ADJ-00010977

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Lecturer above the bar

A university

Representatives

Irish Federation of University Teachers

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00014706-001

29/09/2017

The worker is a university lecturer and seeks to be placed at a higher point on a pay scale following his promotion above the bar. The respondent asserts that it complied with its pay on promotion policy.

On the 30th December 2010, the worker commenced as assistant lecturer role in a college later incorporated into the respondent university. The worker outlined that because of the recession in 2010, he was appointed to a lower point on the assistant lecturer scale than he would have been in better times. He said that the college did not allow lecturers to apply for “above the bar” roles until they reached the top of the applicable 14-point scale. By the date of the incorporation, the 1st October 2016, the worker had reached the 12th point of the scale.

The worker outlined that in 2014 he applied through an open process for his role and was successful. He then acquired a contract of indefinite duration. The issue was his placement on the pay scale and this was a legacy issue arising from the incorporation. The worker had sought progression above the bar shortly after incorporation at an appropriate point on the scale. He was offered an above the bar contract at the second point on the scale. This, however, meant that he was treated less favourably because of the incorporation, rather than if he had been recruited directly by the respondent. The worker sought to be placed at the seventh point on the scale, as and from the 1st October 2016.

During the incorporation, a Central Negotiations Committee had worked for two years and this process ended prior to the incorporation. The worker was not aware he would face a problem so did not avail of it. The crux of the issue was that incorporation did not assess experience so he was on a lower point on the scale following his promotion above the bar.

The worker outlined that some new PhDs could jump ahead of him, including those he was involved in recruiting. The college scale had operated a 14-point scale, i.e. 14 years. He was unable to progress, despite applying to jump points. He could not apply for “above the bar” at the college until he exhausted the 14-point scale. It was only when the incorporation happened that he could apply for an “above the bar” promotion. While this was unforeseen, it was also unfair. It was clear that, following incorporation, he would progress above the bar but it was unclear where he would be on the scale. In effect, his years of experience were wiped out.

The worker submitted that there would be no deviation from collective agreement as the agreement did not restrict someone being bumped up the scale. The position on the scale is an indicator of their experience. New staff coming in should be treated as well as those already there, but the opposite occurred in this case. Righting this anomaly would not impinge on the collective agreement.

The respondent outlined that there had been a two-year consultation process prior to the incorporation of the colleges with the university. There was a separate Labour Court case in relation to the college pensions, which were not public sector. College staff received once-off compensation for moving to a public sector scheme. The respondent submitted that the collective agreement addressed progression and salary alignment, making it clear what salary people would receive following incorporation. While the respondent understood the point of an unforeseen outcome, in that the worker might not have known of impact of incorporation, this was covered by the collective agreement.

The respondent outlined that it had withdrawn the probationary element of the “above the bar” contract. Even if there was probation, it would be only apply to the role and not to the worker’s underlying, permanent employment. The salary alignment process took account of different pay scales. People were appointed by their original colleges and this reflected their experience and skills. The respondent is not liable for freezes or people being on a lower point on the scale, although staff could now progress via the respondent’s policies. The respondent cannot resolve legacy issues arising in other institutions

The respondent outlined that external candidates appointed through open competition are subject to pay criteria. If they meet the criteria, they start on the first point. If they have more experience, they can go up to the 6th point. The comparator went through an open competition. IFUT consulted with members through process and there was ample opportunity to highlight progression policy or alignment of salary policy.

The respondent stated that the collective agreement does not allow the bumping up of salary. Any staff member who progressed and received an increment plus one could argue that they might get more following an open competition. Prior to incorporation, there was scope to lodge a grievance. The respondent also operates a grievance policy. The respondent accepted that there is nothing specific to re-assess staff regarding their salary.

The worker commenced his role as an assistant lecturer in a college that is now incorporated into the respondent university. He refers to starting at a lower point on the scale because of the prevailing economic circumstances in 2010. His role was also subject to a 14-point incremental scale. The college operated a rule that a lecturer could not seek above the bar promotion until they had exhausted the scale.

At this time, the college and other institutions were in the process of agreeing their incorporation into the university. This process finalised on the 1st October 2016. One consequence was that the worker could immediately seek promotion above the bar. He did so and following an interview, the worker was appointed to the role with effect from the 19th December 2016. The respondent applied its Pay on Promotion policy, meaning that the worker moved to the next increment on the respondent Lecturer pay scale.

The worker refers to legacy issues and anomalies arising from the incorporation. Given his experience and qualifications, he should have been placed on the seventh point of the scale. Had he commenced with the respondent in 2010 (as opposed to the college), he would have reached this point on the scale. He points to a former colleague who worked at the college and took up a role in the university prior to incorporation, who is now on a higher salary.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, I note the difficult position faced by the worker and several of his colleagues. He was unable to pursue promotion while working for the college. He was on a less favourable scale than staff of the university. At this time, the college was part of the complex process of preparing for incorporation. While the worker has since been able to progress above the bar, his position on the pay scale is less favourable than if he had been an employee of the respondent. The pay on promotion policy was applied to him so he went to the next point on the scale. He did not have the scope available to a new employee to start at a higher point on the scale (in reply, the respondent points to the worker retaining length of service to 2010).

While I note the worker’s grievance, I do not see scope for a recommendation in his favour. I note that this was part of a detailed incorporation process, involving a collective agreement. I note that the respondent applied the relevant policy to the worker on his promotion. Even though the college was entwined with the respondent as part of the incorporation process, the difficulties faced by the worker stem from his time with the college. There is no ready way to address these matters following incorporation and his promotion. It follows that I am unable to make a recommendation in the worker’s favour.

A process akin to regularisation could be considered for staff, such as the worker, to air their grievances. This would allow them to set out their case for a higher point on promotion than the next point. Staff could, for example, set out why they were in a particular position at one of the amalgamating colleges as of the date of incorporation. I am unable to recommend such as collective process in the context of an individual dispute.

CA-00014706-001

For the reasons set out above, I am unable to make a recommendation in the worker’s favour.

Industrial Relations Act

Incorporation of amalgamating bodies

Pay on Promotion