INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeals mechanism for promotion to Associate Professorship.
2. In 1999 the Dowling report on academic promotions in University College Dublin (UCD) recommended that promotion to Senior Lecturer (SL) and Associate Professor (AP) should be carried out on a non quota basis. The report also recommended that an appeals procedure should be put in place for unsuccessful candidates. The College adopted the Dowling report but has not fully implemented it.
In 2003 people applied for promotion to Associate Professor on the understanding that there would be an appeals system. However, the University found it to be inappropriate and inoperable to have an appeals process in the context of a system, based on competition for a pre-determined quota of posts.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for an appeals mechanism to be put in place for those candidates who were unsuccessful in their application for promotion to Associate Professor in 2003 and who wish to have the position reviewed under appropriate headings.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April, 2005.
3. 1.The Dowling report provided that there should be an appeals procedure in the case of unsuccessful candidates for Associate Professorship.
2. Persons applied for the promotion to AP on the understanding that there would be an appeals procedure.
3. The Union does not accept that, because there was a quota of Associate Professorshipsfor promotion, an appeals procedure cannot be entertained for unsuccessful candidates wishing to challenge the legitimate execution of the procedures laid down for filling a quota.
4. 1. An appeals mechanism has never been available to applicants for promotion to AP in UCD.
2. In 2003 promotion to the grade of AP continued to be based on a pre-determined number quota of posts.
3. Serious consideration will be given to the introduction of an appeals mechanism for future promotion rounds. The pathways for promotion/ appointment to the professorial grades (AP and Professor) are currently under revision.
The Union sought an appeals procedure, in accordance with that recommended in the 'Dowling Report', in respect of those who were unsuccessful in their application for promotion to Associate Professor level in the 2003 competition.
The Court notes the commitment given by Management to introduce an appeals procedure as recommended, in the next couple of weeks, however, this will apply to future competitions and not to the 2003 competition.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court notes the recommendation on Appeals contained in Chapter 11 'Procedural Issues' and specifically those contained at R11.7.
As an equitable solution to this claim the Court recommends that the appeals procedure set out in R11.7 should be provided for the claimants involved in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th May, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.