Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 5 Jun 2008

School Secretaries and Caretakers: Discussion with IMPACT and SIPTU.

I welcome Mr. Johnny Fox, Ms Sharon Cregan and Ms Kathleen O'Doherty. They are here to discuss the issue of school secretaries and caretakers and I am aware they have spoken on an individual basis to certain members of the committee. I advise them that while we may abuse each other because we have the privilege of the Oireachtas, they do not have the same privilege and anything they say will be in the public domain.

I suggest that one member of the delegation makes an opening statement, followed by which members will ask questions to further explore the topic. It is our intention to finish by 10.30 a.m., when the main business of the House will commence. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Johnny Fox

That is very acceptable. I thank the committee for its kind invitation to address it regarding the serious inequalities in the pay and conditions of employment for school secretaries and caretakers in primary and post-primary schools throughout the country. We welcome this opportunity to speak about the joint campaign initiated by IMPACT and SIPTU to achieve standardised rates of pay and conditions of employment for our members.

We take a great deal of pride in Ireland's education system. At its best, it has a world class reputation and has produced generations of educated citizens whose skill and experience have contributed much to our society and economy. Underpinning that system is a collaborative environment that brings together teachers, pupils, parents and school principals in a collective effort to achieve the best possible standards of education. School secretaries and caretakers are the skilled group of dedicated workers at the heart of this collaboration who apply themselves to achieving the potential of every school despite the mounting challenges faced by our education system and the growing problem of scarce resources.

School secretaries are highly skilled administrators. They are the first people one meets on entering any school and they provide the links between teachers and pupils and between schools and parents and the wider community. They are multi-skilled and are called upon to take on a wide range of roles, yet they do not have access to the most basic pay and conditions of employment.

School secretaries have a key role in communicating with parents and the community about what is happening in their schools, and are key to all essential information about their schools. This makes them an excellent source of information for parents, staff and students alike. School secretaries also take on social duties, from arranging school trips to playing a central role in fundraising activities. Every survey conducted in schools has acknowledged that our schools would not function without secretaries. It is a role that requires the utmost of discretion because of its highly sensitive nature.

School caretakers are equally pivotal to the smooth running of schools. Their skills and dedication ensure that teachers and pupils can work in an environment of comfort and safety. They are called upon to perform tasks as diverse as painting, plumbing, electrical and boiler maintenance and grounds keeping, which in any other enterprise would require additional staff or multiple service contracts. Caretakers ensure that school utilities are run effectively and efficiently, thereby helping schools to save money and reducing the burden on the State. Despite this, they do not have access to the most basic pay and conditions of employment and, in common with school secretaries, their job security, promotional prospects and pay levels remain inconsistent across the country.

Many school secretaries and caretakers are directly affected by the problem of resource scarcity because they are employed by their schools' boards of management on varying terms and conditions. Their salaries are paid from the ancillary services grants given to schools, out of which other school expenses must also be paid. These grants must accommodate inflation in an environment where increasing numbers of schools are going into the red at the beginning of the school year. Consequently, terms and conditions of employment vary so widely across the country that serious anomalies and inequalities have emerged which breach national labour laws and agreements. SIPTU and IMPACT have great respect for the work done by boards of management, which are filled on a voluntary basis by members of the community.

As members may be aware, a two-tier system exists whereby school secretaries and caretakers employed before the implementation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in 1990 are paid directly by the Department of Education and Science under the 1978 and 1979 schemes. The 1978 scheme applies to school secretaries and the 1979 scheme to school caretakers. Those employed after the PESP are paid out of the ancillary services grants given to school boards. Consequently, school secretaries and caretakers employed after 1990 do not enjoy a standardised rate of pay, with some earning barely above the minimum wage. We are aware of school secretaries and caretakers around the country who are earning less than the minimum wage and will give examples later. The continuing problem of school under-funding is certain to make such pay anomalies more commonplace.

In community and comprehensive schools, secretaries are employed via the 1978 or 1979 scheme and enjoy rates of pay at the agreed clerical and administrative grade 3 and grade 4 level. Despite this, and their increasing responsibilities, they cannot gain access to promotional opportunities that would allow them to achieve a far higher administrative grading elsewhere in the public service. Instead, their promotional opportunities are capped at clerical officer grade 4 level. If they were in VECs many of these secretaries would be at grade 6 or grade 7 level, such is the high level of work they do.

In primary and secondary schools no standards apply to rates of pay. Rates of pay differ greatly from one school to another, and very few schools apply national pay awards, cost of living increases or annual incremental increases. We know of school secretaries and caretakers who have not had a pay increase since 2000. That is not untypical. There was a recent media report of a school secretary in Limerick who is still earning €6 per hour or €225 for a 37.5 hour net working week after eight years of full time employment. That is less than the minimum wage and inflation has devalued that income over time.

It is not unusual for school secretaries and caretakers, particularly in rural areas, to work for more than one school. We have documented evidence of a school secretary earning €10 per hour in one school and €7.70 per hour in another just a few miles away. Another school secretary with more than ten years' service works for €8.60 an hour, while another, with more than ten years' service, is paid just €10 per hour. For this €10 per hour this secretary performs a wide range of duties including caretaking, cleaning and special needs assistant duties in addition to secretarial duties. These examples represent just some of the inequalities that appear to have flourished under the system of funding schools through the ancillary services grant and are common throughout the country, particularly in rural areas.

