Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Part-time Teaching Assistant

A Third Level Institution

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-00022579-001

11/10/2018

The worker is permanently employed as a Part-time Teaching Assistant since September 2012. The current dispute concerns the worker’s claim that she is incorrectly graded for the work she carries out.   The worker referred her dispute to the WRC on the 11th of October 2018 and is seeking that she be remunerated according to the Lecturer scale from 11 April 2018 or, if that cannot be recommended by the Adjudication Officer, that a review of her current role be carried out by a suitably qualified person with expertise in job analysis.

The worker contends that she is incorrectly graded and has been unable to pursue her grievance at local level as there is no process by which her concerns can be addressed.   The worker submits that she is demonstrably conducting work appropriate to the academic grade of lecturer or at any rate work inappropriate to the grade of Part-time Teaching Assistant (PTTA).   The worker emphasised that she assists nobody and was not at any stage assisting a senior member of staff.

The Worker submits that the Labour Court held in Clare County Council v A Worker LCR21963 (April 2019) that ‘[t]he Court does not have the capacity, nor is it the function of the Court, to conduct a grading evaluation at any time.’ The Worker does not ask the Adjudication Officer to conduct any such exercise.

The Worker contends, that restrictions on the conducting of job evaluation exercises by the Employer imposed by government departments are not intended to nor can reasonably justify the continued remuneration of a worker at the wrong rate of pay. The worker also submits that the Labour Court has consistently taken the position that the existence of a collective agreement precluding cost-increasing claims during its life should not be a bar to payment of the appropriate rate for the job e.g. HSE West & A Worker AD1242 (May 2012).

The worker is seeking that she be remunerated according to the Lecturer scale from 11 April 2018 or, if that cannot be recommended by the Adjudication Officer, that a review of her current role be carried out by a suitably qualified person with expertise in job analysis.

The employer submits that the workers role differs significantly from that of the Lecturer grade and states that the role she was engaged to do was not that of a Lecturer.   The employer goes on to state that the role of University Lecturer is an appointment that is made by order of University statute.   The employer submits that the complainant is entitled to apply for lecturing positions that arise within the Higher Education Sector through fair and open competition.

The employer further contends that the claim is a cost increasing claim which under the Public Service Agreement is outside of the scope of the University at this time.   The employer states that given the claim is a de facto pay claim and has collective implications, it should not be processed as an individual grievance/dispute through the adjudication services of the WRC.   The employer confirmed that it has received a number of regrading referrals and although there is no job evaluation scheme currently in place, it has committed to undertake a review on the issues raised.

I note the employer’s position that there are a number of similar regrading referrals in place and that a review process is currently underway.

The Trade Union has sought that, if the worker is unsuccessful in her claim concerning appointment to the Lecturer grade, that a suitably qualified person be appointed by the University to carry out a review and determine if the worker is correctly graded.

Appointment to the Lecturer Grade

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 states as follows: -

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a Rights Commissioner.

The worker submits that the Labour Court has consistently taken the position that the existence of a collective agreement precluding cost-increasing claims during its life should not be a bar to payment of the appropriate rate for the job e.g. HSE West & A Worker AD1242 (May 2012).

On the basis of the provisions of the legislation and the specific nature of the worker’s claim, I do not recommend in favour of the claim for remuneration according to the Lecturer scale from 11 of April 2018. However, I find it fair and reasonable that the worker’s role be included in the review process currently underway to determine if she is correctly graded and remunerated for the work she carries out.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute and having considered the submissions of both parties, I recommend that the Employer includes the Worker in the ongoing review by a suitably qualified person with a view to carrying out an evaluation to determine whether or not the Worker is correctly graded and remunerated.