LCR23082

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No’s: ADJ-00061179 (CA-00061179-001 IR-SC-00002157.

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 26 June 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 10 June 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I have found some merit in this Dispute. I make the following Recommendation in full and final settlement of this claim and without precedential value.

The Recommendation is made without prejudice to the extant claim for upgrading in the Grade 4 cohort.

 1. I am unable to award a Grade 5 pay and conditions in this employment. However, I recommend that the Employer recognises the extra duties engaged in by the Worker for the months between October 2017 and July 2019 and awards her the differential in pay between Grade 4 and Grade 5 for that period alone.

2. In seeking to restore equilibrium to the employment relationship, I recommend that the Parties engage within 4 weeks of the issuing of this Recommendation to explore any available opportunities for the Worker to transfer laterally within her existing grade. This opportunity should remain open for 6 months from the date of the Recommendation.

3. Any position accepted by the Worker must have an agreed job description from the outset.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 December 2024.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (IR-SC-00002157, dated 10 June 2024) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 26 June 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on 3 December 2024.

Background to the Dispute

The Worker has been employed in various capacities by University College Cork (‘the Employer’) since 2004. She was employed at different times in hourly paid teaching and part-time co-ordination roles. With effect from 11 November 2013, the Worker commenced a whole-time, fixed-term position as a Programme Coordinator. This appointment was extended a number of times and ultimately became a contract of indefinite duration.

In 2017, following discussions between the Worker and her Director about her future career path in the University, it was agreed that the Worker would be granted paid leave to complete a Master’s degree in Technical Communication and E-Learning at the University of Limerick. The Employer paid the fees for this course which the Worker successfully completed in 2018.

In April 2020, the Worker commenced in the role of Programme Coordinator, Pilot Learning Region (North Cork -Rural Limerick) at her existing grade (Grade 4) but under protest as she had requested an upgrading as a condition of taking on this role. That dispute was the subject of a conciliation process under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. The North Cork project ultimately did not progress beyond the pilot stage and an alternative Programme/Project Coordinator role was identified which the Worker again accepted under protest. The Worker engaged thereafter, through her Union, with the Employer seeking an upgrade as she was of the belief that her Director had given her to understand in 2107 that she would be upgraded on completion of her Master’s in Technical Communication and E-Learning.

The Worker’s Submission

The core of the Worker's claim is that she received a verbal assurance in April 2017 from the Director of Adult Continuing Education (‘ACE’) that she would receive the title of Instructional Designer with an upgrade to Grade 5 on successful completion of her Master’s degree. She submits that she formed ‘a legitimate expectation’ of promotion on foot of that verbal assurance and, on that basis, undertook her Master’s course and extensive additional work, over and above that which she was contracted to do, thereby “establishing herself as a central figure in ACE’s online program development and institutional design processes”.

The Worker is seeking the following awards from the Court:

(a) A full regrade to Grade 5 in recognition of her completion of qualifying requirements and the additional duties she has performed since 2017; and

(b) Retroactive compensation to align the Worker’s salary with Grade 5 from the completion of her Master’s in 2018.

The Employer’s Submission

The Employer denies that any offer of upgrading was made to the Worker in 2017 as no manager in the University has authority to make such an offer having regard to the governing legislation and public service pay policy. Under the Universities Act 1997, the Employer is bound to fill all new permanent vacancies/ new posts through advertisement and competition.

The Employer further submits that the creation of new posts is solely within the remit of a staffing sub-group of the University Leadership Team which is bound to operate within the Employment Control Framework for the Higher Education Sector.

Finally, the Employer submits that it has run three competitive promotional processes since 2017 for which the Worker would have been eligible to apply but she declined to do so.

Discussion and Decision

The Court notes that the creation of new posts within the university sector is highly regulated and controlled by the Universities Act 1997, the Employment Control Framework for the Higher Education Sector and public sector pay policy generally as reflected in successive Public Service Agreements. In the light of those stringent controls, the Court finds that Worker’s belief that she had received a binding assurance in 2017 from her Director that she would be automatically upgraded to a new Grade 5 position on the completion of her Master’s degree is not well-founded.

The Court finds, therefore, that the within claim is without merit and sets aside the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in full.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
11th December 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.