The relatively narrow vote (57 per cent against, 43 per cent in favour) by 17,000 secondary teachers against the Labour Court's settlement plans leaves the ASTI in the worst of all positions. Its members are split on the way forward after a disastrous pay campaign over the last year.
The fact that 43 per cent of the members voted in favour of a package which effectively gave the teachers nothing more than they had this time last year shows how disillusioned members have become with a campaign which lurched from crisis to crisis, ending in an almost farcical annual convention in Galway last month.
The ordinary ASTI members have effectively delivered a vote of no confidence in its own hardline but amateur executive, led by former president Ms Bernadine O'Sullivan, during whose tenure the pay campaign was launched.
While the union blamed the ICTU, other public sector unions, the Government, the media and parents for the precarious position it finds itself in, it really only has itself to blame. The Government may be chuffed that it stood up to what was always considered to be the most powerful trade union in the State, but in reality the deep internal divisions within the ASTI meant the union was easy fodder.
The foundation for failure was laid from the start when an almost petulant 18-strong ASTI central executive committee voted to walk away from ICTU. This was despite strong counter-arguments from the ASTI's paid, professional union officials, led by general secretary Mr Charlie Lennon.
The anti-ICTU/PPF/ benchmarking faction was led by the then president, Ms O'Sullivan, who, with a number of members on the powerful 22-member Standing Committee, believed the union's officials were too cosy with ICTU and the Government. They felt that teachers' interests were best served from outside the confines of ICTU and partnership, which they perceived as dominated by "blue-collar" unions.
While any union can have a delicate relationship between its paid officials and elected executive, the ASTI has a very cumbersome, multi-layered decision-making structure, the effect of which was to deepen the divisions between the "amateurs" and the "professionals".
Moreover, industrial relations in the public sector have their own complex "green-cross code". Support is imperative, left and right, before starting such a pay campaign. Forewarning of who and what may come up against you is equally critical. Unfortunately, the ASTI executive just dashed across the road with what now appear to be predictable results.
The executive and Ms O'Sullivan ran the dispute from the word go, and the union's officials had little or no input. The effect was to leave the ASTI, facing into a critical pay campaign, flying on one wing - unfortunately, the "amateur" wing. It is from this split that almost all of the ASTI's woes have sprung.
Other factors certainly went against the ASTI. The PPF held during the latter stages of 2000 despite enormous pressure from inflation and the ever-tightening labour market. Indeed, the ASTI's attempts to derail the PPF only stiffened the resolve of the Government, IBEC and ICTU to patch up the national agreement against such "rogue" action.
Also, the decisions of the TUI and the INTO to remain loyal to the PPF and benchmarking, despite strong internal pressure, left the ASTI isolated.
While few would deny Ms O'Sullivan's commitment to education, her ability to conduct a major pay campaign in the face of a resolute Government is less assured.
There was little acknowledgment of the importance of ICTU support in such a pay battle. There was even less understanding of how influential the other public sector unions are with the Government, particularly when the ASTI's stand-alone claim was seen by them as a direct attack on the partnership model they have built up over the last 15 years.
Equally, it was unable to comprehend the importance the Government places on benchmarking as a means of returning some order to the chaos which has been public sector pay over the last three to four years. Its 30 per cent claim applied across the public service would have cost almost £32.5 billion.
While the ASTI executive argued that its claim was for teachers alone, it should have been aware that the repercussive effects of its claim represented the main blockage to its success. No group can operate in isolation.
Scant attention was also paid to the need for public support and even less to the input from parents. Students were not considered at all, though few could have foreseen the part they would play at the end. Even the campaign of industrial action also turned out to be very haphazard, and the union committed the cardinal sin of not even establishing an exit strategy, leaving itself hopelessly surrounded.
A phone call to the alliance of nursing unions, whose 1999 deal ASTI was chasing, would not have gone amiss. The nurses would have been able to give the teachers some pointers on how to turn a pay offer strictly capped at 5.5 per cent in 1996 into a 25 per cent capitulation four years later, and still be applauded down O'Connell Street.
The nurses may have advised the teachers to plan a pay campaign over whatever number of years it takes, not lodge a pay claim. The nurses also stayed within ICTU, the prevailing partnership agreement, used the State's dispute settling machinery to maximum effect, while the four unions which comprised the alliance stuck together. In short, the nurses did everything which the teachers didn't, and the nurses got the money.
There would appear to have been a belief in the ASTI executive that all the teachers had to do was threaten action, and within weeks the Government, ICTU, PPF and benchmarking would collapse. Unfortunately for a union which has arrived at a critical juncture, the arrogance at last year's conference was replaced by a bunker mentality at last month's convention in Galway.
At the 2000 conference, as the O'Sullivan faction began to gather steam, the union's paid officials and head-office staff were attacked from the conference floor by delegates, leading to an unprecedented walkout. This year Ms O'Sullivan, the prime mover in the pay campaign which has failed to deliver anything to the members in the intervening 12 months, was presented with a medal.
Now the teachers have to decide whether to back more industrial action for September as the opening salvo of a renewed campaign. It will be interesting to see what strength is left in the members to run another tough race after last year's false start.
Martin Frawley is assistant editor of Industrial Relations News