FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK UNIVERSITY DENTAL SCHOOL & HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was appointed as a Dental Instructor in late 1981. The Union's claim is that he be re-graded as a Grade 1 Lecturer in Dental Technology as the duties he now performs are those of a Lecturer in all but name. The Union also claims that in 1991 Instructors were granted pay parity with Grade 1 Lecturers in Vocational Educational Colleges. The University has rejected the claim, maintaining that there are significant differences between the two grades. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a number of conciliation conferences took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th May, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, !990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1Since his appointment in 1981 the worker's duties as a Dental Instructor have changed dramatically from the original job description. He now fulfils all the job responsibilities, duties and selection criteria relative to the Lecturer post, and this is recognised by all senior staff in the Hospital (the Union supplied a list of the workers duties to the Court).
2. The worker is now the only remaining Dental Instructor in the country of a grade subsumed into a Lecturer post. Therefore, if he were re-graded there would be no knock-on effect.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1Apart from the considerable differences in the duties between the two posts, there are also differences in the required qualifications for them (details supplied to the Court).
2.The Claim is precluded under the terms of the National Agreements as it is cost-increasing. Under the Universities Act, 1997, and under UCC statutes it is not possible to appoint any person to a permanent lecturing position without competition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that in the particular circumstances of this case the role performed by the Claimant should be independently evaluated relative to that performed by an academic lecturer. The parties should agree on the appointment of a suitable person to undertake the evaluation and the terms of reference for the exercise. The parties should then address the outcome of the evaluation.
This recommendation is made having regard to the exceptional circumstances of this case and has no precedent value. In making this recommendation the Court has had regard to the assurances given to it on behalf of the Union that it will not be relied upon to support any consequential claim on behalf of any individual or group.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th November, 2008.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.