Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Part-Time Teaching Assistant

A Third Level Educational Institution

Representatives

SIPTU

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-00026396-001

20/02/2019

The Worker is employed by the Employer as a Part-Time Teaching Assistant on the basis of a contract of indefinite duration since 1 August, 2014. This dispute relates to a claim by the Worker that she is conducting work appropriate to the academic grade of Lecturer and she is seeking to have a job evaluation exercise carried out to determine the appropriate grade of her post. The Employer disputes the claim. The Worker has sought to have this dispute adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Aft, 1969.

The Complainant is currently employed as a Part-Time Teaching Assistant (PTTA). PTTA’s are remunerated on the Administrative Grade 3 salary scale and so, despite the job title and content, are deemed not to be academic staff. The Worker contends that she is conducting work appropriate to the academic grade Lecturer, or at any rate work demonstrably inappropriate to the grade of PTTA. The Worker submits that she designs, teaches and examines academic modules and plans courses and is assistant to nobody in this work.

By letter dated 9 July, 2018, the Worker sought to have a grievance heard under the internal procedures regarding the grading of her post. The grievance was never heard or even acknowledged by the Employer. Since 1 October, 2018, the Employer has refused to hear grievances relating to grading under the internal procedures. This despite the Employer having confirmed on 29 May, 2017 its acceptance of a recommendation in the case of A HR Employee -v- A Third Level Institution ADJ-00005665 which recommended that “a process for dealing with grievances employees may have regarding their grades which may include a need for job-grading evaluation by suitably qualified person(s)”. The Workers grievance was lodged, therefore, before the Employer’s change of policy.

The Worker submits that the Employer’s letter dated 1 October, 2018 stated that staff, including the Worker, would be advised of the Employer’s change of policy. This did not occur. The Worker therefore had no further access to internal avenues for the resolution of the dispute and so referred the matter for adjudication by the WRC on 20 February, 2019.

The Worker submits that she is not requesting the Adjudication Officer to conduct a job evaluation exercise in relation to her post. The Worker is seeking a recommendation that a person with expertise in job analysis be commission by the Employer to carry out an evaluation to determine the appropriate grade of her post.

The Employer submits that the Worker has been provided with a job description for her role within the institution and the position she occupies has clearly been set out in terms of the expectations of the post. These roles differ significantly from that of a Lecturer. The role that the Worker was engaged to do was not that of a Lecturer.

The role of a University Lecturer is an appointment, made by order of University Statute. The Worker is entitled to apply for lecturing positions that arise within the Higher Education Sector through fair and open competition.

The Employer submits that this claim constitutes a cost increasing claim, which under the Public Service Agreement is outside of the scope of the Employer at this time. The Employer has received a number of similar re-grading referrals and applications from staff and their respective Trade Unions on their behalf, and therefore, cannot accede to such a claim on that basis. There is currently no Job Evaluation Scheme within the institution. However, the Employer has committed to reviewing all PTTA contracts in respect of hours worked and contract type.

I have carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions made by the parties in relation to this dispute.

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim by the Worker that she should be re-graded from the position of Part-Time Teaching Assistant to that of Lecturer. The Worker is seeking a recommendation that that a person with expertise in job analysis be commissioned by the Employer to carry out an evaluation to determine the appropriate grade of her post.

I note that the Employer confirmed that it has engaged an independent expert to review a number of individual cases within the institution in respect of the issue of regrading and has provided an undertaking that this process will be concluded by the end of 2020. The Employer has agreed to include the Worker in this process of review.

In the circumstances, I find that that Employer should include the Worker in the ongoing internal review process with a view to establishing whether or not the work that she is currently performing is graded at the correct level. The Employer should undertake to have the review regarding the grading of the Worker’s post carried out in a timely and efficient manner.

I recommend that that Employer should include the Worker in the ongoing internal review process with a view to establishing whether or not the work that she is currently performing is graded at the correct level. The Employer should undertake to have the review regarding the grading of the Worker’s post carried out in a timely and efficient manner.

Industrial Relations Act 1969 – Section 13(9) – Trade Dispute – Re-grading – Job Evaluation