FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN (REPRESENTED BY FORDE HR SOLUTIONS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Conditions of employment for hourly-paid workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the conditions of employment for its members employed as hourly paid Lecturers working on a part time basis.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th June, 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th September, 2017. A further Labour Court hearing took place on 7th December, 2017. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a dispute over the number of hours to be allocated to hourly-paid Lecturers following their appointment as Equivalent Part-Time Lecturers (EPLs).
By way of background there had been an agreement between the College and the Union in 1991 (the 1991 Agreement) concerning the conversion of certain part-time Lecturers qualifying under the terms of the agreement to EPLs which took place at that time.
Prior to their appointment the Claimants were employed by the College as hourly-paid Lecturers on temporary contracts per academic year. Under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement these became contracts of indefinite duration (CIDs) after three consecutive years of employment.
Thereafter, as a result of an agreed independently-evaluated process thirty-two hourly-paid Lecturers were evaluated to determine their comparability to the role of full-time Lecturers and EPLs. Seventeen of the applicants were deemed successful and were appointed as EPLs on permanent salaried positions within the College. Discussions took place on a number of assimilation issues under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the issue of retrospection. A proposal document emerged from the WRC dated 24thFebruary 2017 which was acceptable to both sides. It is the interpretation of that document regarding the calculation of a pro rata formula that has given rise to this dispute. In this regard the WRC proposal stated: -
- “Management will meet with the 17 individuals deemed eligible for EPL status to confirm, via line management, the established pattern of current regular working hours in calculation of the pro-rata formula”
The College maintained that the basis of their permanent status on reaching three consecutive years’ service was determined by their student contact hours i.e. teaching hours. A dispute has arisen as to whether or not, in calculating the Claimants’ entitlement on assimilation to the new scale, additional hours spent on administrative duties should be added to their existing contract of indefinite duration hours. The Union claimed that their new contract hours should be increased by 33.33% over and above the hours guaranteed to them to take account of the administrative duties' requirements. It stated that such working time was previously completed in addition to their teaching hours but was unpaid. It is the Union’s contention that the administrative hours should be added to the established contact teaching hours in the same ratio as those on both EPL pro rata contracts and full-time Lecturer contracts. It maintained that this application would be consistent with the terms of the 1991 Agreement.
The College contended that the only reference made to the 1991 Agreement in the evaluation exercise was in relation to defining the role of an EPL. It maintained that this claim by the Union represents a cost-increasing claim and is a new claim to that which was discussed at the WRC when an agreement on the terms and conditions for their new status was reached between the parties. It stated that the additional discretionary administrativework, which was previously carried out on a voluntary basis, is what made them eligible for promotion to the EPL grade and was essential for their applications to succeed. The role and responsibility of an EPL is different to that of an hourly-paid Tutor, as in addition to teaching they are required to mark exams and assist in the design of the academic offering. Therefore, in calculating the pro rata formula for the seventeen individuals deemed eligible for EPL status, the College took each individual’s established pattern of hours (their CID hours) and allocated 75% of these hours to student contact hours and 25% to administrative hours.
The Court notes that there are now sixteen Claimants involved in this claim.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, on the basis that the College has assured the Court that a proportion of the Claimants’ hours in the new permanent contracts will be student contact hours and a proportion will be allocated to administrative duties in the same ratio as those on EPL pro rata and full time contracts, the Court is satisfied that the WRC proposal as interpreted by the College is accurate. On that basis, the Court is of the view that the claim for additional hours is a new claim and consequently the Court does not concede the Union’s claim.
The Court notes that in the future additional hours consistently worked will qualify for increasing the Claimants’ contract hours.
The Court recommends that having regard and in addition to the above Court finding on the interpretation of the WRC 24thFebruary 2017 proposals, the entirety of its terms should also be accepted by both parties, including the payment of retrospection from 1 May 2016.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th December 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.