Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer (Structured)
Senior Lecturer 1 (Teaching)
Senior Lecturer (2)
Senior Lecturer (3)
The post of Lecturer (Structured) is a management post in the trades area as Section Head or Assistant Section Head. It carries an annual allowance. The two claimants, who are employed in permanent wholetime academic posts, applied for the post of Lecturer ( Structured) and were interviewed in June, 2002.The post was readvertised and when the two employees reapplied for the post Management informed them that they were not eligible as they did not possess the appropriate academic qualifications. This was rejected by the Union which claims that both through custom and practice and collective agreements the claimants are entitled to be considered for the post. 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 July, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The grade of Lecturer (Structured) is a separate and distinct grade from that of Lecturer. While the requirements for the grade of Lecturer are, as set out in the PCW, an Honours Primary Degree (Second Class or Higher) or equivalent, together with an appropriate post-graduate qualification or equivalent. There is no agreement that this qualification applies to the grade of Lecturer (Structured).
2. Across the Institutes of Technology no requirement has ever been made that a post-graduate qualification be a requirement for a post of Lecturer (Structured). There have been three recent instances of promotions to the grade of Lecturer (Structured), including one in DIT, where this requirement has not been sought at all since the introduction of PCW.
3. There is an agreement with DIT (Institute's Faculty Structures Agreement) specifically that the filling of senior posts in the trades area normally require a trade qualification. A Masters Degree, as demanded by DIT in this instance, is not a trade qualification and is outside of this agreement. This agreement is an ongoing one with the Union and is not a once-off agreement as contended by Management.
4. Both the claimants are well qualified for the post and consequently should be eligible for interview.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PCW Agreement clearly outlines that an appropriate post-graduate qualification or equivalent will normally be an essential requirement for progression to the Lecturer grade. Management does not accept that Lecturer (Structured) is a separate grade. In order to maintain appropriate academic standards all lecturing staff seeking promotion or appointment above Assistant Lecturer level should have a Masters degree by thesis/examination or equivalent qualification.
2. In the Institute's Faculty Structures Agreement it states that (i) existing qualification requirements will apply for any new posts arising from its implementation and (ii) a trade qualification would normally be a requirement for the filling of senior posts in the apprenticeship area. The Institute's position as that this was a once-off arrangement as part of that Agreement. The Institute accepts that it has promoted someone without the necessary post-graduate qualification in the past but this was done in error and will not be done again.
3. The Institute recognises that the apprenticeship area is specialised, and has sought to discuss with the Union a 'basket' of qualifications which would be deemed equivalent in this area. The Institute has agreed to allow access for staff,with only the trade qualification, to its Masters in Education Technology course in order that they can achieve the necessary qualifications for promotion.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view the issue arising for consideration in this case centres on the correct interpretation of the agreement concluded under Clause 2 (iii) A of PCW, in June, 19998 and Agreement on Faculty Structures concluded in November, 2000.
It is noted that in the PCW Agreement the post of Lecturer (Structured) is listed as a separate grade within the new structure which that agreement introduced. It is further noted that in dealing with progression from the grade of Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer, the Agreement provides that "adefined post graduate qualification or equivalent shallnormallybe considered an essential requirement"(emphasis added). This indicates that situations were contemplated in which a postgraduate qualification would not be considered an essential requirement.
The Agreement of 2000 is of further relevance. This provides, in relation to apprentice education, that "a trade qualification would normally be a requirement for the filling of senior posts in the trade area". The post of Lecturer (Structured) is a senior post in the trade area.
The Court has also been referred to the background against which the current dispute arose. Teaching posts in the trade disciplines, including senior posts, in what is now the DIT, have always been filled from amongst qualified crafts persons who possess a trade qualification. Typically this involved attainment to Senior Trades Certificate or above but a primary or postgraduate degree was not required.
Viewed in that perspective the requirement of a postgraduate degree for the post of Lecturer (Structured) constitutes a significant change affecting teachers in trade subjects, which could limit the opportunities available to them for career advancement. Had the DIT intended to depart from the previous practice in the manner now proposed they should have sought to negotiate and agree such a provision in express and unambiguous terms.
Taken in context, the passage from the PCW Agreement quoted above does not, in the Court's view, go far enough to support the management's contention that there are no exceptions to the agreed requirement of a postgraduate qualification for progression from the Assistant Lecturer grade. Moreover, when read in conjunction with the relevant passage from the Faculty Structures Agreement (and having regard to the history of these posts) the wording used in the PCW Agreement gives cogency to the Union's contention that appointment to the post of Lecturer (Structured) is such an exception.
In these circumstances the Court does not consider it reasonable to exclude the claimants from competing for the post of Lecturer (Structured). Accordingly the Court recommends that Management accede to the Union's claim.
Should Management wish to seek changes in the qualifications for progression to the Lecturer (Structured) grade they should be free to do so by utilising normal industrial relations channels.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th September, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.