FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A CLAIMANT (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR O'HAGAN SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Entitlement to an academic contract.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerned a dispute between the claimant and the University regarding his academic consultant contract, plus a claim for retrospection. The claimant is a Consultant Paediatrician attached to the Children's Hospital, Temple Street, and the Rotunda Hospital. He was appointed to the post of Consultant part-time Associate Professor of Paediatrics in 1984. The substantive issue (academic consultant contract with UCD) has been resolved between the parties where the Claimant was informed of the proposed restructuring, through correspondence dated the 18th March, 2005. The only issue now before the Court is the claim for retrospection.
As the claim could not be resolved at local level the claimant's solicitor referred the issue to the Labour Court on the 1st December, 2004 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2005.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 On the retrospection issue the claimant submits that the following matters are of relevance:
- The fact that there has been no review at all of the complainant's top-up payment since 1993;
- The fact that the common contract was introduced in 1994;
- Clause 3.8 of the claimant's common contract, wherein reference is made to the fact that"arrangements (for academic consultants) will apply from the same effective date as applicable as other consultants";
- The acknowledgement by UCD (letters of 7th November, 2002 , 17th September, 2003) of the need to include some retrospective element.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 UCD has approved the restructuring of the claimant's post and is actively engaged in discussions with the other relevant agencies with a view to agreeing the revised structure and jointly seeking approval of the HSE Executive (letter dated 18th March, 2005).
2. UCD do not agree with any claim for retrospection, but in any case believe that retrospection should not go back as far as 1994. They argue that retrospection could only go back to when claim was formalised, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the substantive issue referred to the Court has been resolved between the parties and that the only issue for investigation and recommendation is the claim for retrospection.
Having taken account of all the circumstances of the case the Court has come to the conclusion that this aspect of the case should be resolved by making a lump sum payment to the claimant in lieu of retrospection. Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be paid the sum of €100,000 on the commencement of his new contract provided that this occurs on or before 1st June, 2005. Should the commencement of the contract be delayed beyond that date the lump sum should be increased by a weekly amount equal to the extra payment due under his new contract.
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.