INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
- AND -
DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC STAFF ASSOCIATION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Salary claim under Clause 2(lll) A of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW
2. The Association was formed in 1980 and represents 120 lecturers employed by the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT). The DIT, however, does not recognise the Association. It states that it recognises the Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI) as the sole bargaining agent for all academic staff members.
An agreement was reached at national level with the TUI under the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW). The Association claims that the agreement is in violation of the Roderick O'Hanlon arbitration of March, 1981, which established relativity between technological colleges and other third level institutions. In October, 1997, the Association claimed that the terms agreed with university staff should be applied to its members. In June, 1998, it submitted a claim to the DIT that the relativity with the lecturer and principal lecturer grades be restored and that the 5.5% increase be paid for productivity and flexibility already conceded.
In October, 1998, the Association referred its claim to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the issue on the 26th of April, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The agreement reached with the TUI is iniquitous and is against the express wishes of the Association's members. They are seeking the restoration of the terms, conditions and relativity established by the Roderick O'Hanlon arbitration of 1981.
2. The agreement places many members in a worse position than the universities' agreement would. College Teacher and Lecturer I grades are to be phased out and a new "yellow pack" recruitment grade of Assistant Lecturer is to be established at a much lower rate of pay.
3. Staff at other third level institutions received a settlement of 5.5% across the board, while the DIT agreement provides for different treatment of various grades. There is no immediate benefit for many staff although productivity has already been conceded in recent years.
4. Every grade except LIIs have automatic progression to the next grade. LIIs with more than five years' service must compete with SLIIs, SLIs and structured LIIs for 86 SLI teaching posts. In addition, long service increments will only be paid on a personal basis to existing LIIs but will not form part of the lecturer scale in the future. LIIs with less than fourteen years' service receive no benefit.
5. Senior management, directors and the president are not party to the agreement and are looking after their own interests independently. However, the Industrial Liaison Officer (a member of the Association) is included in this claim and should be regraded to the SLII grade as of the 1st of April, 1994.
6. Members in retirement are also adversely affected compared to their university colleagues who will receive the straight percentage increases.
4. 1. The Institute recognises only the Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI) as the sole bargaining agent for all academic staff members.
2. Under the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for academic staff negotiations have concluded and agreement has been reached with the TUI regarding revised pay and conditions for all academic staff under the PCW agreement.
3. The TUI, who represents most of the LIIs, accepted long service increments on their behalf with no automatic progression as part of the overall package. All staff members will benefit in some way. Many of them will be eligible to compete for promotion to the SLI grade.
4. The Institute cannot accede to the Association's claim. The agreement was reached between the Department of Education, the Institutes of Technology and the TUI at a national level.
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
While the Employer did not make a formal submission to the Court, a letter was supplied outlining the Institute's position and questions were answered by the Institute's representative.
While there is a great deal of dissatisfaction within the group represented before the Court, it is clear that there is an agreement in position that the Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI) have sole negotiating rights with the Institute, for academic staff.
It is also clear that under this agreement negotiations were entered into and concluded on pay and conditions under PCW covering all academic staff.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim before it.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st June, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.