Teachers' pay claim

Sir, - Paddy Mulcahy (January 5th) is mistaken in his perception that this union has been silent about the deduction of pay from…

Sir, - Paddy Mulcahy (January 5th) is mistaken in his perception that this union has been silent about the deduction of pay from our ASTI colleagues in respect of those days on which they withdrew from supervision and substitution. In a letter dated December 8th to the Minister for Education and Science, I stated that withholding payment for those days "would have the direct effect of exacerbating an already fraught situation" and would cause teachers, "irrespective of union affiliation, to re-assess their involvement in the broad range of activities. . .that enrich the educational environment". I exhorted the Minister to "ensure payment to our colleagues" for the days in question.

In the December issue of our union's publication, TUI News, I described the Minister's threat as "arbitrary" and "provocative" and made it clear that the TUI would "not countenance any imposition of changes in conditions of service". Clearly an attempt to make contractual what is now voluntary - namely, supervision and substitution - is an attempt to impose such changes.

Since November last, I and others, on behalf of TUI, have repeatedly stated through the media our demand that the Minister not make the deductions. We rejected as unjustifiable his eventual decision to proceed as he had threatened and now demand that he unconditionally restore payment to our colleagues.

This, in our opinion, does not amount to silence. - Yours, etc.,

READ MORE

JOHN MacGabhann, President, TUI, Orwell Road, Dublin 6.

Sir, - I was extremely disappointed that the ASTI withdrew from discussions, having agreed to the appointment of a mediator prior to Christmas. This action was based on the Government's decision not to pay teachers for the days lost due to "withdrawal of supervisory cover". How could the union justify this? Not alone did it withdraw supervisory cover but, in a notice sent out by Mr Lennon, it advised boards of management that it could not, in such circumstances, guarantee the safety of pupils and, therefore, pupils should not be sent to school. Does this not effectively represent strike action? It certainly does to me. - Yours, etc.,

Peter Byers,Waltham Terrace, Blackrock, Co Dublin.