CD/24/136 | RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR23029 |
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AND
5 PRACTICE EDUCATION CO-ORDINATORS
(REPRESENTED BY IFUT)
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Ms O'Donnell |
Employer Member: | Ms Doyle |
Worker Member: | Ms Treacy |
SUBJECT:
Appropriate Academic Pay Scales
BACKGROUND:
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 16 May 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 July 2024.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS.
- Practice Education Coordinators (PECs) are Lecturers, but they don’t enjoy the terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by Lecturers. As a result of not being recognised as Lecturers, PECs are prohibited from the career progression opportunities available to Lecturers.
- Not all PECs have the same rates or terms and conditions of employment as each other. Despite having identical job descriptions, there are differences in pay, annual leave, and potentially other aspects depending on the discipline in which each PEC specialises. This practice of varying terms does not apply to Lecturers; in other words, different terms are not applied across different academic disciplines for Lecturers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS.
- The University does not have autonomy in how it may determine remuneration for employees and is bound by the terms of Section 25(4) of the Universities Act, 1997 which provides that remuneration is a matter for “the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance” (now Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform).
- There is a concern that concession of this claim may lead to repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted that this dispute covers 5 employees described as Practice Education Co-ordinators attached to the School of Medicine noting that in total there are seven posts of Practice Education Co-ordinators attached to the school of Medicine. The Employer initially suggested that there were 18 Practice Education Co-ordinators/Tutors employed by the University paid on HSE Health & Social Care Professional Grade salary scales including the five claimants. However, the Employer accepted that the Practice Education Tutor’s while on the same pay scale are not interchangeable with the Co-ordinators and that the claim was only in respect of the Co-ordinators.
The Union submitted that the five workers do the same job but have different pay rates and annual leave arising from their historical links to HSE grades. It was their submission that this is not sustainable and that they all should be paid on the lecture above the bar scale. The Union submitted that it was their belief that when the grade was introduced in and around 2007, they should have been placed on the lecture above the bar pay scale in line with an agreement IFUT has for recruiting lectures which predates 2007. It was their submission that they do not want a job evaluation. They believe it is within the gift of the Employer to rectify this situation as they believe it is an error and therefor, they are just seeking to have the error rectified. The Union informed the Court that they were not aware of what rates were paid to these Workers in other Universities but accepted that this category of Worker was not just confined to UCC.
The Employer stated that any concession of this claim, would have consequential knock ons, and that they are debarred from conceding the claim as it is outside of Building Momentum which does not provide for cost increasing claims.
They stated that they do not accept that these Workers are lecturers. However, they do accept that they are not administrators. It is their position that the agreement the University has with IFUT is in respect of lecturers and does not apply to this category of workers.
The Employer stated that they have enquired with other Universities as to how this class of Workers are paid, and, in some Universities, they are paid in the same manner as this employer i.e. linked to the relevant HSE Social Care Professionals Grade. In one University they are linked to HSE registrar position, and in another they are linked to the lecture above the bar pay scale.
Both parties confirmed to the Court, that following conciliation on the 23rd May 2023, the Conciliation Officer had written to both parties noting “that they had agreed to engage locally to carry out a comparative analysis exercise with respect to the roles and responsibilities between the Practice Education Coordinators vis a vis those above the bar Lecturer job description in the respective programmes the outcome of the above exercise to determine the next steps in relation to the matter.”
It was accepted that this engagement had not happened. While a comparative analysis of sorts had been carried out, this was at the instigation of the Union and not discussed or agreed with the Employer in advance. It is clear from the submissions both verbal and written that having staff doing more or less the same work on different pay scales and annual leave entitlements is not ideal. A complicating factor is that the pay rates are not standardised across the University sector. The Court does not accept the Unions submission that the scale the workers are on arose from an error back in 2007 and that what they are seeking is the rectification of same. Based on the information before the Court more Universities pay the rates that this Employer pays, than pay a different rate and only one University was identified as paying the above the bar lecturer rate that the Union are looking for.
Having taken all this into consideration the Court recommends that the parties as a first step, engage in the manner as agreed at conciliation and as set out by the Conciliation Officer on 23rd May 2023.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | |
Aidan Ralph | |
AR | ______________________ |
14 August 2024 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.