INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY
- AND -
DR JIM ROGERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
2. The Claimant has been employed in the University since September, 2007 on a series of fixed-term contracts. By operation of law his contract became a Contract of Indefinite Duration during 2011. In determining his CID entitlements Management recognised the term and conditions of the contract in place when the provisions of the Act took effect. at the time when his entitlements in law crystallised which was a Part-Time Lecturer on a contracted for 121 hours semester. The Claimant is seeking a full-time CID that reflects the totality of his employment with DCU over the four-year period of his employment prior to the date on which he converted to a CID.
On the 24th July, 2013 the Worker 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 4th October, 2013.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The average hours lecturing/tutoring over the four previous academic years was 185.5 hours. This is similar to the hours worked by a full-time staff Lecturer.
2. When issuing the contract of indefinite duration Management failed to take into account the contract hours, duties and responsibilities carried out by the Claimant.
4. 1. The Claimant is attempting to secure preferential treatment by asserting that his contract of indefinite duration should be derived from the terms of contracts which either precede or succeed the relevant contract at the point of four years' service.
2. The Claimant has not been disadvantaged by the issuing of a contract of indefinite duration as a part-time Lecturer. The University has enabled the Claimant to undertake full-time research in line with the funding available.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute. The Court finds that the University has treated the Claimant no differently to other staff in similar positions.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st October, 2013______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.