LCR23205

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Non adherence to 2017 collective agreement on the establishment of the Technological University Sector in relation to Senior Pay.

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 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th December 2025.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union says that if the Government truly wants to deliver on its agenda they must equip the Technological Universities and Institutes of Technology with the people necessary to deliver on that agenda, which requires a different approach to salaries than that taken by the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation.
4. The Union requests that the Court recommend an urgent review of Senior pay in the Technological Universities/Institute of Technologies by the body established to review Higher Remuneration and that the May 2017 Agreement is respected and adhered to by the Department.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer says that this is a cost increasing claim contrary to Clause 5.6.1 of the Public Service Agreement 2024-26 and therefore it cannot be conceded to.
5. The Department does not accept that it has failed to adhere to the terms of the May 2017 collective agreement. The Department says that some variation in the pay and make-up of senior manager teams is not unusual.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties and jointly referred to the Labour Court relates to the Unions belief that the Employer has not adhered to the May 2017 collective agreement in relation to Senior pay in the establishment of the Technological University Sector.  The Union submitted that the May 2017 Agreement provided for meaningful communication, consultation and, where appropriate, negotiation on relevant matters in the creation of a strong coherent Technological University Sector in Ireland. The Union position from the start of the engagements has been that there must be parity of esteem across the Technological University sector.

 In late 2023 the Union sought a meeting with the Employer when they heard locally that senior posts were about to be sanctioned for MTU without consultation and agreement with the TUI. The Union understood that it was proposed to appoint five vice presidents on a single point salary and five faculty Deans on a lower single point salary. These salary rates were considerably less than posts with the same title in TU Dublin where both the Vice President posts and the Faculty Deans posts are paid at the same rate.  This proposal ran contrary to the TUI stated position that posts should be paid at the same the level across the Technological Universities Sector in pursuit of their stated requirement for parity of esteem.

 The TUI believed at that point that they had no alternative but to ballot their members for industrial action and they advised the Employer accordingly. The TUI members voted overwhelmingly in support of industrial action up to and including strike action. Despite some engagement with the Employer the TUI felt it had no option but to issue notice of industrial action with effect from 4 March 2024.

The parties attended a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the WRC. At those conferences the Employer informed the Union that their approach to senior management pay was governed by a number of principles including that there were three grades available at different rates of pay and that Academic and Administrative posts can be placed on any of the three grades.  This was the first time the TUI became aware of the Employers’ intention to have three rates of pay. It was confirmed that a new National Forum for Negotiations would be established and the TUI would draft the terms of reference for that forum.

The Employer provided the Union with a copy of a document that set out their approach to sanctioning senior leadership teams in the sector along with draft contracts for Vice President and faculty Dean grades.  During these discussions agreement was reached on a number of issues. At Conciliation on 2 December 2024 the Union was informed that the employer was still awaiting a response to its business case for posts at the highest rate in ATU. It was agreed that the next conciliation conference would take place in February 2025. However, on 21 January 2025 the Minister on his last day in office with complete disregard for the process the parties were engaged in set out his approval for the filling of Senior Management posts in four of the Technological University at a rate lower than similar posts in Technological University Dublin. Not one post was approved for ATU at the higher rate despite it being a bigger campus than TU Dublin and no explanation was forthcoming as to the basis on which the decision had been made. Following a Conciliation conference in February 2025 the matter was referred to the Labour Court.

 The Employer does not accept that it did not adhere to the May 2017 agreement. There is nothing in that agreement that requires all Senior Manager teams to be paid at the same rate, and it is not unusual for there to be variations in the rates across the sector.  In their submission the Employer listed out the commitments in the agreement that they had fully honoured. The Employer accepted that the agreement did provide for good communication and a ‘no surprises’ approach to the engagement with the Union. It acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight a different approach to engagement around MTU Senior management team ahead of a sanction being granted may have been helpful and could have lessened any inadvertent risk of surprise.

Sanction for the posts in MTU was only granted following extensive engagement between DFHERIS and DPENDR lasting almost a year, including discussion at Cabinet Committee. The sanctioning process for ATU, SETU and TUS was similarly protracted. The sanction granted differed from the request initially submitted by DFHERIS. At the request of DFHERIS, DPENDR has provided a rationale for their decision, and this was in the documents submitted to the Court.

 DFHERIS position is that the remuneration sanctioned for the various posts for the senior management team is fair and that variation across senior pay is the norm in the sector.  This can be clearly seen in Report 42 which was the last review of senior pay across the higher education sector in 2007. It is the Employers position that there is no commitment or undertaking in the 2017 letter or elsewhere to equalise pay across senior administrative and academic roles and such variation cannot be interpreted as non-adherence to any agreement.

The Court carefully considered the submissions both written and oral of the parties, including the various documents that were attached as appendices. It was accepted by the Employer that there were no discussions about the rates of pay with the Unions and the Unions only became aware when the parties attended the WRC that the intention was to have three rates of pay for the positions.

DPENDR in a document dated 14 February 2025 (which formed part of the Employers appendices) set out their rational for applying the contested rates. They stated that when the MTU management structures were sanctioned 21 November 2023 there was an agreement that the MTU structure would form the overarching framework for the senior management structure for the remaining three TU’s i.e.  SETU, TUS and ATU.  The factors taken into consideration by DPENDR in its assessment of the ATU proposal for parity with TUD were, staffing numbers, student numbers, budget and budgetary responsibilities and output including research.  The document went on to say that DPENDR determined that there was not sufficient empirical evidence to bring the ATU senior leadership team up to the same rates as were sanction for TUD, which themselves were based on legacy Dublin Institute of Technology rates.   The Court notes, while the Union might not agree with the pay rates, the information as to why they were applied was belatedly made available.

 The Union in their submission requested that the Court recommend an urgent review of Senior pay in the Technological Universities/IOT’s by the body established to review Higher Remuneration.

 However, it is the Court’s understanding that the body they are referring to has not yet been set up on a statutory basis and a pathway to access it has not been clearly outlined. In those circumstances it is not possible for the Court to make such a recommendation. It is, as always, open to the parties to explore this if they believe it is an option that is available to them.  To maintain good industrial relations in the work place it is important that relevant information is exchanged in a timely manner and that a commitment to ‘no surprises’ is more than just words on paper.

In the overall circumstances of this case the Court cannot recommend in favour of the Unions request for a referral to the Higher Remuneration Body.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
24 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.