ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003257

Dispute for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/07/2016

At:    Workplace Relations Commission, Dublin 4.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Background.

The Complainant is currently employed as a Lecturer at the Maximum point of her salary scale. A dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 22nd April 2016 and concerns the application of the Complainant for the position of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Education and her subsequent appointment as Assistant Lecturer in 1982.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

Following the retirement of the Senior Lecturer at the College in 1982, they sought sanction from the Department of Education to advertise for a position of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer. This was sanctioned and the Complainant applied for the position of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Education The Complainant had been teaching part-time in the College and she had taught in a Primary School for four years at that time. Following Interview the Board recommended she be appointed as a Lecturer in Education. The approval of the Archbishop of Dublin was required at that time and he approved her appointment as a Lecturer. The President of the College then wrote to the Department of Education seeking sanction to appoint the Complainant as Lecturer. The Department of Education sanctioned her appointment as Assistant Lecturer. The Complainant was offered the position of Assistant Lecturer on the first point of a nine point incremental scale. The President of the College did not explain the different Lecturer grades and the pay scales that applied. She took up her position as Assistant Lecturer in the College on 1^st September 1982. There was a difference of €13,500 in the salary scale of Assistant Lecturer and Lecturer over the nine years. At this time there was no promotion structure in place for promotion from Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer until 1987 when following agreement an Assistant Lecturer who had reached the maximum point of the scale could apply to be promoted to Lecturer. The Complainant was promoted to Lecturer in 1991. She has remained on this scale for 25 years.

The Complainant raised the issue of her incorrect appointment as Assistant Lecturer in 1982 on several occasions with Management in the College without success. Her Grievance was externally reviewed in ????? by a HR employee from DCU who recommended that some gesture should be made to the Complainant. This was clarified as being incremental credit. .

IFUT, on behalf of the Complainant sought to resolve the issue during 2015 and 2016 but there was no resolution. IFUT, on behalf of the Complainant are seeking –

A formal apology for her treatment by the College

That upon the Complainant’s promotion to Senior Lecturer that she is given incremental credit on the Senior Scale

Alternatively she is appointed as a Senior Lecturer

Financial compensation of €31.000 being the loss she has suffered over 34 years with the College.

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

Prior to 1993 and before the College came under the Higher Education Authority, appointments to academic positions were subject to sanction by the Department of Education. Following a Labour Court Recommendation in 1981 a New Assistant Lecturer Scale was introduced and arising from this Recommendation a number of staff were promoted to Lecturer. After 1981, a postgraduate degree and three years experience was normally required for Assistant Lecturer and five years for Lecturer. A significant anomaly arose after 1981 in that there was no provision for promotion from Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer. This was not addressed until 1987.

A Senior Lecturer retired in 1982 . The College advertised for a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Education and sought sanction from the Department of Education and granted. The Complainant applied, was shortlisted, interviewed and recommended for appointment as Lecturer by the Interview Board. However when the College sought the appointment of the Complainant as Lecturer, the Department would only sanction her appointment as an Assistant Lecturer. She was offered the appointment as Assistant Lecturer. She remained as an Assistant Lecturer until 1991 when in accordance with the Agreement she was appointed Lecturer.

The Complainant accepted the appointment as Assistant Lecturer on 3^rd September 1982 stating as follows – “I formally confirm my acceptance of the post of Assistant Lecturer Education from 1^st September 1982. I agree to accept the conditions and terms of the appointment of which I have recently been informed”.

The Complaint is that the Complainant was appointed to a more junior position than she applied for and this has been examined on a number of occasions by the College and her grievance has been rejected.

Her Grievance was referred for external independent review in 2004. This was conducted by a named HR Director from DCU. The outcome was as follows: placement on Assistant Lecturer grade was appropriate under the Regulations and Procedures then applying (and indeed under the Regulations that currently apply). This grievance was again considered by the HR Manager of the College in April 2012 who concluded that the Complainant’s appointment was in line with policy at the time.

The Respondent stated that it was not now open to the College to retrospectively apply a higher starting Grade of Lecturer to the Complainant.

Findings

I have reviewed all the submissions and the correspondence I requested from both Parties be forwarded to me post the Hearing. It is clear from the correspondence in 1982 that the Complainant was offered and accepted a position of Assistant Lecturer.

The Complainant was appointed as a Lecturer in 1991 having completed nine years on the Asst Lecturer Scale and in accordance with the Collective Agreement of 1987.

The Complainant raised a grievance with the College which was reviewed on a number of occasions after her appointment as a Lecturer and there was an external independent review carried out in November 2004 which confirmed that the Complainant’s “placement on the Assistant Lecturer grade was appropriate under the Regulations and procedures then applying(and under the Regulations that currently apply)”. However this external reviewer goes on to state that “the applicant does appear to have been misled in relation to the recommendation of the Board. It would be a matter for the College whether it wished to make some gesture without prejudice in relation to this”. This refers to the letter dated 1^st September 1982 in which the President of the College wrote to the Complainant to inform her that the Board of Assessors had recommended her for appointment as Assistant Lecturer whereas in fact they had recommended her for appointment as Lecturer. However the same President had sought the sanction of the Department of Education by letter dated 28^th July 1982 to the Complainant’s appointment as Lecturer and it was the Department of Education who sanctioned her appointment as Assistant Lecturer under the Regulations and Procedures that existed at that time. I also note that the external reviewer clarified what she meant by a gesture as incremental credit.

However I note that that at this time in November 2004 the Complainant had been promoted to Lecturer and was on the maximum point of the scale so the issue of agesture did not arise.

Decision.

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 I recommend as follows:

I recommend that if the Complainant is successful in her current application for appointment as Senior Lecturer she should receive incremental credit on the Senior Lecturer Scale to the monetary value of €5000.00 or if the Complainant is not successful in being appointed a Senior Lecturer she should be compensated by the payment of €5000.00

I recommend this to both Parties.

Rosaleen Glackin

Adjudictaion Officer

Date:___27^th October 2016