Mr. Gerry Craughwell:

The Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, has traditionally supported the broad concept of the provision of post-primary and further education on a regional basis. The TUI position in this regard was set out in its submissions to the 1992 Green Paper on Education and the National Education Convention 1993. The TUI submission to the round table discussions in 1994 set out arguments for local democratic education structures based on political, economic, social, equity, effectiveness and efficiency principles. Further information in this regard is available for members to read in the TUI's submission to the joint committee.

The TUI submission to the National Education Convention states:

We see the provision of a free, co-educational, non-selective, multi-denominational service as a duty of the State. We believe that this can best be done through a network of local educational authorities...which (would) subsume the role of VECs.

Subsequently, the TUI supported the rationalisation of vocational education committees, VECs, recommended by the Commission on School Accommodation Needs, which led to the order for the amalgamation of the town VECs with their counties in January 1997. In that process, teachers had to adapt and accommodate to change. Similar flexibility and change will be required of teachers in the current process of establishment of education and training boards, ETBs, and the extension of their further education and training role, consequent on the establishment of the envisaged new further education and training authority, SOLAS.
No group of teachers has experienced more change than vocational teachers. It is important this is recognised and managed appropriately, having regard to the concerns and perspectives of the teachers and the Teachers Union of Ireland, the recognised trade union representing the vast majority of staff employed by VECs. With regard to the treatment of staff of vocational education committees transferring to education and training boards, the TUI is gravely concerned with the diminution and-or elimination of existing contractual and statutory rights and entitlements and considers that the approach of Government in this regard is unwarranted, excessive and unjustified. The TUI notes that in relation to contracts other than contracts of employment, the education and training board steps into the position of the dissolved VEC and is liable for the performance of any existing contracts. No such protection is afforded to contracts of employment, however. With the limited exception provided in section 63 for the staff of institutes of technology and the Dublin Institute of Technology, Part 1 of the Bill,section 4, provides for the repeal of all VEC Acts and statutory instruments commencing in 1930 and up to 2005. In so doing, fundamental rights conferred on staff by statute have been removed, including, most specifically, rights in respect of suspension, dismissal-removal from office and continuation of payment of wages during a period of suspension.

The support of the TUI for the rationalisation of VECs is not unconditional. In the 1990s, the union's support was enabled by appropriate safeguards set down for staff at the time. It is interesting to examine the guarantees made available to serving staff at that time vis-á-vis those now being made available under the current Bill. The stated purpose of the 1997 order in respect of the amalgamation of the Borough of Wexford Vocational Education Committee area and County Wexford Vocational Education Committee area is also provided in our written submission to the joint committee.

The structure described in section 55 of the current Bill represents a radical departure from the order mentioned in the Wexford case and from previous legislation where a teacher was moved from one legal entity to another. Section 55 appears to ignore entirely the purpose and intent of the European Union directives dealing with transfer of undertakings. In the preamble to Directive 98/50/EC, referring to the Social Chapter adopted on 9 December 1989, it is stated that the completion of the Internal Market must lead to an improvement in the living and working conditions of workers in the European Community. The Council Directive makes it clear that it is necessary to provide for the protection of employees' rights in the event of a change of employer. The purpose of the directive is to ensure the employees retain their jobs, seniority and continuity and conditions of service.

In our opinion, the terms of section 55 reflect scant regard of the honour and spirit of the EU directives dealing with transfer of undertakings. By contrast with the reasonable protections afforded to staff in the amalgamation of town and county VECs, the protection set down in section 55(4) of the Bill is limited to "conditions of remuneration" only. The TUI seeks assurances that the definition of "remuneration" as referred to in this clause, includes the right to increments and incremental payments. Furthermore, the TUI is alarmed to note, and is completely opposed to, the exclusion of conditions in relation to superannuation in subsection (5) from this already inadequate protection.

With regard to subsection (2), the TUI seeks assurance that serving VEC teachers are subject only to redeployment within the terms of the current redeployment schemes negotiated under Towards 2012 and public service agreements and in accordance with section 6 of the Education (Amendment) Act 2012. The TUI requires that serving teachers , as heretofore in the case of the amalgamation of town and county VECs, are amenable to transfer only within the boundaries of their current VEC administrative areas. The TUI finds the diminution of explicit protection unacceptable and requires the same level of protection of conditions of service in subsection (4) as was provided in the case of previous transfers and amalgamations. The TUI looks to the Legislature to accommodate this reasonable position.

