FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Various issues with Academic Staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case is that the issue of Staff Workload Models was discussed by the Membership Committee in December, 2006. A meeting on the subject took place with the Staff Office on 29th May, 2007, and the Union left the meeting believing that any changes on the issue would not be "pushed" at local/department level. In September, 2007, the Chair of Geography (the Chair) issued a memo to the Department of Geography suggesting that academic staff should put together research plans for discussions with the Chair and the Head of Discipline and/or Research. The Union believes that this was contrary to the "agreement " of May, 2007. The College's case is that the worker concerned was the only one of eight academics in the Geography Department who refused to comply with the Chair's request. The Union claims that on the 12th October, 2007, the Chair explicitly threatened the worker with disciplinary action. The Union wrote to the College seeking a meeting to discuss the situation and this took place with the Staff Office in November, 2007. A long exchange of correspondence took place between the parties but the issue could not be sorted. The Chair issued the worker with a formal written warning on the 7th April, 2008, and a second warning issued on the 18th April, 2008.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th November, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd January, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is fully compliant with the requirements of his contract, including the obligation to conduct research. He has complied fully with the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) which is the agreed method whereby members of academic staff have their performance evaluated.
2. The worker did not refuse any request but merely asked for a deferral to allow the issue to be dealt with in accordance with agreed norms and procedures.
3. The Union believes that the Chair's behaviour constitutes institutional harassment of a worker whose record of service and compliance with his contract is above reproach.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was the worker's refusal to engage with the Chair(something that was supported by his Union) that is at issue. The College tried on a number of occasions to arrange meetings with the worker and the Union but to no avail.
2, The Union's allegation that the research plan request was in contravention of a 1981 College/Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) agreement or breached a commitment given by the Staff Office in May, 2007, is incorrect.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral arguments in respect of this case makes the following observations and recommendation.
Obviously the issue which gave rise to this dispute concerning a different approach to the conduct of academic research in the Department of Geography became an emotive and highly charged issue for the parties involved and ultimately clouded a more reasonable and realistic response to the issue as it affected the worker.
The Court urges the parties to reflect on the situation which has now arisen as a result of the level of intransigence displayed by the parties thus far and the opposing recommendations sought by the parties.
The Court recommends that the parties proceed as swiftly as possible to reach the required level of understanding and agreement on the new approach to coordinated academic research in all Departments, if they have not already concluded such an agreement.
Furthermore, the warnings issued to the worker, whilst having been felt to have been appropriately issued in the circumstances wherein the request for his individual academic engagement with the Department Head was not complied with on his part, even on an "under protest" basis, should not be actioned further and should be expunged from his employment record as a gesture of goodwill, fairness, and cooperation towards the restoration of good academic relations into the future.
The Court so recommends to both parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19th February, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.