FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - FORMER PRIVATE COLLEGE LECTURERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute in relation to grading of former Private College Lecturers
BACKGROUND:
2. Five private agricultural and horticultural colleges which include St. Patrick's College, Co. Monaghan, Franciscan College of Agriculture, Co Westmeath, An Grianan College of Horticulture, Co. Louth, Rockwell Agriculture College Co. Tipperary and Warrenstown Agricultural College, Co. Meath closed. Seventeen staff from these colleges transferred into Teagasc Advisory and Training Service at various points in time between January 2000 and February 2004 and took with them on a "personal-to-holder" basis, their existing salaries. The point at which each remaining member of this group, currently twelve, are to be assimilated into the Teagasc pay scales is at the centre of this dispute.
On the 21st January 2008, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union shortly afterwards requested that the hearing be put on hold as discussions between the parties were reopened with a view to resolving the matter, however these discussions were unsuccessful and on the 4th February, 2009 the Union again requested a Labour Court hearing.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2009.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both Unions contend that the 11 Assistant Lecturers with long service increment should be assimilated to the 2nd LSI of the Grade 2 scale and that the remaining member of that group be assimilated to the 1st LSI of the Grade 2 scale.
2. The Claimants have had to reduce their terms and conditions to align themselves with Teagasc terms and conditions yet in terms of pay they have been kept on lower pay scales.
3. These anomalies should be eliminated forthwith, as Management, as far back as 2004 have given a commitment to do so. This unique historical claim can not be considered as a cost increasing claim under Towards 2016.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A condition of staff who redeploy into Teagasc is that their existing pay is honoured, regardless of this Teagasc has offered to assimilate the group onto Advisory Grade 2 salary scale with effect from 1st April, 2007.
2. It is unfair that a group of staff should be parachuted into Advisory Grade 2 level ahead of other staff members who have competed with the Claimants and placed higher than them in the competition for this position.
3. Teagasc is firmly of the opinion that concession of this claim would have serious financial repercussions for the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that in their original claim the Unions sought assimilation using the normal process used in the public sector. The Court is satisfied that the method of assimilation proposed by the Employer accords with that normally used in the public sector.
It is also noted that the claim was made in October 2004 and that the Employer responded positively to that claim in November of that year. In these circumstances the Court believes that an earlier date than that proposed by the Employer is warranted.
Having regard to all relevant considerations the Court recommends that the operative date for the assimilation be modified to 1st April 2006 and that this be accepted by the Unions in full and final settlement of their claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th May, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.