LCR22656

1.Grade Progression.

BACKGROUND:

2.UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

(i) The progression from the A03 pay scale to A02 pay scale is automatic and universal as it is an extension of the standard scale. This cannot not be equated with promotion.
(ii) The circumstances in this case are identical to those in LCR20111, in which case the Court ruled that progression to a higher scale for Library Assistant and Assistant Librarian staff was not a promotion and was not subject to promotion requirements.
(iii) The progression from A03 to A02 was not part of the above case as, at the time, TCD had not sought to remove this progression.
(iv) Procedure 47 confirms the Union’s view with regard to the grade progression from A02 to A03.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

(i) Procedure Number 47 did not provide automatic progression from A03 to A02. Any such progression was always subject to an application by the person seeking it and an
assessment by their manager.
(ii) Procedure No 47 has ceased to exist since 2016/17 and no procedure is currently in place in respect of staff moving from A03 to A02.
(iii) The University proposed solutions to SIPTU for members in A03 posts prior to April 2018, of which they did not avail.



This matter was referred to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:

RECOMMENDATION:

While it seems obvious to the Court that this matter should be resolved by the parties as an integral part of any agreement to change the staff assessment system in the College, which matter is the subject of live negotiation, it is equally clear to the Court that any possible agreement on the matter is unlikely.

That being so, the Court is faced with an apparent decision of the College board to discontinue a well established practice for progression from AO3 to AO2 on the one hand and on the other with a clear expectation by the staff of a continuation of that practice. The parties need hardly to be told that such a breakdown in communication is an inevitable generator of difficulties in their relationship.

That being said, it seems to the Court that the fact that the change in practice was apparently unilateral, despite its impact on a group of staff, means that those staff have had a route to progression removed without full engagement with their representatives, so that, while the Employer has every right to seek to up-date its assessment systems, it is no surprise that the staff affected are aggrieved.

The Court believes that the grievance can be resolved by the continuation of Procedure 47 for those staff in AO3 posts at the date of this Recommendation and its discontinuation for future holders of AO3 posts.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
SL	______________________
14 October 2022	Deputy Chairman