Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Academic Lecturer

A Third Level Educational Institution

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda, SIPTU

Ger Connolly, Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors

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-00020022-001

26/06/2018

In July 2018, in accordance with the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (“TUPE”), the work of respondent organisation transferred to a national university. Some months before the transfer, in November 2017, the complainant raised a grievance regarding the point of her salary on the Lecturer / Managerial pay scale that applied to her role. Since 2012, the complainant’s salary has been at point 1 of the scale and, although she received an increase in 2016, it is her view that she should be on point 6, which is the same point as that of three of her colleagues who are also lecturers.

In accordance with TUPE regulations, responsibility for the terms and conditions of the transferred employees rests with the transferee, who is not the respondent in this case. However, this complaint is brought under the Industrial Relations Act and not under TUPE and, in accordance with the former, I have been asked to recommend on how the complainant’s grievance should be resolved.

From the date that she commenced employment with the respondent in 2010 as an Overseas Training Co-ordinator, until 2012, when she started to deliver some teaching modules, the complainant was not on the Lecturer / Managerial pay scale. In 2012 however, when her role was extended to include the delivery of training, she was placed on point 1 of the scale at €44,141.

In October 2012, following the financial downturn, certain funding and grant assistance was withdrawn from the organisation and work commenced on re-structuring and re-organising to make it financially resilient. Of the 20 or so employees at that time, ten were made redundant and many of those who remained took on additional responsibilities. The complainant became responsible for two specific training programmes, other administrative work and teaching on an academic module that was previously delivered by one of the lecturers. She expressed concern at this time about the need for administrative support, but none was provided. Due to the ongoing financial constraints, all staff were placed on a four-day week in 2013, but the complainant said that she worked an average of 50 hours a week, plus weekends, to cover the work assigned to her.   In July 2013, the complainant got administrative support in the form of a Job Bridge intern, working for three days a week.

In 2014, a 10% pay cut was applied to the wages of all employees. The complainant was out sick from April to October due to stress and exhaustion and the pay cut was applied to her wages from September. When she returned she found that her work had not been adequately covered during her absence and she asked for support. A PhD student was assigned in September 2015, which she wasn’t happy about because she felt that this person was not skilled or experienced enough for the job. The complainant was out sick again between October and December 2015.

Hourly rates for lecturers at the respondent’s organisation had been matched with the equivalent roles in a national university and, in September 2016, the complainant said that she realised that her hourly rate was lower than the university’s rates and the rates paid to her colleagues. Following negotiations with a Director, the complainant received an annual increase of €3,450, to bring her hourly rate for teaching in line with the university’s rates. This restored the complainant’s annual salary almost to what it was before the 10% pay cut in 2014 but she remained dissatisfied about her rate of pay generally.   She said that the increase did not address what she perceived to be an inadequate rate for her management responsibilities.

In 2017, it because clear that the work of the respondent’s organisation would be transferred to a national university and staff were informed that they would transfer on their existing terms and conditions. The complainant was offered a permanent teaching contract with the university, however, she remained dissatisfied with the fact that she transferred on point 1 of the respondent’s salary scale. In November 2017, she initiated an investigation in accordance with the organisation’s grievance procedure. In July 2018, when she transferred to the university, she had come to the end of the procedure, but her request to be placed on point 6 of the scale was rejected.

The complainant’s case is that her designation at point 1 of the salary scale in 2012 reflected her non-academic teaching on Irish and overseas programmes. She was subsequently assigned to a managerial role, with a wide breadth of responsibilities and she also took on teaching on an academic programme. Despite this, her salary remained at point 1. In 2016, she received an increase of €3,450 to take account of her academic responsibilities; however, her case is that she is not paid the same as her colleagues who are doing the same or similar lecturing work. Also, some of the managerial responsibilities that the complainant took on in 2012, had been done by an employee at point 3 of the scale who was made redundant.

