FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Academic Promotion Appeals Process.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by five academics that UCD's appeals process was flawed in dealing with their unsucessful application for promotion to Senior Lecturer. In addition to seeking an independent review of these five appeals by an expert in each of their disciplines, the Union wants significant changes to the current process of promotions and appeals.
The Workers referred their cases to the Labour Court in June and July, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Workers agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current academic appeals process is seriously flawed and does not operates in a transparent and consistent manner.
2. It could be said that UCD has no actual appeals process in place because the terms of reference of the appeals committee do not allow it to overturn decisions not to promote.
3.The many flaws of the appeals committee are best illustrated by the fact that, although it has to decide if an academic should be promoted to Senior Lecturer, it cannot look at the applicant's academic competance .
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present system was introduced eight years ago, following the recommendations of an independent committee.
2.The five applicants were treated in a consistent and equitable manner which was entirely in accordance with agreed terms of reference.
3.If the Union is genuinely interested in reforming the current system it should engage with all the interested parties before inviting the Labour Court to intervene.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its claim the Union have raised two related issues. Firstly they claim that the appeals of five named members against the decision of the UCAATP Committee should be considered by an agreed independent expert in their disciplines. Secondly the Union is seeking that the current process of promotions and appeals be recast with the Appeals Committee widened to include Academic Judgment and the authority to overturn decisions of the UCAATP.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does not accept that it would be appropriate to recommend concessions of the Union’s first claim. There is not provision within the agreed arrangements for the type of appeal envisaged in this claim nor, in the Court’s view, would it be practicable to provide such an avenue of further appeal.
With regard to the second claim the Court recommends that the Union should seek to pursue this matter in conjunction with other interested Trade Unions. Any claim formulated for the reform of the current system should be presented to the University and discussed locally in the first instance. If agreement is not be reached the parties should jointly pursue the matter through the normal industrial relations chancels, including the LRC and if necessary the Court. The Court further recommends that the parties should deal with the matter expeditiously.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th April, 2010______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.