Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I understand the Deputy's frustration. However, one must go back to how collective agreements are put together. It is the norm in industrial relations practice in the public service that the decision of the trade union recognised as holding representative rights for a particular grade or sector will determine the position for all relevant staff in that grade or sector. This context does not allow for acceptance or rejection of collective agreements by staff on an individual basis. There are sound reasons for this approach. The Lansdowne Road agreement is a collective agreement between the Government and the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and applies to members of affiliate unions. Allowing for acceptance or rejection of collective agreements by staff on an individual basis would not be consistent with the collective approach taken to public service pay agreements to date. In addition, it could also give rise to issues in the negotiation of change and industrial relations agreements on an individual basis with every public servant. It would also give rise to the converse question of whether individual union members would be allowed to opt out of agreements reached by their union.

To explain this in layman's terms, essentially the way the system works is that schools are defined in different sectors. In the schools described by the Deputy there are mixed schools in which both the ASTI and the TUI have negotiating rights. The FEMPI legislation provides that the benefits of a collective agreement will apply to those who have signed up to it. In this instance, the ASTI took action to take itself outside the agreement by not working to the 33-hour measure. The FEMPI legislation provides that the TUI members who are party to a collective agreement will receive the benefits of it. Those in sectors in which there are joint negotiating rights do not receive such benefits.

In the instance described by the Deputy the ASTI does not have a member in the school. If it did, using the Deputy's logic, we would be changing the rule because of the ASTI suddenly having a member and would have to apply different rules. Another way of looking at it is that if one is in a dispute and rewards are going to people who are not party to it, one could be accused of encouraging people to leave unions to gain the benefits of agreements negotiated by others to which they were not party. There is a long-standing approach to this issue. As it is an element of industrial relations, this approach is part of the way in which one has to deal fairly with those who enter in good faith into collective agreements to negotiate on behalf of their members.

That is the best explanation I can offer. It makes absolute sense in managing industrial relations in a stable environment to work in this way.

See this speech in context