Concluding his submission on behalf of the complainant, Mr Dorda said that she had carried out her managerial and academic duties for over five years without the appropriate financial reward and she wants her responsibilities to be recognised. Mr Dorda claims that the complainant should have been on point 6 of the pay scale since 2012, or at least from 2017.   He said that the difference in the complainant’s salary compared to that of her colleagues is €7,629. I have been asked to recommend that she be placed on what she considers to be the correct pay scale and awarded compensation for the differential since 2012.

The respondent’s position is that the complainant is on the correct point on the salary scale for her role. In 2009, before she joined the organisation and, at the beginning of the international financial crisis, the respondent introduced a salary freeze. The effect of this is that all staff, regardless of their roles or their points on a pay scale, did not benefit from incremental increases that would have applied if a pay freeze had not been in place. The academic colleagues with whom the complainant compares herself were on the Lecturer’s scale before incremental pay increases were suspended and before the complainant joined the organisation.   Mr Connolly said that the complainant was not treated any differently to other employees and he argued that it would not be reasonable to move her to a higher point on the pay scale, without applying the same benefit to others. All the lecturers have transferred to the university on their current terms and conditions.

In 2012, the complainant was placed on point 1 of the Lecturer / Managerial pay scale, to reflect her role as Overseas Training Co-ordinator on a specific programme.   As a result of the 2012 cost-cutting exercise, this programme closed and in 2013, the complainant took up a new managerial role, which comprised teaching on and co-ordinating non-academic programmes and co-ordination of the organisation’s open and distance education programmes. She remained at point 1 of the Lecturer’s scale. Mr Connolly submitted that the complainant’s involvement in the day to day management and administration was taken up by other employees from 2014 onwards, leaving her with very little co-ordination responsibilities. In 2016, when she received a pay increase of €3,450, she was the only member of the academic staff to receive a pay increase since 2008.

Mr Connolly pointed out that the complainant’s three colleagues all have considerably more academic teaching experience than her. In June 2018, they had 15, 23 and 29 years’ experience respectively, compared to the complainant’s six years of academic teaching. In addition, the complainant taught two academic modules, one at MA level from 2013 and one at BA level from 2015. Apart from this, she worked on non-accredited teaching courses. Mr Connolly submitted that the complainant’s teaching responsibilities were significantly less than those of her colleagues who had been teaching on BA and MA programmes for many years. Also, compared to her three colleagues, the complainant had less responsibility in terms of the numbers of students she supervised.

The complainant’s three colleagues had academic responsibilities in addition to their teaching duties, co-ordinating MA and BA courses and with the third colleague acting as the college registrar. Mr Connolly argued that these were senior academic positions that were critical to the core functioning of the organisation and the job-holders were members of the organisation’s academic committee.

Lastly, the three lecturers that the complainant claims equality with all have longer service than her, having commenced with the respondent organisation in 1994, 2003 and 2005 respectively, whereas the complainant commenced academic work in 2012.

Mr Connolly submitted that the complainant has been treated more favourably than her academic colleagues. When the four-day week was introduced in 2013, her salary was reduced by 14.5%, compared to a 20% reduction suffered by her colleagues. When the organisation implemented a pay cut in 2014, the complainant’s salary was reduced by 8%, whereas the salaries of her colleagues was reduced by 10%. The complainant suffered no reduction in her annual leave entitlement, while the holiday entitlement of other employees was reduced. Between April and October 2014, when the complainant was out sick, she was paid her full-time salary for a number of months, rather than the four-day week salary paid to her academic colleagues. In 2016, she was the only member of the academic staff to receive a pay increase, the only increase paid to any member of the lecturing staff since 2008.

The respondent’s position is that the complainant’s grievance has been dealt with in a fair manner. In 2018, a sub-committee of the Board of Directors was appointed to review the decision of the Executive Director not to agree to her request to be placed on point 6 of the Lecturer’s scale and, in this way, her grievance has been concluded in accordance with fair procedures.

