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 - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Grading
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between University College Dublin (UCD) and the Trade Union in relation to a re-grading and pay parity claim for Principal Technical Officers employed by the University.
The Union is seeking that its members be aligned to Chief 1 Technical Officers employed by a comparator University on the basis that the duties performed by the two groups are similar but the comparative rates of pay are much higer. Management's position is that this claim initially sought to establish a pay differential between the two existing grades of Principal Technical Officer and Section Head in UCD and has, over time, become a claim for re-grading/pay parity. Management accept that there is some merit in the claim but not to the extent of a re-grading in line with the comparators on the basis that there is a significant difference between the duties of the two groups.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 26th April 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Given the responsibility and reporting structure of the Principal Technical Officers in UCD, a higher rate of pay should be paid in line with the appropriate comparators.
2 The job profiles of the Principal Technical Officer and the Chief 1 Technical Officer are identical. It is unacceptable that Management have refused to accept and apply the appropriate grade, pay rates and retrospection.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The duties performed by the Principal Technical Officers in UCD are not equal to those of the Chief 1 Technical Officers. There is a significant difference between the duties performed by the comparator grade. On that basis it is not appropriate to re-grade the workers in this case.
2 Concession of this claim would create a link between Universities that did not previously exist. It has already been accepted by the Trade Unions that common technical pay scales would not apply in the University Sector.
3 Management offered an additional two increments to meet the requirement of the Union's original claim. This is in line with the public sector arrangements for the extension of payscales and implementation of pay differentials between grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends that the College modify its offer as follows:
Salary Scale
The College should offer and the Union should accept an additional third increment to the value of €1,667.
Effective Date
The offer should have retrospective effect to 1st January 2005.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th Sept 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.