FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY JOHN CURRAN B.L. AS INSTRUCTED BY JOHN J. MCDONALD SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Regrading
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case concerns the University's decision not to promote the worker to the position of Associate Professor for which he applied in February, 2006. The University has an annual round of Academic Promotions which are decided on merit. His application was rejected by the University Committee on Academic Appointments, Tenure and Promotions (UCAATP) on the 4th July, 2006, and in October, 2006, he appealed the decision to the Appeals Committee. In a letter of March, 2007, the Committee stated:"It is the Appeals Committee view that it was unreasonable for the UCAATP to conclude that you (the worker) had not met the requirements for promotion to Associate Professor on grounds of Research and Scholarship."
(The worker was named in the above statement.)
The Committee sent the decision back to the UCAATP "to revise its decision and its recommendation" but , despite setting up a sub-committee to review the situation UCAATP did not reverse the decision. The worker again applied for promotion in 2007 but the result was the same as the previous year.
The case was eventually referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the dispute could not be sorted it was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st October, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has an exemplary academic record (the Union supplied details to the Court) and is eminently qualified for promotion. There was widespread disbelief in the University (and in wider academic circles) when his application for promotion was turned down.
2. The Appeals Committee was set up as a direct result of LCR18192. One of the rules regarding the Committee and its Terms of Reference states"Decisions of the Appeals Committee in such cases are explicitly and unambiguously said to be binding".Furthermore, the decisions are said to be binding on the University. Therefore it is not possible for UCAATP, which is only a committee of the University, to block the decision of the Appeals
Committee.
3. The University has consistently refused to justify its position or to share the alleged legal advise on which it is relying.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Any claim or dispute that existed between the parties was resolved by way of the appeal that was provided to assist the worker.
2. The worker failed twice in his application for promotion to the position of Associate Professor before UCAATP. The worker appealed after his first application to UCAATP where his case was again considered and again rejected. It was never considered that there would be a further appeal to the Labour Court. The Court has refused to allow such appeals in similar disputes in the past (e.g. UCC v A Worker - AD0844).
3. The Appeals Committee Terms of Reference empowers it to"hear appeals duly made by applicants for promotion in relation to alleged defects in the application of the procedure for promotion". In this case the worker's application was treated fairly and appropriately.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has approached this case by applying the standards of good industrial relations practice. In line with the position it adopted in Appeal Decision AD0844 the Court regards the Appeals Committee as an internal adjudicative body established by the parties themselves to resolve disputes on matters within its remit.
It seems to the Court that within these circumstances good industrial relations practice dictates that the parties should accept the decisions of this body whether or not they are binding in the legal sense.
It is clear that the import of the Appeals Committee's decision in this case was that the Claimant should have been appointed to the post at issue. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the University accept that decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th December, 2008______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.