SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY JASON MURRAY B.L.,INSTRUCTED BY O' MARA GERAGHTY MC COURT SOLICITORS)
Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Career Progression
2. This dispute concerns the worker’s claim that her career path is stunted because of her role being equated with that of a teaching fellow. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 21 November 2018 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 February 2019.
3. 1. The Worker is seeking a proper career progression to include incremental credit being applied for the past 3 years and for incremental progression to continue into the future.
2. The Worker is looking for a 12 month contract.
3. The Worker is seeking annual leave on the basis of a 12 month contract.
4. 1. The Employer refutes the Worker’s claims and considers that it honoured the Labour Court-recommended external evaluator’s decision to align the Worker’s annual salary to the first point of the Teaching Fellow scale.
2. The Employer is amenable to the Worker incrementing on the Teaching Fellow scale if she wishes, but this would be subject to her agreement to being treated the same as her colleagues in respect of her teaching allocation and the period over which she is paid.
3. The Worker did not seek to discuss any concerns locally or to provide her managers the opportunity to address any such concerns.
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court is aware of the long and detailed history of the parties’ efforts to address issues associated with the claimant’s terms and conditions of employment. Those efforts have included referrals to the Adjudication Service of the Workplace Relations Commission, appeals to the Court and the engagement of an external consultant on matters closely related to the matter before the Court. The Court is also aware of the complex industrial relations and representational environment within which the matters before it fall to be considered. In that context for example, the Court is aware that a range of other persons occupy posts with the same job title as the claimant but the Court has no understanding as to whether any definitive recommendation it would make has the potential to cause disputation among that population as regards their terms and conditions of employment.
The claimant seeks to have incremental progression made available to her and seeks also to be acknowledged by the employer as a person who works across twelve months of the year such that appropriate arrangements as regards leave etc. should be applied to her.
The Court established at its hearing that no effective engagement has taken place between the parties as regards the claims before the Court. The Court notes however that the employer has indicated a willingness to apply incremental progression to the claimant on the standard terms for calculation of hours of work and salary for a teaching fellow.
In those circumstances the Court recommends that the parties engage to explore all possible solutions to the issues before the Court taking account of the working arrangements required of the Claimant and any other considerations which bear upon the employer’s capacity to address the claims before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18 February 2019Chairman
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.