ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003983
Dispute for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00001807-001 | 07/01/2016 |
Venue: WRC; Lansdowne House, Ballsbridge Dublin 4.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background
The Complainant is employed as a Lecturer since 1992. He has claimed that his status is not properly reflecting his contribution to the respondent. He has sought a permanent full time teaching post.
Additional submissions were received from both parties. The last submission was received on 10th March 2017.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant is currently employed as a Part Time Lecturer. He is paid 50 % of the 15th point of the scale. He was initially employed in a full time capacity on a fixed term contract. He has accrued 24 years’ service with the college. He has had ten contracts varying from full time to part time. He has been in continuous employment. He is seeking a recommendation for an immediate restoration of his full time contract. He was originally employed on two full time fixed term contracts over a period of six years from 1992 to 1998. He was subsequently engaged on part time contracts with half pay, doing the same work with the same responsibilities. Details of each of his contracts over the 24 years were supplied together with his salaries earned. His current part time position only allows for a payment of 50% of the 15th point of the scale. Any additional work is paid on an occasional hourly basis. This grievance was raised with the College since January 2015. While he received a sympathetic hearing his request for a restoration to a full time status was not conceded and so the matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission. It is his case that since 1992 he has been employed as a Lecturer he has had the responsibility for the design and implementation of undergraduate courses. He has also done coordination and development course work and setting exams. He also undertakes his share of administrative duties in addition to researching, preparing and delivering each lecture. He supplied details of his workload which he asserts is 1000 units; this is the workload of a full time post. After 24 years of service he finds himself being paid at 50 % of s full time salary and it has pension implications for his retirement in September 2021. He states that full time teaching usually is 8 hours. He does the marking of exams, he undertakes additional research for other colleges, and he acts as course tutor. He was refused a Tutory because he was a part timer but he continued to do it. He assists with the Erasimus programme. He undertakes media work on behalf of the College. He asserts that his workload equates to 1000 units, which is a full time posts. He acted as Head of Department on two occasions so he knows the detail of full time and part time posts. He cited letters of recommendation over the years from the College personnel also precedents from the Labour Court decisions and Adjudication Officer decisions. He also cited the Cush Report reference to “Awarding of additional hours to existing part time lectures. It is requested that the College recognises the reality of the Complainant’s current situation and to remunerate him accordingly, particularly at a time that he is facing retirement. In a supplementary submission the Complainant analysed the Respondent’s supplementary submission and assets that his teaching work is equivalent to that of his full time colleagues. The Respondent has failed to include Case Study Project Module in his teaching load. It was decided by the College that 6 non tabled contact hours be allocated for each student per academic year. This means an additional 30 teaching hours per year. He asserts that all three full time permanent members have never reached a required maximum of 220 referred to in the Respondent’s submission. In addition to his 3 day teaching he has an additional day allocated to the Case Study project activities. He then has one day allocated to research. A Posts of Responsibilities issue arose after the hearing. It is his position that his duties in the Department are comparable with full time permanent members of staff.
|
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant commenced employment in 1992 as a fixed term Lecturer. Upon cessation of his contract in 1998 he undertook the teaching of a colleague on sabbatical leave from 1998 to 1999. He then worked as a Language Assistant from 1st October 1999 to 31st May 2000. In October 2000 he was appointed to the post of part time Lecturer. In February 2001 he was appointed to a permanent half time post. From October 2004 to September 2007 he took up the post of Temporary Full Time Lecturer. This post was never filled permanently so he reverted to his permanent half time post in October 2007. From July 2009 to July 2012 his hours were increased to full time; he was replacing a colleague who took up alternative duties. In July 2012 he reverted to his permanent half time post. From January 2015 his union have been making representations on his behalf. He was advised that the mechanisms for improvements in the salary of academics are via the college’s academic promotions processes.
He followed that line and eventually he met with the Head of School who advised him that they could not facilitate his request. The matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.
