Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A University Lecturer

A University

Representatives

Bernadette Thornton SIPTU

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-00013842-001

11/09/2017

The Complainant is employed as a full-time permanent lecturer in a constituent school of the Respondent, a University, since 1991. The dispute centres on a grievance related to workload allocation.

The Complainant provided a detailed written submission.

The Complainant submits that he made a complaint to his Head of School that credits awarded to him were lower than they should be. The Head of school adjusted the credits for 2016.   However, the Complainant was aggrieved that his perceived underscoring in years 2014 and 2015 was not addressed.   Having raised the matter with his Head of School the Complainant was still not satisfied so he escalated his complaint to his union.

The grievance was investigated by a member of the University's HR team; however, the Complainant was not happy with the outcome as he felt it did not address his underlying concerns about the methodology and transparency of the system being used to score lecturers. The Complainant is of the view that his Head of School is not listening to him and has not put in place a formula which would remove the inconsistent scoring which in turn increases his workload year on year.

The Complainant believes he is not receiving a fair allocation of work because of the incorrect weighting on his work. Local negotiations failed to resolve the matter. The Complainant believes an independent evaluation of the problem is the fairest way to resolve the dispute.

The Respondent presented a detailed written submission.

The Respondent outlined the system for academic workload allocation in the University.

In June 2016, the Head of the School distributed the 2016/17 workload allocation details to all staff in the normal manner. The Complainant raised three specific queries with the Head of School which resulted in some minor corrections to credits allowed. Nonetheless matters were not fully resolved despite the assistance of the Head of another School.

At the suggestion of the Complainant's own Head of School a Peer Review Group was formed to review of how workload allocation was applied to all School staff.   The outcome of this review was that a substantial number of minor adjustments were applied to eight staff including the Complainant. Although the Complainant benefitted from this review he still did not accept the outcome, even though, the Respondent submits, academic peer review is the universally recognised method of assessing academic work.

On 30 January 2017, the Complainant's union lodged a grievance on his behalf. The grievance claimed that the "workload policy in his school is not being followed in his case" and as a result the Complainant was being "victimised".

A detailed response was put to the Complainant but he did not accept it.     Communications continued between the parties for some time but no resolution was reached.

The Respondent believes the Complainant has been treated fairly at all times and the system utilised is fair to him and all his colleagues.   The Respondent categorically denies the allegation of victimisation and asserts that there is absolutely no evidence to support this allegation. If anything, the Head of School has gone out of his way to resolve the Complainant's issues.

The matter of workload for the years 2014 and 2015 is a contentious issue for the Complainant. His belief is that these years were not scored correctly and as this error has not been rectified he has lost trust in the system and those who administer it. The Respondent is of the view that it has gone well beyond what is reasonable in its attempts to achieve resolution of this dispute.

To address this issue, I recommend that the workload allocation for the Complainant for 2014 and 2015 be reviewed by the Peer Review Group.   This review should be confined to the Complainant's workload. The outcome of this review is to be kept confidential to the Head of School and the Complainant. The outcome of the review should be accepted as the final word on the matter of workload allocation for the two years in question.

Regarding transparency, a new system of workload allocation is being planned for 2018. This new system will see the Head of School draw up an initial/draft workload allocation based on the Workload Reference Form. This initial workload allocation will then be passed on to the Peer Review Group who will gauge it for consistency. The allocation will then be returned to the Head of School and hence to the individual staff members to allow them study the allocation and consult on same.   This consultation period will last for two weeks. Following consultation if a staff member is not happy with any aspect of their allocation they can ask for the issue(s) to be referred back to the Peer Review Group. The Peer Review Group will then re-examine the case and decide on the matter. Following this a final Workload Allocation document will be issued. If any member is not satisfied with the final document, they may appeal the matter to the Dean of Faculty who will make a final decision on the matter. I recommend that this new system be accepted as the system to be used for workload allocation in the coming years.

Workload allocation, Peer Review Group,