FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COUNTY CORK VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (REPRESENTED BY PEARSE SREENAN B.L., INSTRUCTED BY MICHAEL POWELL, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Various issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to various aspects of his terms and conditions of employment. The Worker is currently employed as a Teacher by County Cork Vocational Education Committee (VEC). On the 11th October, 2010 the Worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th May, 2012.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Claimant has been employed by Co Cork VEC as a Teacher of Music and Art since 2001. In his reference to the Court he detailed four areas of complaint.
- •Change by the VEC to the status of the County Cork School of Music from "Scheme" to "Post Primary School."
•Changes in the rules to qualifications for existing Music Teachers.
•Changes in the rates of pay.
•Cessation of travel expenses.
In his submissions to the Court the Claimant addressed a number of matters in addition to those mentioned above, many of which were not within the remit of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, including seeking a referral to the CJEU. A number of claims referred were collective in nature and the Court outlined that it was not possible to deal with collective issues when only one Claimant had referred the claims before the Court. It was agreed that the following issues were before the Court:-
- (i)Change by the VEC to the status of the County Cork School of Music from "Scheme" to "Post Primary School."
(ii)Payment on the appropriate point of the incremental scale and arrears of pay.
(iii)Payment of Travel Expenses.
(iv)Pension Entitlement.
- Change by the VEC to the status of the County Cork School of Music from "Scheme" to "Post Primary School."
The Claimant requested the Court to determine that the legal status of the County Cork School of Music (CCSM) has not changed from that of a “Scheme” to a “Post-Primary School”.
The Employer stated that the County Cork VEC did not change the status of the County Cork School of Music (CCSM)as claimed. It stated that it was advised in August 2009 that CCSM fell within the post-primary sector having sought clarification from the Department of Education and Skills on the matter. This was by way of establishing the correct qualifications to advise the Claimant on. It did not say that the status of the School had been changed nor has any such change occurred.
By way of background the Employer referred to the fact that the Claimant had brought a series of complaints against the Respondent before a Rights Commissioner arising from his employment, including a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 Act. The latter claim was finally resolved in the Claimant's favour on appeal to this Court under Determination No. FTD0818. The Claimant had sought enforcement of Determination FTD0818 by making a reference to the Circuit Court where Judge Con Murphy found that the Respondent had complied with same. The Claimant sought to judicially review this decision but withdrew his application at hearing before the High Court.
The Employer stated that the status of the School issue was dealt with extensively in the hearings before Judge Murphy in the Circuit Court and accordingly was not appropriate to a claim before the Labour Court.
The Court notes that this was dealt with by Judge Murphy and accordingly it would not be appropriate for the Court to make a Recommendation on this issue.
- Payment on the appropriate point of the incremental scale and arrears of pay.
The Claimant submitted that he had suffered a reduction of over €10,000 gross per annum in income as a result of a unilateral change to his rate of pay imposed by the Employer in September 2009 when his status changed from that of a part-time unqualified status to one where he was placed on the qualified teachers’ incremental scale at point one. He claimed that he should be placed on the teachers' basic scale at the appropriate point taking into account his qualifications and his prior EU and Irish teaching service.
The Employer stated that changes to the Claimant’s rates of pay were made arising from the Labour Court Determination FTD0818. The Claimant was put on point one of the Common Basic Scale which is the appropriate point for unqualified teachers as (at that time) qualified teachers commenced at point two of the scale. The Claimant’s hourly rate of pay included 22% holiday pay and therefore it could not continue to be paid throughout the year as it would have the effect of paying him twice for holiday periods and place his income at above that of a qualified teacher. The Employer stated that there was no reduction in salary and in fact there was an increase of approximately €900 gross in annual salary.
The Employer stated that changes to the Claimant’s rate of pay and changes in the rules to qualifications for existing Music Teachers were dealt extensively at the hearings before Judge Murphy in the Circuit Court and accordingly were not appropriate to a claim before the Labour Court.
The Court notes that this was dealt with by Judge Murphy and accordingly it would not be appropriate for the Court to make a Recommendation on this issue. Furthermore, the Court notes that the issue of facilitation with further training was before Judge Murphy and accordingly does not make any Recommendation on this issue.
However, the Court is of the view that while the issue of recognition for the Claimant’s prior UK teaching service was an issue before Judge Murphy, the Court recommends that the Employer should write to the Claimant to clarify this issue and, in particular, the Employer should address this question taking account of the following Department of Education and Skills Circular Letters:-
- •Circular Letter 0029/2007 –“Scheme for the Award of Incremental Credit to Teachers at School Level” and
- •Circular Letter 0029/2010 –“Amendments to Scheme for the Award of Incremental Credit to Registered Teachers at School Level”
Payment of Travel Expenses
The Claimant submitted that he should be entitled to receive travel expenses as he is required to teach at more than one centre. He stated that the Employer’s cessation of such payments was a fundamental change of his terms and conditions of employment. He stated that since the inception of “the Scheme” Music Teachers were reimbursed travel expenses from their main centre (or their home if the distance is shorter) to their subsidiary teaching centres. He referred to existing Department of Education and Skills Circulars which confirm an entitlement of such Teachers to receive travel expenses.
The Employer stated that no travel expenses have been paid to comparable Teachers in CCSM since October 2008 in response to budgetary guidelines received from the Department of Education and Skills. The Claimant is being treated in exactly the same way as all other comparable Teachers in this regard.
The Employer stated that this matter was dealt with extensively in the hearings before Judge Murphy in the Circuit Court relating to the implementation of the Labour Court Determination FTD0818.
The Court notes that this was dealt with by Judge Murphy and accordingly it would not be appropriate for the Court to make a Recommendation on this issue.
- Pension Entitlement
The Claimant referred to Department of Education and Skills Circular Letters 24 and 25/2008 and sought to be included under its terms which provides for back-dating of pensions back to 2001.
The Court notes that the issue of his pension for the period covered under Labour Court Determination FTD0818 i.e. from 26thAugust 2006 was the subject of the Circuit Court proceedings. However, the issue of the Claimant’s pension for the period from 2001 until 25thAugust 2006 has not been clarified. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Employer should write to the Claimant to clarify this issue and, in particular, the Employer should address the issue of whether or not the Claimant is covered by the following Department of Education and Skills Circular Letters:-
- •Circular Letter 0024/2008 – “Credit of service given by persons who are not fully qualified and who are employed by vocational education committees or institutes of technology to teach or lecture”,and
- •Circular Letter 0025/2008 –“Public Service Pension Reform Revised arrangements for certain part-time public servants”.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th July 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.