In tandem with the repeal of the exclusion of certain categories of employees from the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Bill provides that a teacher, or other member of staff of an education training board, could be dismissed directly by the CEO of an ETB or by another member of staff of the board, if such power is delegated by the CEO under the authority conferred in section 16. Having been dismissed, a teacher-member of staff would be in the position of seeking redress from the Employment Appeals Tribunal. So rare are the instances of reinstatement of staff by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, however, that the TUI considers that removal of the current protections could result in serious injustice upon a teacher-member of staff.

The TUI notes that the intention set out in the explanatory memorandum on the general scheme of an Education and Training Boards Bill 2011 is to ensure an employee's rights are not detrimentally affected as a result of the Bill has been dispensed with in the Bill. It is abundantly clear that employees' existing contractual rights will be significantly and detrimentally affected by the removal from the Bill of both layers of protection currently enjoyed by teachers in the vocational sector including, namely, consideration by the vocational education committee and consideration by the Minister for Education and Skills.

The TUI notes that, by contrast, the ETB retains the power to suspend the CEO of an ETB and the sanction of the Minister for Education and Skills will continue to be required for the removal from office of the CEO. Given the sweeping away from teachers and other categories of staff of the protection of sworn inquiries and ministerial sanction in respect of dismissal it is reasonable that the arrangements in section 17 in respect of CEOs should apply also to teachers and other staff. In this regard, the TUI seeks that the power to suspend staff is designated as a reserved function under section 12.

With regard to the general functions of ETBs as set out in section 10, the TUI believes that subsections (1)(b)(iv) and (1)(h) are excessively permissive in so far as they could, potentially, require ETBs to provide education and training support to private for-profit providers. A similar concern arises from section 19(d). The TUI advocates that recognised trade union representing staff of ETB should be included in the range of persons, bodies, set down in section 10(2) with whom education and training board would confer in respect of the performance of their functions. The TUI believes that this section would also be strengthened were periodic consultation with the listed persons-bodies required of ETBs rather than permitted for them at their own discretion, when they might consider consultation appropriate.
Section 14(3) provides that a chief executive officer shall hold office upon and be subject to such terms and conditions, including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances, as may be determined by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform or by the Minister for Education and Skills, with the former's consent. The TUI is concerned about the possible implications of this provision for the conduct of industrial relations and the negotiation of collective agreements. Matters relating to terms and conditions should remain within the remit of the Minister for Education and Skills.

With regard to the functions of a chief executive officer of an education and training board, the TUI seeks that the provision of information by the CEO to a board should explicitly include in section 15(2) information in relation to the conduct of industrial relations on behalf of the board. This arises because in many instances such information has not been made available to VECs since the enactment of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act 2001, arising from interpretations that executive decision making authority of the CEO facilitates the withholding from VECs of information on decisions taken on behalf of the committees on personnel, staffing and other human resource matters. The TUI believes that the requirement to report to the education and training board on such matters does not detract from the authority conferred on the CEOs under the executive reserved divide introduced in the 2001 Act and is, we advance, in the interests of transparency and accountability at local level. This moderate and sensible amendment is sought from the Legislature. The TUI also seeks the insertion of "executive" before functions in section 15(4) and seeks that the CEO be required to report to the board on the exercise of these functions on a biannual basis and as otherwise determined by the board.

The TUI believes that section 18 should provide that the appointment and terms and conditions of staff of education and training boards should require the consent only of the Minister for Education and Skills. The migration of the function to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform provided for in subsection (2) is considered a retrograde step. The TUI seeks that arrangements continue to be determined solely by the Minister for Education and Skills. The TUI is concerned to receive explanation for the apparent exclusion under section 18(4) of the teachers and principal teachers from the authority conferred on education and training boards. Under subsection (3) to pay remuneration and allowances expenses to its staff, subject to the caveats cited in the subsection.

With regard to the composition of education and training boards under Part 3, the TUI considers that the provision, under section 28, that 55% of the membership of boards would comprise local authority members is disproportionate and runs counter, in real terms, to the parity of esteem with which, in its view, each of the main stakeholder groups should be recognised and treated. The TUI considers that this unbalanced composition of boards detracts significantly from participative, democratic decision-making, involving all key partners and cannot be regarded as reflective of a true partnership approach to the provision of education and training and statutory democratic decision-making at local level. In essence, the Bill provides for statutory representation of political representatives at the expense of other partners whose role in education is no less vital or valuable.

The TUI notes that less than 20%, in the aggregate, of the membership of ETBs, as provided for in the Bill, is devoted to staff and parent representation and that adult student representation is not provided for explicitly. The TUI believes that an opportunity has been lost to accord equal status in the composition of ETBs to the main partners involved in education and training at local level, namely, local authority members, staff and other constituent groups, including parents and adult students.