FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Promotion structure
BACKGROUND:
2. The Royal Irish Academy (the RIA) is a public service institution funded almost entirely by the Higher Education Authority (HEA)/Department of Education and Science. It operates a library of national significance and undertakes research projects in the areas of sciences and humanities. It currently employs 104 staff. The Union's case is that there is no promotional/upgrading system in place in the RIA and that the current payscales are highly anomalous. The Union's claim is as follows:
"The introduction of a transparent promotional system available to all employees, closely based mutatis mutandis on that operating with HEA approval in UCD.
IFUT is prepared to negotiate with the RIA to agree precise details of such a scheme, but we believe it should comprise four grades or scales, as applies in UCD, with the highest scales being associated with that of a Professor.
The system, as in UCD, shall provide for a regular round of promotions based on agreed, objective, non-competitive criteria with external validation if necessary."
The Union claims that it has been seeking the above for approximately 15 years but that the RIA has refused to engage meaningfully with it.
Management for its part has rejected the claim as it does not accept that UCD is the proper comparator and it also believes that the claim is cost-increasing and, thus, precluded under the terms of T2016.
In July, 2003, the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) published a Report called an"Organisation and Staffing Review of the Royal Irish Academy".Both parties have relied on the Report to support their cases.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the case was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd February, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no promotional/upgrading in place in the RIA. This makes it unique amongst bodies under the aegis of the HEA.
2. Pay scales in the RIA are very low. (The Union supplied examples to the Court). The highest point that employees can aspire to is that of Lecturer. Other Higher Education Institutions have Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor grades on top of that.
3. Some members whose salary is linked to UCD have less increments than apply in UCD.
RIA'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The RIA salary scale are linked to UCD academics for pay relativities purposes only.
2. There is no automatic promotion in the Academy. The RIA believes that the promotion system proposed by the Union is related to UCDacademic/teachingstaff. Terms and conditions in UCD cannot be mirrored in the RIA by virtue of the scale and mission of both institutions.
3. The knock-on effect of conceding the claim would be very significant and could not be sustained by the RIA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to it by the parties and having read the IPA Organisation & Staffing review of the R.I.A., dated July 2003, the Court notes that in its report the IPA refers at Paragraph 31 to a Strategic Review of the role of Academies in 2002. An important recommendation of the Strategic Review Steering Committee was that the RIA would commission a thorough independent review of its staffing requirements and of the appropriate grades, qualifications and working arrangements required to achieve its goals.
The IPA report, in its conclusion at Paragraph 5, refers to the comprehensive nature of the Strategic Review and its investigations and analysis.
The Court is satisfied that there has been sufficient analysis and investigation and recommends that the parties should re-engage as a matter of urgency and should proceed to implement those recommendations within the report which affect the staff represented in this case by IFUT. If no agreement is reached within three months the case may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th May, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.