It is their position that he currently holds a permanent half time Lecturer position and is receiving 50% of the maximum point of the approved scale. For periods of his employment he undertakes duties on a full time temporary basis and has been remunerated accordingly, then reverting to his half time permanent post for which he was so engaged.
They reject the assertion that he is working full time. It is accepted that it is unusual to have a 50 % Lecturer post, the norm is 100 %. It is historical why he is on 50 %. The College does not have approval for a 100 % post. They stated that a full time Lecturer does about 10 to 12 hours of face time teaching where as he does about 50% of that. He does a bit less than half the amount of research that a full timer would do. Regarding his contribution to the College he performs administrative duties, degree programmes and Erasmus programmes, which amounts to about 50 % of a full timer. This complaint is rejected. They stated that the Local Head advised them that when he went half time his Teaching, Research and Contribution reduced accordingly to 50%. Teaching commitment varies depending on the schools. It depends on the number of students. The comparison must be within the department.
They assert that the comparative data supplied subsequent to this hearing affirms that the Complainant is treated as an equal member of the department, ensuring that his contribution is pro rata to that of his equivalent full time colleagues and that he is paid additional remuneration in instances where he exceeds his 50% status.
In a supplementary submission the Respondent assessed the actual working contribution over a 10 year period. They state that there is no sectoral or institutional norm for the number of hours a Lecturer is required to teach at any stage in their career. The Department uses 10-12 hours per teaching week as a notional norm so the maximum yearly teaching hours would be between 220 and 244. The reduction by .5 is also notional as the department’s commitment to delivering the curriculum does not often permit a full reduction. The mismatch between the theory and the practice has always been borne by full time permanent staff members and has not impacted on the teaching allocation for part time colleagues, unless additional remuneration was provided. The teaching allocation table shows that the Complainant worked considerably less than full time colleagues except where he held a temporary contract or was paid for additional duties.
This complaint is rejected.
Findings
I note that the Complainant has been employed continuously for 24 years.
I note that he held a number of fixed term and temporary contracts.
I note that he was appointed a permanent half time Lecturer in February 2001.
I find that his substantive post is that of a permanent half time Lecturer post and is paid at 50 % of the appropriate scale.
I note the conflict of evidence concerning the amount of actual work that the Complainant alleges that he does compared to a full time Lecturer.
I note that the Complainant asserts that he is working the equivalent of a full timer.
I note that the Respondent asserts that he is working to his contract on a pro rata basis to a full time post and that he is remunerated accordingly.
I note that the Teaching Allocation Table supplied by the Respondent asserts that when comparing like with like, the Complainant is working reduced hours compared to full time colleagues.
I note that the Complainant asserts that he teaches 3 days a week, he has an additional day allocated to the Case Study project activities and he then has one day allocated to research.
On the face of it that seems clear that he is currently working five days a week but interestingly the Respondent does not accept this.
I fail to understand why the Complainant would be performing in his view a full time position but accepting half remuneration and did not raise this as a serious complaint until January 2015.
I note that he has processed his complaint through the Colleges Academic Promotions process and to the Head of School and has not succeeded in having his position upgraded to full time.
I accept that the College has a mechanism for deciding such matters.
I find it not appropriate that I as an Adjudicator instructs an academic organisation who to appoint to full time posts.
I must support the College’s mechanism for dealing with such matters.
Therefore I will not recommend that the Complainant is appointed to a full time post.
It has to be differentiated between an entitlement verses an aspiration to a full time post.
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute
I recommend that the appropriate place for this matter to be decided upon is in the College.
I recommend that the College conducts a review of the Complainants position as set out in the documentation presented to this hearing and subsequent to it.
I recommend that this review should be conducted by a Head of School from a Discipline independent of the Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies/School of Languages.
I recommend that the reviewer should make a recommendation to the Colleges’ Academic Promotions body for consideration.
I recommend that the outcome is fully explained to the Complainant.
I recommend that this review is completed within six weeks of the date below.
Dated: 09/05/2017