ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018555
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Part-time Teaching Assistant | A Third Level Institution |
Representatives |
|
Complaints:
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint and disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint and disputes.
Background:
The worker is permanently employed as a Part-time Teaching Assistant (PTTA). The worker submitted two claims on the 5th of December 2018 one under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 and the other under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker at the hearing confirmed that both referrals submitted on the 5th of December were now being formally withdrawn. The worker submitted a further claim under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the 7th of March 2019. This dispute proceeded to be heard at the hearing on 15th of August 2019. 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 15th of August 2019 and is seeking that she be remunerated according to the Lecturer scale from 7th of September 2018 or that the role she occupies be reviewed by a suitably qualified person to determine if she is correctly graded. |
CA-00023817-001 |
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Accordingly, I declare that this claim is not well founded. |
CA-00023817-002 |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Accordingly, I do not recommend in favour of the complainant. |
CA-00026874-001 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
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 complainant at the hearing emphasised that she does not ‘assist’ anyone and that her duties are on a par with her lecturing colleagues. 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 7th of September 2018 or that the role she occupies be reviewed by a suitably qualified person to determine if she is correctly graded. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
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. |
Findings and Conclusions:
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 that she be remunerated according to the Lecturer scale from 7th of September 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. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
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. |
Dated: December 18th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|