FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Salary Structure
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between UCD and SIPTU in relation to the application of an incremental salary strucutre for Small Group Teachers (SGTs) employed by the College to deliver modules to students in both the Quinn and Smurfit Business Schools.
The Union's position is that the SGTs should be remunerated on the same scale as College Lecturer on the basis of the qualifications and skills necessary to teach the modules.
Management reject the claim on the basis that the claimants do not have the same level of qualifications as College Lecturer and further contend that the Union's claim is invalid as no appropriate comparator exists.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subjet of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 22nd September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The group of teachers associated with this claim deliver modules to both Undergraduate and Graduate students in UCD's schools of business. The experience and qualifications required to deliver such modules goes beyond the singular payment per module that each receives. The closest comparator to this group is College Lecturer and it is appropriate that the relevant incremental payscale be applied.
2 It is unacceptable that the teachers in his claim are treated as non-academic staff for paypurposes. It is a requirement of the Universtiy that its staff possess the highest standard of education yet pays a much lesser than acceptable rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The claimants in this case do not possess the same level of qualifications as College Lecturer, and on that basis, the application of that payscale is enitrely inappropriate.
2 The College is operating in an extremely competitive environment and is currently experiencing significant operating losses. The cost of the Union's claim is cost increasing and unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view, the Union's claim could only be properly evaluated by reference to the rate of pay applicable to an appropriate post either internally or externally.
When such a comparable post is identified the actual rate paid in both cases would have to be compared with adjustment for such matters as the hours worked by the claimants relative to those worked bythe comparator.
It is clear that no agreement has been reached on an appropriate comparison/reference point against which the adequacy of the rate at issue could be judged. Nor has any adequate comparison been undertaken on a pro rata basis, of the pay of the claimants relative to any of the suggested comparators.
The Court rercommends that the parties should engage in a process of the type referred to above. In so doing they should be assisted by an Independent facilitator with experience of similar exercises in the Education sector. The process should be completed within a period of three months from the date of this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th December 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.