|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DIAS (DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES)
(REPRESENTED BY SIOBHAN BROWNE AND ASSOCIATES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00027741 CA-00035524-001 I recommend the Respondent vigorously apply once again to the relevant Government department(s) for the financial package required year on year to ensure that the complainant's position is given the permanent status due. I recommend that the Respondent demand comprehensive reasons be given for the failure to confirm the appropriate financial package in the event that there is a continued refusal to sanction same. I recommend that the Respondent demand a right of Appeal from that decision, should that decision be in the negative. In the alternative (or indeed concurrent to the above) I recommend brining the hitherto unrepresented parties before the WRC to give evidence on the rationale for the decision to give a promotion to Senior Professor which has amounted to a non-promotion. This can be done by brining a complaint under the Industrial Relations Act naming the Respondent and the relevant Departments as joint Respondents. This would be similar in nature to a teacher naming his/her school as well as the Department of Education in similar proceedings.
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court was assisted greatly in its consideration by the comprehensive written and oral submissions of the parties. The claim before the Court is estimated by the Court to carry a value, if conceded in full, of €590,000 approximately. A further claim for retrospective payment in the amount of €90,000 was withdrawn by the worker at the appeal. The worker claims that he should be promoted immediately such that the appointment which he currently holds on a fixed term be converted immediately to a permanent appointment. Both parties agree that the employer has no authority or sanction to make such an appointment. It is accepted by both parties that, arising from legislation to that effect, the authority for approval of such appointments in the employer organisation rests with the Government and the President of Ireland. The employer had previously proposed that approval should be given to appoint the worker to the position on a permanent basis. That proposal was not approved by Government. An alternative proposal of the relevant Department was, according to the employer and not disputed by the worker, accepted by the employer with the full knowledge and consent of the worker. That proposal of the Department was approved by Government and approved by the President of Ireland. In accepting the subsequent offer of the employer, the worker stated that he reserved the right to pursue the within claim. His assertion in this respect, which was in writing at the time, was not refuted by the employer at the time and the approved terms and conditions of appointment to the position which he currently holds were implemented. Against this background the Court is asked to recommend that the employer concede a claim which it is acknowledged it has no authority to concede. The parties with authority to concede the claim are not before the Court and in any event have previously refused to approve a proposal in similar terms put forward by the employer. Having regard to all of the circumstances of this matter, the Court concludes that no Recomendation that thhis employer, which it is acknowledged has no authority to do so, would concede the worker's claim represents a basis upon which the trade dispute before the Court should or could be resolved. The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary. |
