Dear Mr Lennon,
I refer to your letter of March 12th conveying the text of a resolution adopted by the central executive council of ASTI on March 10th.
Given the present stance of ASTI, I regret that as of now I see no basis upon which direct negotiations can take place.
Your association has had its claim examined under the conciliation and arbitration system, which is the agreed mechanism for resolving issues in dispute. It rejected the arbitration findings.
Your association sought a further examination of its claim. A facilitator was appointed and it was agreed that the Labour Court would be requested to consider both the association's claim and the Government's position with regard to PPF and public service pay policy. The court examined the claim carefully and set out its conclusions in an extensive recommendation. The court did not uphold the association's claim for compensation for increases in the cost of living, or for increased pay in respect of past productivity and flexibility. It concluded that these issues have been addressed in the national agreements by pay increases, tax concessions and, in the case of teachers, by a number of special awards over the years.
The court did, however, find that the association has a sustainable case for a pay increase by reference to comparison with other graduate entry employment groups. However, the court went on to conclude that a process exists for dealing with such claims, which is comparable to the practice which, the court pointed out, it has adopted in many cases when it has appointed a third party to look at the detail and examine the case for an increase in pay. The court concluded that the process of benchmarking is a comprehensive method of evaluating relativities as between different groups of professional occupations. It rejected the argument that teachers are unique in that the mechanism being used by all the other groups to measure the value of jobs and responsibilities cannot deal with their particular case. The court noted that members of the association have already received 8.5 per cent and, by December 1st, 2001, will have received a 16 per cent pay increase which, since the association are not party to the PPF, should be regarded as upfront payments.
The court further recommended that an expert review be undertaken of all the non-pay aspects of education, having regard to the changed and still rapidly changing educational environment.
In all of these circumstances, the court requested the association to reconsider its stance on benchmarking, since it should have every confidence in presenting its case to that body.
The court's recommendation was an independent assessment of the merits of the case, the second independent assessment, put forward by your association. It pointed out that your members have access to a mechanism which can determine comprehensively the case for a pay increase on the basis of comparisons with other graduates in the public and private sector. It has highlighted the substantial payments which are already being made to your members and the enhanced terms upon which the outcome of the benchmarking exercise will be implemented. It has also recommended a way in which the professional concerns of your members can be addressed.
It was, therefore, a matter of considerable dismay to me and to my colleagues in Government that the recommendation was summarily rejected by your central executive council. It is, of course, the right of your association to reject participation in the PPF and, indeed, in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. To insist, however, that your claim must be addressed now, separately and in advance of the outcome of the benchmarking process, is to assert that your members are unique in their right to the assessment and payment of their claim. The court has rejected this, and so do I.
Furthermore, by recourse to further industrial action, in particular, seeking to jeopardise the conduct of the Junior and Leaving Certificate examinations, your association is ignoring the court's observation that "this dispute has the potential to divide the community, the teaching profession and to do irreparable damage to the students taking State examinations this year. The effects on the educational process will last for many years and have an enormous impact on the 350,000 students in schools." To embark on this course without reference to a ballot of the membership, having regard to what is at stake, is truly remarkable.
The conduct of industrial relations is not beyond considerations of justice and morality. Your members have received significant benefits in terms of pay increases and tax reductions in common with workers across the public service. You have emerged from the Labour Court process with a significantly strengthened case for a further increase in the context of the comprehensive evaluation of public service pay through the benchmarking process. You are assured of the deadline for completion of that process and the initiation of the implementation. Students and their parents, especially those in examination years, are no less appalled than the Government that you are continuing a most disruptive form of industrial action. Still worse, you are threatening the conduct of State examinations which are not part of the contract of employment of teachers.
The Government has a responsibility to conduct public examinations. It is acutely conscious of the concerns of those approaching the Leaving Certificate Examination. We cannot understand how teachers, in conscience, can contemplate jeopardising the future careers of many students for whose education they are responsible, particularly in view of the increases that they have received to date and those now on offer through the implementation of Labour Court recommendations. The State will conduct its examinations to the best of its abilities. Your association may feel able to abandon the students in this predicament; the Government will not.
Bertie Ahern TD Taoiseach