FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TUI) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for Incremental Credit.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to the application of incremental credit. In January 2000, the Worker commenced employment with Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) as a part-time Assistant Lecturer. The Worker remained in this position up until December 2009 when he was appointed to the position of full-time Assistant Lecturer. He commenced in his new position in January 2010. Upon appointment to his new position the Worker was informed that his salary would commence on the first point of the Assistant Lecturer salary scale in accordance with Institute policy. It is the Worker's claim that given his extensive experience and qualifications he should have been entitled to incremental credit in line with Circular Letter IT 01/05, which takes into consideration previous working experience for the purpose of determining the level of incremental credit to be awarded. The Institute rejects the Worker's claim contending that he was appropriately placed on the first point of the salary scale and furthermore, he is not entitled to any additional credits. The Institute further contends that it has fully complied with Circular Letter IT 01/05.
On the 6th May, 2011 the Union on behalf of its member referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th March, 2012.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker holds extensive qualifications and has a vast range of relevant experience in the field.
2. The Worker maintains that he should be awarded incremental credit in line with Circular Letter IT 01/05.
3. The Worker is currently seeking retrospective application of incremental credit and is of the view that the Employer is in a position to do so.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker had no entitlement to incremental credit and was correctly placed at the minimum point of the salary scale on commencement of his full-time position.
2. The Employer has fully complied with the terms of Circular Letter IT 01/05.
3. The Employer is not in a position to retrospectively apply incremental credit in this instance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the Institute has undertaken to examine the Complainant’s academic history in Cyprus for the purposes of determining his entitlement to incremental credit pursuant to the provisions of Circular Letter No IT 01/05. The Court recommends that this process should be completed expeditiously and any consequent adjustment to his entitlement to incremental credit applied with full retrospection.
The Court notes that from March 2009 onwards DIT introduced a new recruitment policy that, with a small number of exceptions, saw all new appointees placed on the first point of the relevant salary scale. This new policy represented a significant departure from the practice that had applied in the college over a long period of time. The complainant in this case was adversely affected by this policy change. On appointment to the post, for which he applied in September 2009, he was placed on the first point of the relevant salary scale. He did not receive credit for his extensive teaching and professional experience for which, prior to 2009, he would have been allowed incremental credit. He contends that he was unfairly treated by the Institute in this regard and asks the Court to recommend that he be given appropriate incremental credit for his extensive teaching and professional experience as though the policy change was not in effect.
The Court takes the view that the 2009 Policy change was a collective issue that fell to be addressed by the trade unions and management in its own right. A claim by an individual who was affected by the policy change is not an appropriate vehicle through which to process such a collective issue. However were collective discussions between the Unions and the Institute to result in a change to the policy decision taken in 2009, the complainant would be entitled to have that outcome applied in his case also.
So long as the new policy was applied in a consistent manner by the Institute to all new appointees, the Court can find no basis upon which it can recommend concession of the Union’s claim. No evidence to the effect that the policy was applied in an inconsistent manner by the Institute was presented to the Court. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
27th March 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.