Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Lecturer

A University

Representatives

Represented by a colleague

Laura Kerin, IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00006086

27/04/2025

The worker has been a permanent wholetime lecturer since 2003.  He is contracted to teach for 16 hours per week over two semesters each year; the first semester is from September to December and the second runs from January to June.

In his submission to the WRC, the worker said that each hour of class teaching requires two hours of work outside class, and that 16 hours of class contact time means that he works for 48 hours per week.

There are two parts to the worker’s grievance:

Part 1:  Administrative Work Related to Student Recruitment

The worker teaches on a degree course in process instrumentation and automation (PIA).  The course is structured on a “Learn and Work Model” which involves the students being placed in engineering and automotive workplaces for 19 months of their degree programme.  The students emerge from the degree “work ready” and quickly find employment.

Until the September 2025 intake, applicants for the programme were required to submit a curriculum vitae, complete an online aptitude test and attend an interview.  When the programme was set up initially, a significant element of the assessment work was done by the administrative staff in the School of EEE; however, with the move to university status, the administrative staff were relieved of this work and it was allocated to the lecturing staff.

For the academic year 2023/2024, the worker’s colleague who attended this hearing carried out the assessment of students for the Learn and Work programme.  To free him up to do the work, his class contact time was reduced by four hours per week.  At the hearing, he said that four hours wasn’t enough time to complete all the work associated with the assessment process, and that some of the work was done over the summer, at no additional cost to the college.

The worker’s colleague wanted to relinquish responsibility for the assessment process and, in December 2023, he spoke to the relevant manager, the head of control engineering, who agreed to allocate the administrative tasks to the worker who is the subject of this dispute.

The worker had been allocated to teach for 14 hours per week in the January – June semester and he wrote to the head of control engineering and confirmed that he would be happy to manage the recruiting process for the Learn and Work programme.  He was surprised to find that, instead of the four hours that were allocated to his colleague in 2023/2024, he was allocated the two hours per week for which he had not been timetabled as teaching hours.  To make the time up to four hours, he was permitted to “flex up” for two hours for the January – June 2024 semester.  “Flexing up” is a process whereby additional hours may be worked in one semester and reduced in the following semester.  The reduction in hours was possible because of the reduction in class time on the second semester of the programme, when the students were on work placement.

At the hearing, the worker said that the time spent on the programme went well beyond the four hours per week that were allocated for the 15 weeks of the semester.  In 2024/2025, the number of applicants increased by 30% and 144 applications were considered, compared to 110 the previous year.  The number of CVs screened increased from 30 to 56.  Between May and August 2024, the worker carried out 48 interviews, an increase of 15 compared to 2023/2024.  He said that a significant amount of time was spent responding to student queries.  He kept a detailed record of the hours he worked on the recruitment process and, all in all, he said that he spent 200 hours on the programme, 140 hours above the 60 hours he was allocated (4 hours per week for 15 weeks).

Part 2:  The Impact of the Doubling of the Student Intake

The worker and another lecturer deliver two 10 credit modules on the first-year of the PIA degree.  The first module is an introduction to instrumentation and the second is workshop practice and computer aided design (CAD).  Since 2019, the worker has been allocated four hours of class contact time per week for each module (2 modules x 4 hours = 8 hours).  When the student intake for the 2024/2025 programme was doubled, the worker was assigned to teach two classes for two hours per week for each of the two modules ((2 modules x 2 hours) x 2 = 8 hours).

At the hearing, the worker explained that, unlike the years from 2019 - 2023, from September 2024, he was required to cover the same material and achieve the same learning outcomes in half the time for double the number of students.  He said that this was stressful for him and inadequate for the students, who didn’t get the same level of teaching time compared to students in previous years.

The worker also teaches two other modules in the September – December semester, with four class contact hours for each, resulting in eight hours per week.  This brings him to 16 class contact hours per week.  His class contact time was reduced by two hours in September – December (2 hours x 15 weeks) giving him 30 hours for the recruitment on the Learn and Work programme. 

Efforts to Resolve the Grievances

At a course board meeting on March 4th 2024, the issue of the work and the hours required for the recruitment process was discussed.  The course co-ordinators were asked to forward a breakdown of the tasks and the hours allocated to them based on the previous year’s work and the current student numbers.

On May 22nd 2024, the worker wrote to the head of control engineering and provided details of the time he spent on the various recruitment tasks.  He said that “a conservative estimate” was that the assessment tasks needed six hours per week, continuing into the summer.  When he didn’t get a reply, he wrote again on June 11th 2024.  The head of control engineering didn’t support his case for an increase in the hours allocated, but she said that the interview panel could be reduced from three people to two.  She said that she would help with the interviews.  The worker replied that he had done 140 hours of work so far that semester, although 30 hours had been allocated.  He asked for the hours to be recognised on his timetable for September 2024.   He continued during the summer of 2024 to recruit for the course commencing in September.

On September 2nd 2024, the worker said that he and his colleagues who taught on the PIA course were called to a meeting with the head of control engineering and the head of the School of EEE.  They were informed that, as part of a Financial Recovery Plan, the number of lecturers employed to deliver the programme would be reduced, with the result that teaching hours would need to be reduced.  Following a meeting of the programme team, one of the lecturers representing the group sent an email to the head of control engineering and asked her to delay finalising the timetable until they considered all the options available, apart from reducing class contact times.

On September 5th, the lecturers representing the worker and his colleagues wrote to the head of control engineering and proposed a number of initiatives to address the shortfall of 19 hours of teaching for the group of 27 first year students.  The worker said that they didn’t get a response to their proposals.  Timetables were then issued for the September – December semester and the worker’s teaching time was reduced by two hours on the modules he was assigned to teach.  Another lecturer was reduced by one hour.  The class contact time for second- and third-year students was not reduced.

On September 12th, the worker wrote to the head of control engineering and asked her how the reduction in his class contact time by 50% on two modules would work.  The head of control engineering replied immediately and gave some guidance regarding how the reduction in hours could be managed.  She concluded her email by saying that she hadn’t got scope to increase the worker’s contact time due to room constraints and limited time available in his allocation of hours.

At the hearing, the worker described the process normally followed when there are changes to course modules.  This involves a three-stage process: a discussion by the course board, a proposal for changes to the module and approval of the changes.

The worker said that he was expected to meet the learning outcomes of the modules in half the number of teaching hours that had been allocated previously.  He said that this was extremely stressful for him and unsatisfactory for the students.  Added to this was the problem of licensing for the computer aided design (CAD) software which wasn’t released until five weeks into the semester.

On October 1st, the co-ordinator of the PIA degree course called a meeting of the course board for October 11th 2024.  The worker asked for the agenda to include the number of hours he spent on the first-year recruitment process and the reduction by 50% in his class contact time for the modules on CAD and introduction to instrumentation.  The head of control engineering objected to these items being on the agenda.  He was advised to use the grievance procedure to have this “personal issue” addressed.  At the hearing at the WRC, the worker’s colleague said that the reduction in teaching time was an item which needed to be addressed by the course board.

At the October 11th meeting, the worker’s colleague proposed that the reduction in teaching time was recorded in the minutes of the meeting, which it was.  He proposed that the cuts were reversed and that there should be no reduction in teaching hours in the semester beginning in January 2025.  The minutes also note that four lecturers offered to “flex up” by two hours in the first semester to help to resolve the class time problem. 

The worker said that he was hopeful that his teaching hours would be increased, but when that didn’t happen, in accordance with stage 2 of the respondent’s grievance procedure, he submitted a grievance.  A formal meeting to hear his grievance took place on December 18th 2024.  In attendance for the respondent was the head of control engineering and the head of the School of EEE.

In response to the worker’s concerns about the excessive time needed for the recruitment for the PIA degree, the head of control engineering said that the worker was timetabled to the maximum and that overtime could not be offered.  The worker reiterated his desire to have the same arrangement that his colleague had in previous years and to have four hours from his class contact time allocated to the recruitment role.

When the discussion moved to the second part of the worker’s grievance, no progress was made and the worker indicated that he wanted to move to stage 3 of the grievance process.  In accordance with the grievance procedure, that head of the school of EEE was required to propose a resolution at the end of the second stage of the process.  On January 29th 2025, he proposed that two hours would be added to the worker’s timetable for semester 2 2024/2025 (January – June) “so that the AutoCAD element of the Workshop Practice and CAD module can be completed during the first 4 weeks of Semester 2 2024/25 and in recognition of (the worker’s) contribution to the processing of applications in 2024.” 

At the hearing of this dispute on October 8th 2025, the complainant referred to the reference in the employer’s booklet which indicated that this proposal was based on an assumption that the worker would retain his 16 contractual hours per week, but that two of these hours were “available for use at his discretion rather than being assigned to additional teaching and learning duties.”  The worker said that, if the proposed resolution of January 29th 2025 had been worded in this way, the first issue would have been resolved.  He said that in the proposed resolution, the two hours are linked to AutoCAD and he assumed that the hours were to be used to teach the AutoCAD programme, which had been delayed due to the licensing issue.   

In his documents for the hearing, the worker included an email dated January 30th 2025 from the head of control engineering in which she stated that “2 hours are allocated to CAD, to facilitate the shortfall in semester 1.”  At the hearing, the worker said that he taught on the CAD programme for two hours for 12 weeks, with each group attending every second week.  He said that he had no hours left over and that the word “discretion” doesn’t reflect what happened.

On March 12th 2025, a meeting took place in accordance with stage 3 of the grievance procedure.  A faculty dean chaired the meeting.  The worker noted that he had not been allocated classes for six hours for which he was timetabled on Fridays.  He asked if these hours could be removed from his timetable as a potential resolution to his grievance.  On April 9th 2025, the faculty dean wrote to the worker with a proposed resolution.  In relation to the first part of the worker’s grievance, the proposed response was as follows:

“It remains the position that the awarding of a reduction in timetable hours is not commensurate with the nature or volume of the tasks undertaken.  It is not possible in the current financial situation to consider any increase to this given resource constraints which will only allow for the 2 hours reduction as has been previously offered at your Stage 2 Grievance hearing.

“In relation to the proposed outcome at Stage 2 which you stated effectively added 2 hours to your timetable in Semester 2, 2024/2025.  While it may appear that 2 hours were ‘added’ to your timetable, this was an adjustment to reflect the 16 hours per week to be worked each semester.  A 2-hour reduction in timetable hours is a reasonable resolution in recognition of your contribution to the processing of applications in 2024.”

In relation to the six hours against which no teaching had been allocated, the faculty dean said that the head of school advised that these hours related to work placement duties to be completed in the coming months.  The faculty dean wrote,

“However, on the basis that this 6 hour (sic) already constitutes a reduction in timetable hours, it is not possible to consider your proposal to allow as a concession as part of the settlement of your grievance given that this relates to another matter.”

The worker complained that the stage three response didn’t address the cut in the modules on CAD and introduction to instrumentation.

The worker’s colleague said that the impact is that there has been a disproportionate impact on one individual member of staff on one year of the programme.  He said that the CAD and introduction to instrumentation module was cut by half, and that other course modules were not similarly affected.  The problem is that the two hours offered in January 2025 remained in the timetable for the whole semester and this “eliminated the notion that the hours were discretionary.”  When the worker took on the recruitment work, the four hours needed to be protected and the two hours that were available were not adequate.  He said, “we shot ourselves in the foot by working over the summer.”

The worker said that, due to licensing issues, the CAD part of the programme didn’t begin until the third week of the semester.  This meant that there were nine weeks left available, minus two public holidays.  With regard to the introduction to instrumentation element of the programme, the hours were never made up.

At the conclusion of his submission, the worker’s colleague said that the Learn and Work programme for 2025/2026 was offered to just one group of 16 students, and the worker has returned to teaching the group for four hours each week.  He said that the offer of a reduction of two hours in his timetable is reasonable.  He said that the second part of the grievance goes beyond hours and must deal with the unfair treatment and the hurt and stress suffered by the worker.

Opening her submission on behalf of the employer, Ms Kerin said that context is an important consideration in this case and that the university is under review by the Higher Education Authority and a financial recovery plan is in place.  Ms Kerin said that the changes required were discussed in depth at various meetings and through various channels.  The head of employee relations said that the college needed to impose tighter controls on the employment of assistant lecturers who fill in the hours not allocated to permanent lecturers.

Ms Kerin said that the employer objects to any allegation that the worker’s grievance has been ignored.  She referred to an email from the worker on May 22nd 2024, which he followed up on June 11th 2024.  The head of control engineering replied on June 11th and there was a back-and-forth email exchange between her and the worker on that day.  Ms Kerin said that the work associated with the recruitment for the PIA degree was not a direct exchange for timetabled hours and was never intended to take up just two hours per week.

Ms Kerin said that the module on CAD and introduction to instrumentation had to be reduced due to the financial recovery plan.  Four hours of class contact hours were reduced to two, for two groups of students rather than one group.  She said that the worker was not expected to do the same amount of work in two hours each week, compared to the four hours that were previously timetabled.  She said that the shortfall was to be covered in the following semester.

Ms Kerin said that there had been a full and fair response to the worker’s two grievances, in accordance with the college’s grievance procedure.

Ms Kerin referred to the proposed resolution at the end of the second stage of the grievance procedure where two hours were allocated to the worker “so that the AutoCAD element of the Workshop Practice and CAD module can be completed during the first four weeks of Semester 2 2024/2025 and in recognition of (the worker’s) contribution to the processing of applications in 2024.”  Ms Kerin said that the implications of this proposal should have been more explicit and that the hours were for the worker to use at his discretion on the Learn and Work programme.  Ms Kerin said that two hours per week were available for 15 weeks, and that some of this was to be used for teaching the AutoCAD module. 

At the hearing, the head of employee relations said that, at the meeting at the third stage of the grievance procedure, she and the faculty dean were confused about the hours available and the hours used.  She said that, as a resolution of both parts of the worker’s grievance, he was offered a reduction of two hours on his timetabled hours.

At the hearing of this dispute, I asked the worker why the proposal set out by the faculty dean on April 9th 2025 wasn’t helpful.  He replied that he was still required to work for 16 hours per week and there was no reduction in his hours to compensate for the work he did in 2024 to support the recruitment of students on the Learn and Work course.  He said that the proposals were “purposely made confusing,” and that all he is seeking is fairness.  When his colleague supported the recruitment on the Learn and Work course in 2023/2024, his timetable was reduced by four hours.  He is looking for the same reduction.  In addition, the work required on the CAD and introduction to instrumentation module was doubled, resulting in him having to deliver the programme twice in half the time that was previously available.

I note the employer’s position that the worker was offered a concession when his timetabled hours were reduced for the second semester of 2024/2025.  This proposal was based on an assumption that the AutoCAD programme would not take up the full semester.  Ms Kerin said that the worker was not instructed to use all the available time on the AutoCAD programme.  It’s apparent to me that this was not communicated clearly to him and, for this reason, as a resolution to his grievance, it was a failure.  At the hearing, the head of workplace relations said that, on April 17th 2025, the worker was offered a reduction of two hours in his timetable in the first semester of 2025/2026 between September and December 2025.  This was not accepted, partly it seems, due to a remark by the head of workplace relations in her email of April 17th to the effect that the worker had availed of two hours of a reduction in timetabled hours in semester 2, January – June 2025.

At the hearing of this dispute, it was apparent that the workload involved in the recruitment of students for the PIA course was entirely underestimated.  When the situation was spelled out by the worker, that he was allocated 60 hours to carry out work that took up to 200 hours, little was done to address his concerns.  The emails back and forth indicate a failure to understand or appreciate the burden placed on the worker to complete all the tasks associated with the recruitment for the programme.  It seems to me that a more constructive outcome may have emerged from direct engagement and a clear understanding on both sides of the challenges they both faced.

Looking at the situation from the outside in, as I am, it is difficult to ascertain why the grievance process failed to come to a resolution of the problems.  The process took too long and it seems that no one had the energy or commitment to deal effectively and efficiently with the issues raised by the worker.  It seems too that there were certain misunderstandings, a reference to hours added which actually meant hours reduced, confusion between available hours and hours used, a timetable with teaching hours included but no classes scheduled and a failure to probe the nitty gritty of the worker’s timetable and the possibilities for a resolution. 

Considering how this dispute might be resolved now, the worker said that he is seeking compensation for the work done on the recruitment process for the Learn and Work programme in 2024/2025.  He claims that the failure to deal with this issue compounded the unfairness of the second issue, which caused significant hurt and stress.  For the employer, Ms Kerin said that the worker was offered two hours per week to be used at his discretion in semester 1 2025/2026, although this wasn’t accepted by him.

I understand that the college was under severe financial constraints.  From the worker’s perspective, it seems to me that, apart from the allocation of two hours per week compared to four hours for the previous person, much of the difficulties he experienced arose because no one acknowledged that he was feeling the strain of the work that had to be done and no creative problem solving was applied to dealing with his concerns.  On top of this, in September 2024, when he was timetabled to teach the introduction to instrumentation course to two groups of students for four hours per week which had been previously timetabled for one group for four hours, it was extremely stressful to try to deliver the learning outcomes in half the class time.  I accept that the management addressed the students’ expectations and that parts of the course were delivered in semester 1.  I understand also that, while the worker accepts that there is a financial crisis in the university, he feels that he was treated differently to others and that the effect on him was disproportionate.  For this reason, he had cause to feel disrespected.

I understand that the number of students on the instrumentation course has reverted to what it was in 2023, with the result that the course is again delivered to one group for four hours per week.  It’s clear to me that the effect of the heavy recruitment workload, coupled with the reduction in teaching time on the introduction to instrumentation module, caused significant hurt and stress for the worker, which can’t be undone and which has affected his relationship with management.  Having reached this conclusion, is my view that financial compensation is not appropriate.  I have made this decision because the worker is employed in a publicly funded institution which is under financial review, and also, taking account of the fact that his job is secure and he is relatively well paid.

I recommend therefore, that, in the first semester of the 2025/2027 academic year, from September to December 2026, of his 16 timetabled hours, the complainant is not timetabled for teaching for two hours and that he be permitted to use these hours at his discretion for class preparation or research or some other work related to his job as a lecturer.

Excessive workload, grievance procedure