Mr. John MacGabhann:

The Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI, wishes to thank the committee for the opportunity to present its views on the heads of the Bill - the general scheme of the technological universities Bill 2014. This short oral presentation supplements the main union submission which has already been provided to the committee. We will attempt to address five generic concerns of the TUI in this presentation. They relate to collective agreement, transfer of undertakings, information and consultation, regional provision and access, and academic freedom and tenure. By way of context, I should explain that the TUI is the recognised trade union for academic and research staff who work in the institute of technology sector. More than 4,000 of our members work in the sector and they develop, lecture on and are engaged in research in relation to the full range of higher education programmes on the national framework of qualifications from level 6, which typically would be apprenticeships and professional development courses directly to business, to level 10, which would be doctoral studies.

In terms of collective agreement, the members of the TUI voted to accept the Haddington Road agreement in 2013. We registered this collective agreement with the Labour Relations Commission and this agreement provides both for security of employment and continuity of employment. There is a possible tension between the provisions of the heads of the Bill for technological universities and the Haddington Road agreement. The TUI requires and is entitled to expect that the protections of the Haddington Road agreement will prevail and will apply to our members for the full duration of the agreement. This, as far as we are concerned, is of fundamental importance to any proposed restructuring of the higher education institutions.

Linked to that is a concern we have in regard to the transfer of undertakings, or rather the absence of reference to that in the heads of the Bill. We are extremely concerned that the statutory instrument, the protection of employees on the transfer of undertakings regulations 2003, is not referenced in the heads of the Bill and we demand that clear provision be made in the Bill relating to the terms of this statutory instrument. We will vigorously oppose, and make no apology for it, any attempt to transfer our members either to a merged institute or a technological university, which is further down the line, unless the terms of the transfer of undertakings protection of employment regulations, TUPE, essentially apply.

We are unequivocal in insisting that the terms of collective agreements on remuneration, terms of employment, conditions of service and pensions will continue in cases where a transfer might occur. We will also insist that all our members are transferred to the new entity. We do not accept as valid the provision in the heads of the Bill that on "establishment day" of a merged entity or a technological university, staff could be arbitrarily transferred to other public sector bodies other than the merged entity or technological university. An attempt to effect such transfers on such an arbitrary and quixotic basis will be opposed, if necessary my means of industrial action, as we are a trade union.

I must be frank in respect to information and consultation as there are differences of approach in respect of some of the proposed amalgamations that are emerging, some of which are better by a distance than others. The TUI considers that, broadly speaking, there is an unacceptable absence from the heads of the Bill of robust provisions for real and meaningful consultation with trade unions - and therefore the staff they represent - and the provision of full, relevant information prior to any decision to either merge or apply for university designation. We believe that the heads of the Bill must expressly reference the terms of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006. We have raised these concerns with institutes of technology already that have not engaged in adequate consultation and have not provided the required information relating to plans to merge with other institutes. We have formally stated that where consultation and information are not fully provided for, we will utilise whatever options and mechanisms are available to us to protect the interests of members. I should in fairness say that the level of engagement with the Dublin Technological University, DTU, has been markedly better than has been the case in respect of some of the amalgamations that are being proposed, for example, in Munster - loosely referred to as MTU, Munster Technological University - and in Connacht. However, the depth of the engagement does not suffice.

In terms of regional provision we are very concerned that the heads of the Bill, if implemented as currently drafted, could lead to a dramatic reduction in regional provision of programmes and a corresponding inequity in respect of access to higher education. The root of our concern is that this could become simply a means to rationalisation. Of itself, rationalisation may occasionally have merit but it can equally do huge damage to the regional provision. The institutes of technology, IOT, sector is charged with and renowned for the regional provision of programmes which meet the needs of local industry, enterprise and communities. Local provision also directly enhances access to higher education programmes, particularly for students whose family income would not allow them to study away from home. That has become more pronounced in recent years. A regional provision has also greatly reduced inequality based on income level. That is borne out by the fact that enrolments in the IOT sector are broadly speaking on a par with enrolments in the university sector. Also, because of our concern about increasing inequity, which we see manifest, the TUI is opposed to the heads of the Bill allowing the Higher Education Authority and new technological universities to introduce new student fees or essentially increase student fees.

The TUI fully supports the traditional principle of academic freedom. That is a prerequisite for university status throughout the world and has, arguably, greater significance now than ever before given what we perceive as an ideological drift towards privatisation. We make a clear distinction between academic freedom and institutional autonomy. We regard the former - academic freedom - as being the absolute prerequisite. In practical terms, academic freedom is inextricably linked to security of tenure. The heads of the Bill seeks to reduce security of tenure by removing, for example, the need for a ministerial inquiry in the case of dismissal. I admit that is an extreme example. The TUI is opposed to that and is concerned about the impact such a change would have on academic freedom and the quality it assures. Without tenure of employment the principle of academic freedom is merely window dressing. We insist that tenured employment must be set at an appropriate proportion of the academic population. We suggest it should be in the region of 95% for academic and research staff. We are very concerned in this regard therefore about the casualisation of the academic workforce which has occurred in recent years, not exclusively as a result of the recession. We are particularly concerned about the continued use of precarious employment contracts, including the odious zero hours or variable hours contracts. Such contracts frequently purport to create flexibility or "teaching only" positions but in our view the very concept of a teaching-only provision in the academic context at third level is itself a contradiction in terms and is entirely inappropriate to the democratic functioning of higher education institutions.