Vol. 249 No. 13
asked the Minister for Education why a person (name supplied), who has been employed as a teacher by Dublin City Vocational Education Committee since October, 1967, is not being paid the special allowance of £110 per annum which is payable to all teachers who hold the City and Guilds of London Institute's full technological certificate, although his employers have recommended him for this payment in 1968, for his school (name supplied).
24.
asked the Minister for Education why his Department refuses to pay a woodwork teacher the special allowance of £110 approved by the Dublin Vocational Education Committee to a teacher who holds the full technological certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute in the furniture industry having regard to the fact that such an allowance is paid to holders of similar certificates in printing and engineering and that schools are experiencing difficulties in recruiting and retaining woodwork teachers; and if he will remedy this state of affairs and make a statement on the matter.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 23 and 24 together.
It is not in accordance with the facts that the special allowance referred to is payable to all teachers who hold any of the full technological certificates of the City and Guilds of London Institute. Such an allowance can be authorised only in the case of teachers who hold a qualification which can be regarded as equivalent to the relevant qualification specified in the regulations governing the award of the special allowance.
The qualification held by the teacher in question is not accepted as being up to the required standard.
Is it not a fact that when this man was first employed six payments were withheld and it was only after he had gone to considerable trouble—in fact, he went on hunger strike—that four of them were paid? Is it not also true that his employers, the Dublin Vocational Education Committee, recommended him in 1968 for such payment? Is the Minister telling the House that the Dublin Vocational Education Committee recommended a teacher for a payment to which he was not entitled? Is it not also true that there are approximately 6,000 teachers all of whom are being paid and this one man is being done out of that to to which he is entitled?
The Department make a full evaluation of each of the many full technological certificates of the City and Guilds of London Institutes for which a special allowance is claimed. The purpose of evaluation is to ascertain if the particular certificate may be regarded as the equivalent of whatever relevant qualification is prescribed in the regulations. In this regard the standards of the different full technological certificates vary. The full technological certificate in this instance has not been accepted by the Department. Mr. O'Reilly's employers, the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, and Mr. O'Reilly were informed of this decision. In addition, one of the Department's inspectors who interviewed Mr. O'Reilly on 18th July, 1969, when he visited the Department, informed him of the other qualifications, in addition to this technological certificate, which he would require in order to obtain the allowance. Both the Dublin VEC and Mr. O'Reilly are aware of the position. These various certificates or qualifications are considered by the Department in relation to the relevant qualifications prescribed and the Department decide whether they are equivalent qualifications. In this instance, Mr. O'Reilly was informed that it was not an equivalent qualification.
Is it not true that the Department decided there were four other qualifications which prevented this man from getting the allowance? Also, is it not true that after he had gone to considerable trouble the Department conceded four of them? Would the Minister not agree that his Department may be wrong in this instance also? The direct employers have requested payment of this money and does the Minister not accept that that should be good enough for his Department? Will this vendetta be continued until this man's health is seriously affected?
I should like to make it clear to the Deputy that there is no vendetta.
I do not know what to call it then.
This matter has been examined in detail in the Department and has been going on for a considerable time. It was explained to Mr. O'Reilly what he should do in relation to acquiring certain further qualifications in order to entitle him to the money mentioned in the Deputy's question. Some of the full technological qualifications are accepted after they have been examined carefully by the Department as to whether they are equivalent to the standard required.
Would the Minister not agree that in this case the Department have proved they were wrong and that by their actions they were biased against this man since the date of his appointment? Would the Minister not agree that, in the circumstances, the Department should agree to payment being made to this man — they do not have to pay him themselves, the VEC would pay him — or alternatively give the man the necessary test so that he can prove he has reached the required standard?
I have already explained that this man was informed about what he should do in order to be entitled to this money. I want to make it very clear that there is no vendetta against him. It is simply that, in the judgment of my Department, the qualification is not sufficient to enable him to obtain the allowance. If the Department admitted they were wrong in a certain instance that is to the credit of the Department——
After this man went to a lot of trouble.
Irrespective of that, it is to the credit of the Department that they accepted it. However, in relation to this qualification it is not regarded by my Department as equivalent to the standard required.
25.
asked the Minister for Education if he will explain why there has been such a long delay in making the additional payments to national teachers occupying posts of responsibility and, in particular, in the case of a person (details supplied).
This is a matter which had to be dealt with under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers. When agreement was arrived at it was necessary to examine the position in each individual school concerned before the terms of the agreement could be applied. This involved a great deal of time and work.
The case referred to by the Deputy comes into a special category which is related to teachers in junior schools. The position of this category is still under discussion by the conciliation council.
Is the Minister aware that the delay in this and similar claims will be detrimental to the goodwill required for the successful negotiation of claims in the future?
I do not think that this case was held up for too long. However, I cannot discuss details as the matter is now under discussion by the conciliation council.
