The rejection by the public service arbitration board of the demand by the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland (ASTI) for a 30 per cent pay increase is scarcely surprising. The board, which must be mindful of Government pay policy in its findings, had little choice but to reject a demand from a union which has already rejected the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
There may now be a real danger of serious industrial conflict in our schools. The ASTI executive, which meets this weekend, is likely to ballot its 16,000 members on a range of options, including a series of one-day strikes. There will be fears that preparations for the Leaving and Junior Certificate exams - if not the exams themselves - could be disrupted if the dispute continues into next year.
The ASTI now finds itself pursuing a lonely path. The other teaching unions - the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) and the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI) - accepted the 19 per cent pay increase available under the PPF. They hope to secure additional monies via the "benchmarking mechanism" of the PPF which could reward teachers for changes in productivity and work methods. But the benchmarking review body is not due to report until 2003.
The Government faces a dilemma. Any capitulation to the ASTI would have serious consequences for government pay policy. It could also be expected to provoke a strong reaction from the INTO and the TUI who have endorsed the PPF. But the Government also faces a formidable adversary if it chooses to dig in; the ASTI is represented in every town and village in the State. The impact of industrial action by the ASTI would not be isolated or confined to small groups; it would be felt by 350,000 students and their parents.
The Minister for Education, Dr Woods, last night urged ASTI members to use the benchmarking system to "pursue their aspirations for a fundamental examination of the role and pay of teachers, as is being done by the other teaching unions".
But the Government must also recognise that the benchmarking mechanism, as currently established, does not represent a realistic or attractive option for ASTI members. ASTI members are angry and impatient; they are unlikely to be fobbed off with a review body promising some kind of salary increase in three years time. Indeed, this lengthy timescale is also creating difficulties for the other teaching unions. In recent days, two senior trade unionists - Senator Joe O'Toole of the INTO and Mr Jim Dorney of the TUI - have urged the Government to fast forward the benchmarking process.
There is much to be said for this approach. It would help both the INTO and the TUI to dampen the smouldering discontent in their ranks. When combined with the additional concessions which may flow from the review of the PPF, accelerated benchmarking could also pull the ASTI back from the brink. There is a real danger that the ASTI could embark on a prolonged and damaging dispute which will damage the high standing of teachers, the union itself and the education of thousands of young students. It should climb out of the hole it has dug for itself; and the Government, instead of sitting on its hands, could help it to find the escape route.