FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SLIGO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY UNITE THE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-147224-ir-14/EOS.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that she should have progressed to the position of Technical Officer in May 2011 in accordance with Circular 0013/2006. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th March, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that the parties re-engage nationally and review the wording of the Circular with a view to adopting an agreed position ... having regard to the anomalous situation that has arisen in Sligo."
On the 7th May, 2015 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th October, 2015.
3. 1. There is an agreed normal progression route from Technician to Technical Officer.
2.The Employer unfairly blocked the Worker from progressing to Technical Officer.
3.The Worker is entitled to progression to Technical Officer with full retrospection.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Circular 0013/2006 clearly sets out the objective requirements for progression from Technician to Technical Officer.
2.The Employer is satisfied that the Worker did not meet these requirements.
3.There is, accordingly, no merit to this claim.
DECISION:
Background
The Claimant commenced permanent employment at the Institute in the Technician grade on 1 August 2007. On appointment, the Claimant held a HETAC Level 7 qualification (Certificate in Computing and IT Support from Athlone Institute of Technology) and a Level 8 qualification (B. Comm from NUIG). It is common case that the Claimant secured her permanent positon (Technician) on the basis of her Level 7 qualification and her prior IT experience.
The Claimant continued in employment and progressed through the applicable payscale, reaching the maximum of that scale in May 2010.
Paragraph 2.a. of Circular Letter No. 0013/2006 provides as follows in relation to progression from the Technician grade to the Technical Officer grade:
- After completing a minimum of 5 years (sic) continuous service within the grade or equivalent within the third level sector, a year of which must have been at the maximum of the scale and have attained a further qualification of at least Level 8 under the NQAI Framework i.e. Honours Primary Degree or equivalent (National Diploma level or equivalent will not be deemed equivalent where course was completed prior to introduction of NQAI Framework).
The Respondent’s consistent position, as advised to the Claimant in 2009 and 2010, is that Paragraph 2.a. of Circular Letter No. 0013/2006 must be read as requiring a person who wishes to progress to Technical Officer grade thereunder to have an appropriate and relevant qualification at Level 8, in addition to meeting the specified service requirements. The Respondent did not view the Claimant’s B.Comm as fulfilling the necessary requirements for regrading within the terms of the Circular.
The Claimant commenced a programme of study in 2013 which led to her being awarded a Level 9 qualification: Post-Graduate Diploma in E-Learning. On that basis, the Claimant was progressed to Technical Officer grade on 1 August 2015. On the date the Claimant’s case came before the Court, therefore, her claim was one for retrospective pay to 1 August 2011 when the Claimant believes she had met each of the requirements for progression as per Circular Letter No. 0013/2006.
Issue
The issue before the Court relates to the interpretation of the words “have attained a further qualification of at least Level 8 under the NQAI Framework” within the meaning of Paragraph 2.a. of Circular Letter No. 0013/2006.
Recommendation
The Court is mindful that Circular Letter No. 0013/2006 is the product of a collective agreement between IOTI, on the one hand, and SIPTU and UNITE, on the other. In this context, the Court accepts the interpretation advocated on behalf of the Respondent: i.e. that Paragraph 2.a. of Circular Letter No. 0013/2006 must be read as requiring a person who wishes to progress to Technical Officer grade thereunder to have an appropriate and relevant qualification at Level 8.
The Court, therefore, sees no basis for upsetting the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in this matter. The appeal fails and the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation stands.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
20th October, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.