ADJ-00006488

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

A Part-Time Teaching Assistant

A University

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00008679-001

09/12/2016

The complainant has been employed since August 2009 as a Part-time Teaching Assistant (PTTA) and in September 2012 he secured a contract of indefinite duration to operate between 1^st September and 31^st May each year on a part-time basis. He is seeking to be regraded to Lecturer with retrospection or to be paid according to the Lecturer salary scale.

The complainant alleges that he has been required to take on additional responsibilities and duties similar to that of a Lecturer such that his job title and salary should be amended to reflect the change in responsibilities. He alleged that the contract he received back in 2012 was a surprise to him as he thought he would be granted a contract of a lecturer based on the work that he was doing. It was alleged that he had been requested by his Head of Department to update his research work on a database that is used by the University.   He claims that if he is a PTTA, there should be no such requirement for research and maintained also that he is required to do additional lecturing above that required of a PTTA as indicated by his PMDS.   He also advised that his details on the IRIS system indicate that his title is that of Lecturer. Details of his areas of expertise including his involvement as an external and internal examiner were provided.

By way of response to the respondent’s letter of 2^nd May which followed the hearing, the union replied noting the number of PTTAs, disputing how the IRIS system is updated and confirming that the PTTA mentioned had become a lecturer.

The respondent’s representative was unable to attend and the respondent was happy to proceed unrepresented. They advised that there is no requirement for the complainant to do work above and beyond that of a PTTA and advised that it does not have the authorisation from DES to increase remuneration through re-grading through a job evaluation mechanism. It outlined that it is their understanding that this issue was not an individual issue and that there was due to be a conciliation conference with SIPTU regarding same but that SIPTU had postponed it. They also provided by way of a letter, after the hearing dated 2^nd May 2017, details on the number of PTTAs employed, details on how the IRIS system was updated and the background to how another lecturer secured the role of lecturer despite not competing in a public competition.

The complainant highlighted that he is required to do certain aspects of the role of lecturer including research. The respondent had detailed that although he may be doing some aspects of the role of lecturer, he is not ‘required’ to do same. The respondent advised they are unable to conduct job evaluation exercise as per correspondence from DES but I note that this email dates back to May 2014.

Where a worker undertakes additional duties e.g. academic research or other academic activities he cannot legitimately expect the employer to unilaterally amend his contractual status in return and circumvent its own established recruitment and appointments process on his behalf as detailed in LCR21264 (University College Dublin and a Worker). However, it has been detailed by the worker that his employer has expressly required he undertake such additional duties, which may suggest an entitlement “to payment on the basis of the work he is required to perform” as detailed in LCR 20435 (St Patrick’s College and IFUT).

That aside, it is well established that disputes under this Act should be raised and exhausted at local level through the respondent’s grievance procedure.  I find in this case that this did not occur. As outlined to both parties at the Hearing, The Workplace Relations Commission should not be the first port of call when a person has a grievance under the Industrial Relations Act.  I note in the Labour Court case INT1014 it stated” The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been bypassed.”   With that in mind the following are my recommendations:

Firstly, the respondent should agree a dispute resolution procedure that allows for the handling of all grievances at local level in the first instance, including this instant case. I recommend that such a dispute resolution procedure be implemented within 42 days of this recommendation.

Secondly, with regards to the complainant’s specific dispute, and based on its unique circumstances, I would recommend that within 42 days of this recommendation, the complainant’s role be subject to job-grading evaluation by a suitably qualified person(s) to determine the merits or otherwise of his claim.

Firstly, the respondent should agree a dispute resolution procedure that allows for the handling of all grievances at local level in the first instance. I recommend that such a dispute resolution procedure be implemented within 42 days of this recommendation.

Secondly, with regards to the complainant’s specific dispute, and based on its unique circumstances, I would recommend that within 42 days of this recommendation, the complainant’s role be subject to job-grading evaluation by a suitably qualified person(s) to determine the merits or otherwise of his claim.

Industrial relations act, job grading