Mr. Patrick King:

Last January, I was appointed as mediator by the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor. My terms of reference were to explore the scope for agreement on minimum employment standards leading to some form of registered, statutory employment agreement. I wrote to all the stakeholders, that is, the providers, employers and trade unions involved. A difficulty at the beginning was that there is no single management representative body. One organisation, Marketing English Ireland, MEI, represents approximately 66 schools but it is a marketing organisation and does not consider itself an employer body. Its initial reaction was not to get involved in the process but it subsequently did so and I have met its representatives on several occasions. A second group, Progressive College Network, which is represented here, was involved from the beginning and was positively disposed towards the process. It has been supportive of a positive outcome and remains so. A third, informal group of employers is engaged with me, although it is not affiliated with any organisation.

I convened public meetings of providers in Dublin, Galway and Cork that were attended by more than 90 people representing schools. A wide variety of opinions was expressed of the meetings, some of which I will give the committee a taste of in a moment. On the other side, I met the trade unions that are active in English language schools. The main one is Unite the Union, which is represented here and whose senior officials and sector branch I met. I also met SIPTU, which is involved, to a lesser extent, in some of the university colleges that provide English language courses, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. The committee will not be surprised that ICTU is supportive of reaching a destination that will provide statutory protections for employees in English language schools. I think the individual employers, on the other hand, are reluctant. This week, the MEI will ballot its membership on whether to continue engagement leading to some kind of statutory agreement.

To give a taste of what the employers said to us at public meetings, some of them saw the mediation as an unhelpful intervention or a knee-jerk reaction to the closure of Grafton College, some said the State was generally unhelpful to English language schools, while others believed that their should be State subsidy for English language schools. All sides, that is, that of workers, trade unions and management, wanted strict accreditation.

They all wanted the IEM rigorously applied, along with financial backing and an inspection regime.

Some of the schools referred to others in fairly derogatory terms, mentioning schools opening, undercutting, cherry-picking, profiting and then leaving the country. They said some schools were reputable but others were behaving recklessly. That comes from employers. On the standards of employment, schools were saying that some have best practice while others do not. They said an agreement on minimum conditions will not work and many schools already have above-average conditions and teachers are not complaining. This was said to me by employers. I was told that if legislation is changed to apply minimum standards, it will lead to more closures and threaten jobs. It was said that teachers like the flexibility in schools, including the uncertainty about hours, etc., that have already been mentioned.

On the employee side, I met representatives of unions and I met and received communication from well over 100 teachers. I am grateful to them as many said they found it very difficult to speak up and join trade unions. They did not want to be recorded as having met me and they did not want to be identified. They wanted standards of inspection and complained about pay. They stated that most teachers were on short contracts and that nobody in their schools was permanent. Many stated that they were on zero-hour contracts, although the legislation has changed in the meantime but some say that it has still not been implemented. They stated that their hours change without warning and they face uncertain conditions. One teacher told me she had nine contracts in two years, conditions are getting worse and she is not permitted to work in another school in order to augment her salary. She said the pay was measly and that it is not a living wage so she cannot afford to have children. I was also told that teachers live on the poverty line and so on. This is a reflection of what they said to me.

These are two very different perspectives. The teachers speak of low morale and a toxic environment in schools, with teachers feeling helpless and afraid to speak up. They say that if they get actively involved in a union, they will not be rehired. That kind of comment was also made. The teachers stated that they had no leave entitlement and cannot get sick because there is no employment security. I was informed that teachers go to school on Mondays wondering if the school will be open. One teacher told me of a plan to leave the country because there is no future in English language teaching here. The teachers I met are very proud of their profession and I was very impressed with them. There are very passionate about the job and I was told that although they love the job, it is not a viable career and the industry is losing quality teachers.

It is possible that by next week I will know exactly where the employers stand in moving to the next stage, which is agreement to proceed to a position of statutory engagement, with involvement from the Labour Court and a possible sectoral employment order dictating minimum standards, leave entitlements, pay and so forth. There could be a joint labour committee that would also set minimum standards and which would ultimately have the force of law. I am advised that if there was a sectoral employment order, it would apply to all schools, regardless of whether they engaged in the process. It would help to prevent the business of one school undercutting others.