Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8826 Case Number: LCR11770 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRINITY HOUSE SCHOOL - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim on behalf of 3 instructors for parity of pay and conditions of employment with teachers employed at Trinity House School.
Recommendation:
9. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for parity with the teachers in the School.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8826 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11770
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TRINITY HOUSE SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 3 instructors for parity of pay and
conditions of employment with teachers employed at Trinity House
School.
BACKGROUND:
2. Trinity House School is a secure unit for young offenders
which commenced operations in 1983. It is certified as a
Reformatory School under the Children Act, 1908 and is recognised
by the Department of Education as a Special National School. It
is managed by a Board appointed by the Minister for Education.
3. When instructors were first appointed to the school in
September, 1984, they were placed on the same salary scale as
applied to the grades of residential care worker and of work
experience officer in Finglas Children's Centre and St. Joseph's
Special School, Clonmel. The 3 instructors at present employed in
Trinity House specialise in woodwork, metalwork and horticulture.
4. The Union lodged a claim on behalf of the instructors for
parity of pay and conditions of employment with the teachers
employed at Trinity House in April, 1987, on the basis that they
were doing the same work as teachers. A number of meetings took
place between the parties to discuss the claim.
5. The claim was rejected by the Department and the Union
referred the matter to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court on 10th August, 1987. A Conciliation Conference was held on
8th January, 1988, (a conference arranged for 27th October, 1987,
was postponed at the request of one of the parties).
6. As no agreement was possible both parties agreed to a referral
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 11th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Instructors are involved in the teaching rota and in
the case of the metalwork and woodwork teacher they are in
the classroom situation as are the Mathematics and English
teacher for example. The Horticultural Instructor obviously
works in a different environment.
2. The three instructors are subject to the same level of
scrutiny and inspection by the Department of Education
Inspectors as are the teachers, and the instructors like the
teachers are accountable for the Educational content of their
programme to the School Inspectors who visit them regularly.
When curriculum development meetings take place in the school
both teachers and instructors are involved.
3. There are many other areas where it can be clearly shown
that the level of responsibility, the teaching requirement
and the range of duties are common to both grades and in
fact, the only difference in their day to day work is the
subjects they teach, but that also can be said for the
English and Mathematics teacher.
4. The Union is very concerned at the creation of the
"Instructor" grade and the reasons for its creation in
Trinity House. The Union was informed that Trinity House
needed some level of tuition during the Summer months and
could not provide this if all of the teaching staff were
employed as teachers, so they employed "Instructors" and put
them on the "child care" salary scale with a longer working
day and shorter holidays. The Union considers this to be a
very serious and cynical manipulation of the system by the
Department of Education. The Department of Education has
also informed the Union that the Minister has mandated that
only people with particular "teaching" qualifications may be
employed as teachers (details supplied to the Court).
5. The Union is not seeking that these people be employed as
teachers but that they have parity of pay and conditions.
The matter of qualifications is one which can be easily dealt
with by the Union because all three instructors have
appropriate qualifications and the Horticultural Instructor
has a degree qualification equal to that of other teachers in
Trinity House.
DEPARTMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. None of the instructors is suitably qualified to work as
a teacher in Trinity House. There are very strict conditions
laid down as regards teachers' qualifications in National and
Special Schools. (Details supplied to the Court).
2. The qualifications sought when recruiting instructors are
craftsman qualifications and/or experience as a supervisor in
a recognised trade. These are substantially different from
and are in no way comparable with the qualifications sought
from teachers.
3. The purpose of employing instructors in Trinity House
School is to provide training and work experience in a
variety of tasks and skills so as to equip the boys in the
school for later life. Many of these boys had rejected
formal schooling before they were committed to Trinity House
School and some are even older than the statutory
school-leaving age of 15. The grade of instructor is
analogous to that of work experience officer. They both
provide instruction and experience over a normal working week
and year. Their work interfaces with that of both teachers
and care staff. Instructors provide an overall programme
suited to the needs of all the boys, and the attainment of a
set standard of education is not the primary element of their
work, although boys who show aptitude and achievement may be
allowed to sit examinations.
4. There are other members of staff employed in Trinity
House who are not employed as teachers but who hold teaching
qualifications. These members of staff are paid at the rate
appropriate to the grade to which they were recruited,
regardless of their qualifications. This is the normal and
accepted practice.
5. If the Union's claim were to be conceded it could have
serious repercussions with regard to the Departments
regulations on the employment of teachers.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for parity with the teachers in the School.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th March, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman