Technological University Dublin’s (TUD) determination to avoid making the manager of a successful apprenticeship programme permanent in his role not only breached the man’s rights but also significantly damaged a well-regarded initiative, a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator has said.
The university was ordered to re-engage the man in the role on a salary of nearly €100,000 and to pay him €20,000 in compensation.
The case, which involved three days of hearings, was the result of a number of complaints made by Robert (Bobby) Maher against TUD after it failed to renew his contract as programme manager of the Access to Apprenticeship scheme. The 12-week full-time programme seeks to help youths from disadvantaged backgrounds access opportunities, and was reportedly praised by university officials and politicians.
Based on its initial success, TUD was involved in its expansion to other colleges nationally, a project the Higher Education Authority committed to funding.
Despite his attacks on the ‘fake news media’, Trump remains an avid, old-school news junkie
David McWilliams: Europe has lost its mojo. Thankfully Ireland is in bed with the US
Fall of the house of Assad: a dynasty built on the banality of evil
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
When the programme was established in 2018, Mr Maher, who was employed at the university as access foundation programme co-ordinator, was appointed to the role of programme manager. The move had the effect of roughly doubling his salary, which had previously been €48,941.
The appointment was on a 2½-year fixed term contract which was later renewed. When he sought a further renewal in 2022, James Curtin, the dean of the faculty involved, put forward a business case for the move which would have had the effect of entitling Mr Maher to a contract of indefinite duration (CID), essentially making him permanent in the role.
After discussions at a number of committees, however, the renewal was not approved and the entitlement to a CID that would result was mentioned as a factor. In August of 2022, Mr Maher’s fixed term contract ended. After having initially been assigned to a different role in student services, he returned to his old job last January.
The move involved a drop in salary from €99,295 to €53,454. Mr Maher took legal advice and was threatened, the hearing was told, with disciplinary action after correspondence from his solicitor was shared with third parties. Ultimately, however, no action was taken.
Mr Maher made a number of complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003. He claimed he was removed from his role on the basis that the post would no longer exist but that it had featured in planning documents he had seen.
TUD said these documents were effectively drafts and the position did not feature in the final version which made no provision for a dedicated manager position for the programme. It said it had always been clearly stated that Mr Maher would return to his former role when the fixed term contract came to an end.
In a written decision on the case, adjudicating officer Pat Brady criticised the university’s handling of the situation which, he said, had not only impacted negatively on Mr Maher but also on a scheme to which it had previously said it was committed.
“Whatever the intentions of the university authorities, their inaction has had very negative outcomes, and not just for the complainant, although those are the only ones that are relevant here,” he said.
There was, he continued, “no rational, alternative explanation for the respondent’s actions in allowing a successful and badly needed programme to grind to a halt, rather than allow it to continue for fear that its director might acquire a legal status that would be inconvenient for the university”.
He added: “The respondent’s simple assertion that it did not terminate the fixed-term contract for the avoidance of the complainant acquiring a CID is not only unsupported by any evidence, but it is contradicted by the weight of the evidence and the balance of all probability in the case set out by the complainant and supported by the written records.”
Mr Brady said “the fact of the complainant acquiring a contract of indefinite duration was, at least, in part why his contract was not renewed” and meant his complaint of penalisation was well founded.
He said that while orders for reinstatement or re-engagement were rare, he felt re-engagement was “the correct remedy” and ordered that Mr Maher be allowed return to the programme manager role on a CID on the same terms as he was previously employed with any applicable updates.
He rejected the complaint made under the Payment of Wages Act but awarded Mr Maher €20,000 in compensation under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here
