Report from the Partnership Committee following its meeting held on 3 February 2004

Main Discussion Points

Sarah McGrath, who replaces Chantelle Fleming, was welcomed as a new committee member.

Minutes of the last meeting
The minutes of the meetings 30 October 2003 and the 25 November 2003 were agreed.

Matters arising from minutes of last meeting
Committee members, who attended the Annual Skillnets Conference on 'Building Effective Workplace Relationships', discussed some of the points raised at the conference.

TB expressed his anger at the fact that he was led to believe that the Draft Action Plan, as recently signed off by the Partnership Committee, was sufficient in order to receive the Analogue Award. He is of the opinion that the approach now demonstrates a two-tiered approach to Partnership. MF responded that this was an issue to be raised at national level.

GH requested that the Bursar be invited to a future Partnership Committee meeting to answer further questions in relation to the Pension Trust.

Election of a new Chair and Joint Secretary
Brian McKenna was proposed, and seconded as Chair. As he was unable to attend today's meeting GH continued as Chair for the remainder of the meeting. GH thanked the Committee. MF, as Joint Secretary, expressed the Committees' gratitude to GH. He mentioned that there were some difficult items on this year's agenda and GH had been especially helpful.

Tommy Murtagh was proposed and seconded as Joint Secretary.

Progress Report as required by PVG by April 30
MF spoke of how there should be at least two meetings before 30 April. He explained that there are a number of areas we will be required to demonstrate progress. MF will be writing to the Trade Unions to outline the priority issues, as follows:

• Revision of the Sick Pay Scheme: Placing a seven-day limit to sick leave in a calendar year. A discussion ensued pertaining to the electrical staff, in particular, who have had an entitlement to 21 days uncertified sick leave in a year. RF enquired into what staff get in return for making amendments to sick leave entitlements. To which MF responded Sustaining Progress and Benchmarking. RF wants this in writing, for the Technicians.

• Redeployment of Administrative Staff

• Rostering, to facilitate opening outside the 9-5 hours

• Terminal Examinations

Review of the Staff Development Process/ Performance Management
GH welcomed Margaret Ramsay and Tanya Curry. MR proceeded, explaining that Performance Management is one of the biggest issues contained within Sustaining Progress. There is a pilot scheme in place- Personal Development Planning. A review has been conducted of this process and will soon be published on the web. TC presented the main findings of this report.

A discussion ensued covering such topics as cost and incorporating the process into the strategic goals of the department, the faculty and the University.

Work Life Balance Policy
This has been drafted by the Personnel Department. This Policy sprang from a study that was conducted within the University that found most individuals require more information on work life balance policies. This policy document includes no new practices. What it aims to do is to promote the practices as being available to all. TC asked that the Partnership Committee send all comments to her by the end of the week.

Employee Assistance Programme Service
MR explained that this is an independent service to employees and their families. It is in its fifth year of operation. At this stage it is felt it should go to tender, which is not due to opinions that the University is not getting value for money. The purpose would be to ensure we are. In order to do so, the University will need to look at the brief attached to the EAP.

MR distributed the annual report as received by the Personnel Department from the external body. MR asked that the Partnership Committee place the review of the brief SHARE are operating within on their upcoming agenda as it will go to tender in the coming months.

UCD Pension Scheme Integration
MR began by giving some background to the differences in the A1 and D1 PRSI Stamps. Prior to 1995 all employees in the University were on the D1 Stamp and post 1995 employees are placed on the A1 Stamp. This leads to differences with regard to Social Welfare entitlements- the individuals on the A1 Stamp being entitled and those on the D1 not. Those on the A1 Stamp pay an extra 5% of a contribution. For this the salary scales were increased by one nineteenth in 1995.

The practice changed in line with legislation. However, the Statute was not updated. (National legislation supersedes the Statute.)

GH voiced a number of concerns: 1. That employees starting post 1995 have been given the impression that the Statute has been amended. The reason for this being the note on the inside cover of the pension explanatory booklet,where it is stated that there is an additional
amendment to the pension scheme and that the amendment unlike all the other amendments to the scheme does not bear a Statute Number.The same information is contained in Section 6.1 Pension Scheme of the Staff Manual. MR responded that the Statute was not amended. 2. That the
University introduced the change based on a letter from a HEA Official. GH feels that this change should have been introduced through a direct order from the Minister for Finance. MR replied that the 1997 Universities Act included a clause requiring the implementation of the A1 Stamp. This Act was approved by the Minister for Finance. MR went on to explain how it would have been foolish to disagree with an order from the HEA.

RF voiced concerns pertaining to employees on the A1 Stamp being worse off than the D1 employees. To solve this issue, TB suggested that a case be presented incorporating two employees both on the same salary etc, one on the A1 Stamp the other on the D1 Stamp and to forecast the amount each receives on their retirement. MR agreed and MF to distribute to the Committee once completed.

MR went on to say that this change was implemented in practice eight years ago. This change must be reflected in the Statute. These amendments are going to the Finance Committee. It will be explained that there are concerns being voiced from sections within the University.

Any Other Business
Meeting to take place the first Thursday of March.