In summary, it is the respondent’s case that, up to the transfer of her employment under TUPE, the complainant was on the correct rate of pay for her position and her management responsibilities. They do not accept that she was doing the same or similar work compared to her three academic colleagues. It is the view of management that the complainant has been treated more favourably than other employees concerning changes to hours of work, holidays and the awarding of a salary increase in 2016.

Mr Connolly concluded by saying that the complainant’s grievance has been properly investigated and the outcome that has emerged was the correct one.

The root of the complainant’s problem lies in the timing of her joining the Lecturer’s pay scale in 2012. This coincided with a pay freeze that was in place since 2009, which, up until the date of her transfer to the university, had not been lifted. The effect was to hold her salary at point 1 of the scale, regardless of her progress in the organisation and the taking on by her of additional responsibilities and more academic (as opposed to non-accredited) teaching.

This salary freeze affected the complainant and her three colleagues in equal measure; her colleagues were also held at the points they were on in 2009, albeit that they had been placed on higher points and had progressed up the scale before the pay freeze.

For this reason, it seems to me that there is no injustice in the complainant’s predicament, as she shares it with her colleagues: no one on the academic staff moved up the incremental scale after 2009. As we know, in 2016, the complainant was awarded an increase of €3,450, equivalent to 8.7%, almost making up for the 10% pay cut of 2012.

The fact is that, in 2013, when the complainant’s role as Overseas Training Co-ordinator was no longer required, she took on the role of manager of a different programme and she accepted the salary for this role at point 1 of the Lecturer / Managerial pay scale, which was the same salary and point on the scale as her previous role.   Throughout 2013 and 2014, the effect of 10 redundancies, pay freezes and other cost-cutting measures, along with changes in the management of the organisation must have been challenging for the all the staff. During this time the complainant said that she was over-burdened with work and she felt unsupported. While it must have been very difficult to go through, this experience does not amount to a case for a pay increase.

The complainant’s main argument is that, at the time of her transfer to the university, she was on the wrong point on the pay scale, because she was doing the same or similar work as her colleagues. I accept that the complainant may be doing work similar to that of her colleagues; however, incremental pay scales, as they apply in schools and universities and across the public sector, take no account of the contribution of one employee compared to another further up or down the scale. For example, a teacher on point 3 of the teacher’s pay scale may be working harder and have more difficult students to deal with compared to a colleague on point 13 of the scale. The downside of an incremental scale is that length of service is rewarded over contribution and skills. In the complainant’s case, this disadvantage is exacerbated by the pay-freeze implemented in 2009, which prevented her from making any upward progress.  

In the notes that she provided to me as part of her written submission, the complainant said that, before the transfer of their jobs to the university, she spoke with two of her academic colleagues regarding her salary and “they felt that I should seek to be placed on the same pay scale” as existing academic staff. I have a concern that this grievance may have been initiated because of a misplaced aspiration that the transfer might have had the effect of bolstering a case for a pay increase for the complainant and for staff generally. It is regrettable that two people who were not in a position to influence the outcome sought to advise the complainant on this matter.

The complainant’s grievance has been examined fairly, in accordance with the organisation’s grievance procedure. The comprehensive review undertaken by the sub-committee of the Board of Directors in June 2018 represents a fair examination of the complainant’s case for a pay increase and it is my view that the outcome is not unreasonable.   I find myself in agreement with the findings of the committee that the complainant is on the correct rate of pay.   I am reassured in this regard by the fact that, when she moved to the university in July 2018, she was placed on point 7 of the Assistant Lecturer pay scale, moving her from €43,177 to €45,221. At the hearing, I was informed that in July 2019, she moved to point 8, with a commensurate salary of €47,095. It seems to me that this is a reasonable approach to her transfer, based on the fact that she commenced teaching at third level seven years earlier, in 2012.

I have given the complainant’s grievance serious consideration and I have concluded that she has not made out a case that, when she was employed by the respondent, she should have been on a higher rate of pay. For this reason, I recommend that no further action be taken in relation to this matter.

Pay increase, point on pay scale