LCR18164

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/04/1317

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR18164

(CC04/7716)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & SCIENCE

- AND -

TEACHERS' UNION OF IRELAND

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. 1. Upgrading 2. Allowances.

BACKGROUND:

2. The issue before the Court concerns a Union claim to have the Public Service Benchmarking increases applied to certain allowances and for upgrading of a post.

Claim 1. Application of benchmarking awards to two academic management allowances:

Supervision Allowance payable to academic staff in Institutes of Technology.
The Acting-up Allowance payable to academic staff in Institutes of Technology.

The Union's claim is that these allowances should be adjusted upwards to reflect the benchmarking awards.

Claim 2. Claim to upgrade Senior Lecturer (Structured) to Senior Lecturer One (SL1) - Approximately 50 nationwide.

The Union's claim is that the current grade does not reflect recent growth and expansion in apprentice/craft activities in the colleges to the extent that this job should be designated a management grade - SL1.

The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st December, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2005.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3.1Claim 1. Application of benchmarking to allowance:

The Supervisory allowance was introduced in 1998 and was, at that time £1,000 per annum. It has received all pay increases to date excluding the benchmarking increase.

2. There can be no application of custom and practice as the allowances were only introduced in 1998, therefore not in existence in the provision of the last special increase to the grade in question.

3.Claim 2. Claim in respect of Lecturer (Structured):
The supervisory allowance is inadequate and out of line with supervisory differentials in Institutes of Technology.

4. Apprentice numbers have doubled since the PCW agreement (near trebled in 10 years) thus significantly increasing the workload.

5. There are additional demands on the grade, involving in some cases development of courses outside of the trade areas on top of the ever increased demands of lecturing.

6. This claim can not be addressed through the Benchmarking award.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4.1Claim 1. Application of benchmarking to allowance:
There are serious knock on implications if this claim is conceded as the treatment of allowances are based on an equitable and consistent common treatment of allowances across the public service.

2. The treatment of the allowances in this claim is fully in line with the recommendation of the Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body.

3.Claim 2. Claim in respect of Lecturer (Structured):
The current grades and structures for academic staff were agreed as part of a national pay agreement subject to certain cost parameters. The agreement comprehended all existing staff (including staff on the Lecturer 11 Structured scale) and was balloted on and agreed by the Union.

4. The grade of Lecturer II (structured) has benefited from the benchmarking increases awarded by the Public Service Benchmarking Body. The increase of 11% is being applied on a phased basis in line with the provisions of Sustaining Progress.

5. All parties to Sustaining Progress have agreed that the benchmarking process is the appropriate way of determining public service pay rates in future.

RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends as follows:

Application of benchmarking to allowances
The most reliable means of ascertaining what is appropriate in the case of the allowances at issue is by reference to the custom and practice in respect of similar allowances in other public sector employments. On that approach the Court is satisfied that the supervision allowance should be adjusted by reference to the increases provided by the Public Sector Benchmarking Body. However, by application of the same principle the acting-up allowance should not attract that increase.

Claim in respect of Lecturer (Structured)
On the basis of the information provided, it appears to the Court that the duties and responsibilities of this grade have increased since the conclusion of the PCW agreement in 1998. The Court notes that while the substantive grade of College Lecturer is encompassed by the benchmarking process, the grade associated with this claim is not.

The Court recommends that the parties agree to have the post of Lecturer (Structured) evaluated through a job-evaluation exercise releative to the level claimed so as to ascertain whether or not the changes which have taken place since 1998 are such as to justify concession of the Union's claim. Following the completion of that exercise the parties should discuss its outcome. If agreement is not reached the matter may be referred back to the Court.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Duffy
18th April, 2005,`______________________
JBChairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.