FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : DUNDALK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFIDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TEACHERS' UNION OF IRELAND) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Grievance re: Salary Scale
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Union on behalf of a Worker and Dundalk Institute of Technology concerning the calculation of incremental credit. On the 26th March 2012, the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th August 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker has sought to have her salary scale increment point adjusted upwards since her appointment. The position was advertised in the national press in April 2008 and following a competitive interview process the Worker was offered the position. She took the position believing she would be on a similar salary to that of her previous employment. However, in March 2009 the Institute changed the goalposts and only positioned her on point two of the salary scale.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The advertisement of April 2008 set out the minimum requirements for the post and stated that candidates for an Assistant Lecturer post must hold a minimum of an Honours Degree or equivalent and three years’ relevant postgraduate experience. The Claimant did not have the relevant degree in the field, multimedia, but had a Masters Degree in it which enabled her to be short-listed. The candidates were short-listed using the minimum requirements and the goalposts were not changed by the Institute. The Department of Education Circular said that incremental credit "may be awarded" and was designed to give the Institute latitude in hiring a person from a highly paid role in the private sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union on behalf of an employee and Dundalk Institute of Technology (the Institute) relating to the calculation of incremental credit and the operation of the Department of Education and Skills Circular Letter IT 01/05. The Union submitted that on her appointment in September 2008 to the post of Assistant Lecturer – Multimedia, the Claimant was incorrectly assimilated onto the Assistant Lecturer scale. The Claimant was placed on point 2 of the scale. The Union submitted that she should have been placed on a higher point as follows:-
- (a)if her five years’ postgraduate experience post the minimum requirement was taken into account she should as a minimum have been placed on point 6 of the scale in accordance with Section 3(a) of the Circular; or
(b)if those five years’ experience had been fully taken into account along with her previous salary she should have been placed on point 8 of the scale in accordance with Section 3(b) of the Circular.
The Union sought the application of point 7 of the Assistant Lecturer scale with effect from September 2008 and appropriate retrospection.
Circular Letter IT 01/05 states
Credit for Relevant Experience:
- (a)In determining starting salary, incremental credit, up to a maximum of five increments (i.e. the sixth point of the scale), may be awarded where the appointee has relevant experience over and above the minimum required for appointment. No more than one increment may be awarded for each year of such experience. However, in the case of lecturing experience in an equivalent post (i.e. a post at the same grade or higher in a recognised third-level institution), credit shall be given for the full number of years’ satisfactory service over and above the minimum required for appointment in a recognised third-level institution as a lecturer.
- In the case of other teaching experience, credit may be given depending on its relevance to the post in question. The level of credit is to be determined by the Institute.
- (b) In exceptional circumstances, where an appointee to a post has more than five years relevant experience over and above the minimum required for appointment and where the application of the above would result in less than current salary* being achieved, s/he may enter the scale at a point higher than the sixth point, at the discretion of the Institute. Similarly, no more than one increment may be awarded for each year of such experience.
- Current Salary* being the certified/verified annual gross remuneration (including pension contributions) immediately prior to appointment, taking account of BIK and other perquisites as declared to the Revenue Commissioners.
The advertisement for the post of ‘Assistant Lecturer –Multimedia’ was advertised along with a number of other positions in April 2008. The advertisement provided general details in respect of a number of academic posts. It stated that candidates for an Assistant Lecturer post must hold a minimum of an Honours Degree or equivalent and three years’ relevant postgraduate experience. The job specification of the Assistant Lecturer – Multimedia position provided full details of the post and stated that“Candidates must hold a minimum of an appropriate honours degree and ideally a postgraduate qualification of at least Masters level in Multimedia and with at least three years’ post qualification experience”.
The Union submitted that the Claimant’s primary degree, BA Hons in French, Political Science and Sociology in 1998, compared very favourably with the requirements for the post in issue and it submitted to the Court a ‘mapping exercise’ showing the comparability of the subjects the Claimant studied for her BA degree and the subjects she was required to teach in her role as Assistant Lecturer – Multimedia. It submitted to the Court that the Institute had ‘moved the goalposts’ when it failed to recognise her primary degree after the appointment had been made. It submitted that the Institute has originally stipulated a requirement for an “Honours Degree” (as advertised) but was now stating that it was her qualifications as an M. Sc. in Multimedia Systems which qualified her for the role.
The Institute denied the latter point and stated that the Claimant’s primary degree did not meet the standard required for qualification for the post and it was due to the direct relevance of her Masters qualification, which she attained in 2004, that she was considered suitable for the post.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that the advertisement provided generic details on the qualifications for the various posts advertised on the day, however, the specific requirements for each post were outlined in the job specifications. The job specification for the post of Assistant Lecturer – Multimedia stipulated that“candidates must hold a minimum of an appropriate honours degree ……”.
The Court is satisfied that in applying Circular Letter IT 01/05 it should not be necessary for the Institute to forensically examine the qualifications to ascertain whether or not they meet the desired criteria and accordingly it was reasonable for the Institute to conclude that the primary degree held by the Claimant did not come within the parameter of an “appropriate” degree. On that basis the Court is satisfied that the Institute correctly applied Circular Letter IT 01/05 to the Claimant on her appointment to the Assistant Lecturer role in September 2008. Therefore, the Court does not find in favour of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th September 2012______________________
CRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.