FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCD - AND - IFUT SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Promotion Process For Academic Staff
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between UCD, SIPTU and IFUT in relation to the appeals process for academic staff when unsuccessful in promotion applications from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer. The parties have drafted an agreement on a new appeals process and are in dispute in relation to two points; a) Academic Judgement and b) whether the process should be binding. The Unions are seeking that the appeals committee can consider academic judgment in its deliberations. Management contend that procedural issues should only form part of the appeals process. The matter was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th October 2013.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Appeals Committee should have the powers to overturn the decision of the University Committee for Academic Appointments, Tenure and Promotions (UCAATP) and to consider academic judgement in its deliberations. The Unions contend that the draft agreement on this issue falls short of their original claim and there is little value in an appeals process where the original decision cannot be changed.
2 The Unions contend that if the staff in question are unhappy with the Appeals Decision they should retain the right to process their complaints through the appropriate industrial relations procedures and not be bound by a process that is essentially controlled completely by the University.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 It would be entirely inappropriate for an internal appeals committee to overturn the decisions of the UCAATP, given the multiple stages of academic judgement as well as the external knowledge and international involvement throughout the promotions process within the University.
2 In many other universities the appeals process is accepted as binding on both parties and in such cases where appeals are held there is no need to have the matter referred to the industrial relations third party institutions. However if there has been no internal appeal conducted, the matter can be referred through agreed industrial relations procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to the disputed provisions of the Draft Agreement : -
Clause 5(ii) of the Draft Agreement
This provision should be redrafted so as to provide that while the setting of academic standards to be used in the selection process is a matter within the exclusive competence of the UCAATP, the application of those standards in a particular case may be reviewed by the Appeals Committee.
Clause 7 of the Draft Agreement
This provision should be redrafted so as to provide that following the outcome of an appeal under the Agreement either the candidate or the university may refer a dispute concerning that outcome to the Labour Court under section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and both parties will agree in advance to accept the recommendation of the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th November 2013______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.