FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Failure to adhere to procedures in respect of full Professorship Pathways.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the manner in which University College Dublin (UCD) has failed to adhere to procedures in respect of full Professorship Pathways which involves long established best practice and established procedures and guidelines. With regard to academic promotions two elements of this matter leave serious implications and concerns for Academics represented by the Union
- The case of the two individuals who were promoted to Professorship;
- The wider practice of Competitive Tendering.
- The University have increased from four to seven, the number of “pathways” for promotion to Professorship within UCD and amended one of the existing four pathway. In June 2004 the University Governing Council approved a new - Competitive Retention – Pathway (5) –which allows for academic staff in UCD who have been considered for a Professional appointment in a competing 3rd level institution, to apply for Professorship followed under that new pathway. The Union claims that 2 promotions were effected in a covert manner and that Competitive Retention is an unacceptable method of selection for promotion. The Union are seeking its suspension. The University rejects the Union’s claim and that Competitive Retention has been accepted by the Governing Council in 2004 and the two promotions were necessary to retain essential academic staff.
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 18th October, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 It is the Union's belief that the appointments should not have been made in the manner they were. There should be no more appointments in this form. Further appointments must be through the agreed established procedures in line with equality provisions.
2 The University has clear promotion procedures in place, which must be adhered to. The Union got a written guarantee in respect of negotiations to changes in Working Conditions and Terms of Employment in a letter of February 2005. A further letter of 22nd June 2005 gave further assurances under Statute 6.
3. There can be no exclusion of individuals from equal opportunity with the University.
4. The University are seeking to undermine and dilute the Equality Audit Report which they accepted in 2004.
5. The Union maintains that there can be no confidence in a system that allows for the President of UCD to opt out of Equal Opportunities or go a la carte on a major equality audit accepted by the college.
6. No further appointments should be made without fair, open and transparent procedures agreed with Unions.
7. The University should put in place a mechanism to restore confidence and ensure that current staff have not and will not be disadvantaged as a result of these appointments.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The University introduced the Competitive Retention Pathway to place it in a position to be able to respond quickly and proactively to threats of losing key academic staff to competing institutions at a time where it was recognised that not all staff who merited the grade of Associate Professor or Professor would be able to attain that grade due to the quota based nature of the old promotional system.
2. There is a concurrent commitment to introducing procedures for internal promotions to the grade of Associated and full Professor which would be merit based, rather than quota based. This will have the effect that all candidates who meet the criteria for promotion the grade of Professor/Associate Professor will be promoted and such promotion will not be limited by the number of available posts.
3. Procedures in relation to Pathway 4 i.e internal promotions to the grade of Associate Professor and Professor have now been initiated. Detailed procedures have been agreed and published and closing dates for the competitions established.
4. Under the new promotional structure there are greatly enhanced opportunities for promotion to the grade of Professor/Associated Professor.
5. The University is of the view that when the full range of pathways to promotion have been implemented, the need to invoke the Competitive Retention Pathway will be limited to rare and exceptional circumstances. However, the University must have the right in accordance with the decision of the Governing Authority to invoke this procedure when it is under threat of losing staff who are key to the achievements of its strategic goals.
6. Detailed procedures for the Competitive Retention Pathway have also now been agreed and are clear, transparent and subject to meeting merit based criteria similar to those under pathway 4.
7. The University has engaged in consultation with the representative trade unions concerning the Pathway in accordance with earlier practice on matters of academic promotion. The University has never negotiated the promotional structures in the College with other trade unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties concerning the question of Full Professorship Pathways, with particular reference to the Competitive Retention Pathway.
The Court recommends that the parties should now engage meaningfully in order to develop an agreed set of guidelines and procedures covering the Professorship Pathways. These should ensure that the needs of the College to attract and retain high quality senior academic staff are met, while being seen to be fair, open and transparent in operation and in line with the College's policies on equality.
This process should be concluded as early as possible in order not to disadvantage either the College or potential candidates.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th April, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.