FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member currently employed as a Lecturer in University College Dublin. In 2008, the Claimant entered into a competition for a promotion to the role of Senior Lecturer however his application was unsuccessful and he did not receive the promotion. The Claimant was dissatisfied with this outcome and raised his grievances by means of an internal appeal to the College Committee. The College Committe upheld the decision of non-promotion and the Claimant then subsequently furthered his appeal to the University Committee for Academic Appointments, Tenure and Promotions (UCAATP). UCAATP is the internal body responsible for setting the benchmarks applicable to the role of Senior Lecturer and in this instance, UCAATP set the benchmarks for promotion to Senior Lecturer in the 2008 competition. Its decisions are intended to be final and binding on all parties. UCAATP upheld the decision of the Claimant's non-promotion, finding that the Claimant did not satisfy the required benchmarks in relation to the supervision of PhD students. The Claimant appealed this decision to the UCD Promotions Appeals Committee, known locally as the "Appeals Committee". The Appeals Committee, which does not allow for further appeal to the Labour Court, did not overturn the decision however the matter was referred back to UCAATP for further review. The Employer strongly contends that in all stages of this process the Claimant was fairly treated and was afforded every opportunity in his appeal. The Union disputes this and is seeking the promotion of the Claimant to the Senior Lecturer role.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd February, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Claimant was treated unfairly in the promotion and appeals process.
2. The Employer unilaterally and without notification, altered the benchmarks for promotion after the process had commenced.
3.The Employer failed to investigate the issue in a thorough and complete manner.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was treated in an equitable manner at all times throughout this entire process.
2. Every internal mechanism was exhausted in trying to address the Claimant's grievances.
3. The decision of the Appeals Committee in line with agreed procedures is intended to be binding on all parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
In Appeals Decision AD0844 and in Recommendation 19410 that Court held that the Appeals Committee established to hear appeals from UCAATP is an internal adjudicative body established by a collective agreement between the Universities and the Unions representing academic staff. Under the terms of the agreement by which the Appeals Committee was established its decisions are final and binding. In these circumstances the Court, in both of the previous cases referred to, considered it inappropriate to entertain a claim directed at reopening a matter decided by the Appeals Committee.
The dispute referred to the Court in this case again concerns the outcome of promotion process conducted by the UCAATP and a subsequent appeal to the Appeals Committee. In effect, the Union contends that selection process conducted by the UCAATP, the manner in which the appeal was dealt with by the Appeals Committee, were unfair.
What the Union is now seeking is to reopen the matter which was the subject of the appeal to the Appeals Committee and the Court is being invited, in effect, to recommend a different outcome to that decided upon by the Appeals Committee.
The Appeals Committee was established pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The agreement expressly provided that its decisions are to be final. That can only mean that the decisions of the Committee cannot be further appealed. If the Union’s claim were to succeed the Court would, in reality, have entertained and allowed a further appeal contrary to the express terms of the agreement.
The Court has always taken the view that it should uphold the terms of collective agreements. In this case the agreement provides for finality in the decisions of the Appeals Committee. However, no agreement can be regarded as immutable and if either party wishes to negotiate a change in the terms of that agreement they should do so through the normal industrial relations channels.
Unless and until the agreement is altered by the parties its current terms should continue to apply. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the decision in this case be accepted as final.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th September 2011______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.