FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - A LECTURER (REPRESENTED BY DERMOT O' LOUGHLIN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Restoration of Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Claimant that her pay has been decreased by her Employer. The Claimant maintains that she has suffered a 29% decrease in pay and is seeking full restoration to the full amount previously paid to her. It is the Employer's position that the Claimant's pay was decreased in line with the direction provided by the Higher Education Authority (HEA); the governing body responsible for setting the terms of the scheme under which the Claimant was re-hired to her pre-retirement position within the University.
On the 8th December, 2016 the Claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd February, 2016.
The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant contends that the Employer reduced her pay by 29% without any reliance on a Departmental circular governing pay.
2. The Claimant is seeking full restoration of her pay.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the Claimant's pay was reduced on the direction of the HEA. The University is not in a position to deviate from this direction.
2. It is the Employer's position that the Claimant is remunerated in line with her contractual entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Worker was employed as a full-time academic in the Respondent’s School of Nursing and Midwifery between June 2005 and September 2011 i.e. until she reached her contractual retirement age of 65. Thereafter, she was offered and accepted a series of one-year fixed term/specified purpose contracts as Adjunct Assistant Professor (September 2011 to August 2012; September 2012 to August 2013; September 2013 to August 2014; September 2014 to August 2015; September 2015 to August 2016.) Each of these contracts was clearly stated to be subject to the approval of the Higher Education Authority. During the course of the aforementioned contracts, the Worker was required to undertake 20% of the workload she had previously had when she had been employed on a full-time basis and she was remunerated at 20% of the point on the salary scale she was on at the date of her retirement.
The process of securing a further one-year fixed-term contract for the Worker for the academic year September 2016 to August 2017 commenced within the School of Nursing and Midwifery in or about March 2016. At this time, the Worker was informed that the salary on offer to her for this proposed contract would be reduced from the level that she had been paid throughout the course of her 5 prior fixed-term contracts.
At the hearing of this matter under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Court was informed by the Respondent that it had been given specific directions by the Higher Education Authority, in 2015 and again in 2016, generally in relation to the remuneration of workers engaged by it on post-retirement fixed-term contracts approved by the Authority, and also specifically in relation to the calculation of the Worker’s remuneration. The Respondent opened, inter alia, correspondence from the Higher Education Authority dated 12 March 2016, in relation to the Worker and two other colleagues (names redacted) which stated:
- “Given the significant changes in pay policy since the current Framework was put in place in 2011, we are seeking clarity at present from the Department of Education and Skills on the salary to be paid to retired staff who are subsequently re-hired by an institute. Pending receipt of this clarification, we would advise that the salary paid should be on the basis of 20% of the first point of the “new appointee” pay scale (as outlined in the Departments Circular of July 2011 and subsequent circular of July 2014).”
Recommendation
Having considered the parties’ comprehensive written submissions and the information provided to it in the course of the hearing, the Court finds that the claim before it is not well founded and should fail.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
8th February 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.