FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Incorrect incremental point for two Switchboard staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 16 January 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 May 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A restructuring exercise carried out in 1998 has restricted two Switchboard employees to the mid-point of an administrative pay scale.
2. This situation has deprived them of incremental progression and has been an obstacle to career advancement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) pay agreement provided a facility for the employees concerned to progress to a salary rate equivalent to the 7thpoint of the new scale.
2. The Department of Education and Skills has advised the University that it has not sanctioned any deviation from the arrangement entered into by these staff, in 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter at issue arises from the parties’ differing interpretations at this remove of an agreement concluded in 1998. The Trade Union contends that the agreement has had the effect of placing the Claimants at the 7thpoint of the 12-point Senior Executive Assistant scale for twenty years without movement. The Trade Union contends that some movement should have taken place in that period. The University contends that the agreement has been implemented exactly as written and intended.
The Court notes that the Department of Education and Skills has given a view on this matter. In considering the material submitted in this regard the Court notes that the Department does not appear to have understood that the two Claimants, at the time of the 1998 agreement, were not situated on the 2b scale. They were in fact on the 3a scale for some years prior to the 1998 agreement.
The Court also notes the circular issued on 14thNovember 1998 by the then Acting Director of Personnel and General Services of the University which stated‘Staff who were on the maximum of Grade 3 for one year or more on 1stJune 1998 will qualify for additional increments on the new scale commencing on 1stJune 1998’.
In the period since 1998 the Claimants have not sought promotion and neither have they applied for re-grading when a mechanism for such applications existed in the University. Similarly, no issue as regards the operation of the 1998 agreement was raised by the Claimants until August 2016.
Taking all matters into consideration and noting the long and acknowledged excellent service of the Claimants, the Court recommends that in the interest of good industrial relations the University should agree to place the Claimants on the 10thpoint of the SEA scale with effect from the date of this Recommendation and the Claimants should accept that ‘once off’ incremental movement as full and final settlement of their claim. The Court clarifies that this Recommendation generates no entitlement to further incremental progression following placement on the 10thpoint of the scale.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
17 May 2018Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.