Mr. Pat Burke:

Teacher unions, probably up until 2000 to 2002, would always have maintained that substitution and supervision work was not part of their core contract. One might argue the rights and wrongs of this view, as indeed I probably would. It was given on what they would have described it as a grace and favour basis. That came to a crunch in a particularly bitter industrial dispute back in the early 2000s, which many will remember. Industrial action meant teachers withdrew from the duty. The State then was obliged to bring in outside people to undertake the supervision work. It was a real challenge to government pay policy. Ultimately, the negotiated settlement was one where an allowance was put in place for substitution and supervision work. It was technically optional for a teacher to decide whether he or she would undertake the work and receive the allowance but the majority of teachers bought into the scheme. It had the benefit, from the point of view of the State and the system, of providing a better substitution and supervision service that was no longer reliant on a principal asking a teacher to do something on an almost voluntary basis. There was now greater certainty but undoubtedly there was a cost attached.