FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00005232.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the University of a decision by the Adjudicator to recommend in favour of the Claimant’s claim for a job evaluation exercise to be conducted into his role.
- The Union on behalf of the Claimant stated that as part of the LRC agreed Job Evaluation process conducted for ‘Tyndall based UCC staff,’ the Claimant completed stage 1 in the process. However, the University intervened to stop it completely. The Claimant appealed this decision and the Appeals Officer recommended that the parties seek clarification through the WRC or refer the matter for Adjudication.
- The Employer said that the Claimant was not comprehended by or included in the union pay parity claim as he was already on a UCC salary scale and was thereby precluded from the scope of the job evaluation exercise.
This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 7 July 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-- “I recommend that the claimant should be given access to return to the job evaluation scheme appeal for Administrative Grades initially commenced by Mr E, which should determine the grade and salary appropriate to the work he performs, on an individual red circled to post holder basis and as a direct consequence of his anomalous position.”
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10 July 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7 November 2017.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the University of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision which recommended in favour of the Claimant’s claim for a job evaluation exercise to be conducted into his role.
The Claimant is employed by the University in the Tyndall Institute as Head of Group, in a specialised department. He is paid on the maximum point of the UCC Senior Administrative IV (Grade 8) salary scale.
The University appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation. Its position is summarised as follows: -
- • Under Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 precludes an Adjudication Officer from investigating a trade dispute that is connected with the rates of pay of body of workers. The University submitted that the subject matter of this dispute comes within that prohibition. Therefore, the claim is not properly before the Court and it does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
• The Claimant referred his claim to the Workplace Relations Commission on 2nd October 2016, this was at a time when the long running pay parity dispute between UCC and SIPTU/TEEU over a job evaluation exercise to evaluate Tyndall salary scales using appropriate comparators in UCC was in being. That dispute was finally resolved earlier this year. The Claimant was not encompassed by that exercise as it was confined to staff in Tyndall on Tyndall salary scales and as he was already on a UCC salary scale.
• The Claimant’s position had been evaluated in 2004 and he was upgraded as a result. There are currently 37 other staff employed at Grade 8 level in the University.
• The University’s Administrative Grading Scheme (job evaluation scheme) has been suspended since 2008 due to the Government’s financial/staffing restrictions. Under the Lansdowne Road Agreement, the University does not have authorisation to conduct a job evaluation exercise.
• The Claimant is a Head of Group in Tyndall. The jobs of eleven other Heads of Group who sought pay parity with UCC were deemed in the job evaluation exercise to be equivalent to Administrative Grade 8 level, the same grade the Claimant is already on.
• To concede the claim would have potential knock-on effects. It has the potential to re-open the pay parity claim and lead to repercussive claims.
- • The Claimant’s job was evaluated in 2003/2004, it gave him a score of 873, which should have moved him up to the grade of Senior Admin IIA. However, as the rules allowed for only 1 scale grade step at the time, the University advised him to apply again in subsequent years.
• Being a Tyndall based yet University staff member, the Claimant was subject to Tyndall employment terms from 2004 until 2008, therefore, the University’s regrading procedures were not applicable to him.
• The Claimant submitted an application under the first stage of the Tyndall/UCC pay parity job evaluation exercise, however, the University intervened and stopped it. When he appealed this to the Appeals Officer, the latter held that given that there was no agreement relating to whether the Claimant’s position could be evaluated within the process, he recommended that clarification should be sought through the WRC or Adjudication process
• The terms of reference of the Tyndall/UCC pay parity job evaluation exercise stated “the Terms of Reference provide for actual placement of Tyndall based UCC staff at the appropriate point on the appropriate UCC scale”. It also stated that it “covers all staff in Tyndall, except Post Docs” and the Claimant was not a Post Doc.
Having carefully considered the position of both parties, the Court is satisfied that the core aim of those who participated in the Tyndall pay evaluation exercise was to gain access to UCC salary scales. While such employees were, Tyndall based they were also UCC employees and accordingly encompassed by the Terms of Reference as described above who sought access to UCC salary scales which heretofore they did not have. The Claimant and a small group of others were not comprehended by that job evaluation exercise.
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant’s dispute is based on his grade within the UCC salary structure rather than access to the UCC salary structure. However, the Court notes that under the Lansdowne Road Agreement the University’s Administrative Grading Scheme has been suspended, accordingly it does not have authorisation to conduct such an evaluation exercise at this time.
The Court recommends that if and when the University’s Administrative Grading Scheme is reopened, the Claimant’s role should be put forward for evaluation under that scheme.
Therefore, the Court does not find in favour of the Claimant’s claim and overturns the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation, the appeal is upheld.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
30 November, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.