Caretakers are subjected to similar inequalities in their rates of pay. For example we know of one caretaker with 12 years' service, who has not had a pay increase since he commenced employment in 1996 and is still earning €302 per week or €7.55 per hour for a working week of 40 hours, which is well below the legal minimum wage. We know of another caretaker with 17 years' service earning just €8.22 per hour, which is also below the legal minimum wage and this worker has not had access to any form of a pay increase in more than five years. Caretakers working in community and comprehensive schools covered by the 1978 scheme earn a minimum hourly rate of €14.98, which does not include the recent 2.5% national wage increase due since 1 March 2008.

Caretakers also attend to after hours emergencies, responding to break-ins or alarm outages. However we have found that 66% of caretakers receive no call out rates or after hours premium payments. A further 9% of caretakers received only a flat hourly rate payment or flat time off in lieu of payment. The remaining caretakers receive payments ranging from €6 to €40 per incident, the latter being an isolated case.

Caretakers employed under the 1979 scheme in community and comprehensive schools attending call outs attract a minimum payment of three hours' overtime at a rate of time and a half per hour. Call outs at weekends attract double time premium payments and these caretakers also receive overtime payments and shift premiums for working extended opening hours. Caretakers employed under the 1990 PESP scheme provide similar extended opening hours services, however they receive no shift or premium payments.

Both IMPACT and SIPTU carried out research over the past 12 months, or a little longer in SIPTU's case. They found that secretaries, regardless of service, earned on average between €10 and €13 per hour. To put this in perspective, a secretary under the 1978 or 1979 scheme with one year's service has a starting pay rate of €12.85 per hour; with seven years' service, €17.01 per hour and with 15 years' service, the maximum is €20.76 per hour. These figures do not include the 2.5% national wage increase.

The research also showed caretakers employed by boards of management under the terms of the 1990 PESP scheme earn between €8 and €12.50 per hour regardless of their years of service and these workers do not have access to any cost of living or national pay awards. The research found that secretaries and caretakers have no access to the pay terms of national pay awards, incremental increases in pay, cost of living increases and overtime payments. Whenever the unions make a claim for pay increases they are ignored, discouraged, rejected or challenged to third party machinery on the grounds of inability to pay. The unions reported that many individual boards of management used the ancillary services grant for non-pay services, often paying cleaners from the same grant instead of the capitation grant. In these instances, secretaries and caretakers are told there is no money available to increase pay rates.

I want to discuss conditions of employment. IMPACT and SIPTU found that in every region throughout the country, those school secretaries and caretakers employed under the PESP scheme had no access to basic conditions including pension schemes or PRSAs; sick leave schemes; promotional opportunities; overtime payments for additional attendances; fair procedures such as disciplinary, grievance, bullying and harassment procedures; and contracts of employment either part-time, permanent, fixed term or indefinite duration and where contracts were offered they varied from school to school and were generally restrictive in terms of normal pay and conditions of employment.

In many cases IMPACT and SIPTU found secretaries and caretakers were paid by cheque or electronic funds transfer without the benefit of getting a pay slip. Some secretaries and caretakers got handwritten or printed pay slips which showed no deductions such as tax or PRSI. The main reason for that is the pay is so low it does not attract tax or PRSI. In many schools, the secretary and caretaker have no choice but to undertake additional duties appropriate to other grades within the school system.

School secretaries and caretakers in many schools across the country work in environments that are hostile to union membership, fair procedure and decent conditions of employment. We have spoken to many members about the palpable fear among them to raise even the simplest of issues with their principals or boards of management. In an era of industrial harmony and the development of social partnership and partnership in the workplace, how is it possible that these workers are the only grades throughout the public service who have no access to a standardised rate of pay or the basic conditions of employment? How is it that while IMPACT and SIPTU were central to negotiating improved pay and conditions of employment within the social partnership framework for our members, more than 90% of our members employed in schools throughout the country do not and cannot benefit from our efforts?

We have put forward some provisions for the future. It is imperative that these dedicated and essential workers are given parity of esteem within the education system. In this regard IMPACT and SIPTU require the following provisions be implemented. We seek the introduction of an equitable funding mechanism to replace the 1978, 1979 and 1990 PESP schemes that guarantees all school secretaries and caretakers in primary, secondary, community and comprehensive schools access to standardised rates of pay and conditions of employment commensurate with appropriate, equivalent and comparable public service grades. We also seek a commitment that any funding mechanism will ensure access to annual incremental adjustments and attract national agreement pay awards. We want commitments on schools funding in the programme for Government to be implemented without delay. We want standardised access to pension schemes, sick leave schemes and contracts and conditions of employment. We seek the immediate introduction of a promotional structure that recognises the responsible nature of the work secretaries perform and is not dependent on the numbers of either pupils or teaching posts within a school. We would like the current practice of capping advancement beyond the clerical officer grade 4 position, which is limited to one position per school with more than 41 wholetime teaching posts, to end. We call for the immediate establishment of industrial relations and partnership structures covering all teaching support grades in line with the provisions enshrined in successive social partnership agreements.

We thank the Chairman and members of the committee for giving us this opportunity to address these issues with them. We sincerely hope this information will be of assistance. Our members have a commitment to ensure Ireland's education system remains world class. Equally, we, as trade union officials, have a commitment to ensure that our members' working conditions are equitable and fair. We hope that with the committee's assistance the provisions we have put forward can be realised and implemented within the forthcoming 2008-09 school year.

I thank Mr. Fox. Before I open it to the members of the committee to ask questions, if either of Mr. Fox's colleagues wish to make a brief comment in addition to what has been said they would be welcome to do so.

Ms Kathleen O’Doherty

Mr. Fox has covered the subject well but I will contribute as I am a secretary. We are undervalued for the work we do even though, as Mr. Fox stated, we are the first person of contact for anyone coming to the school. There is a sign on the wall stating that all visitors should report to the secretary. Visitors range from parents to teachers leaving in CVs or students potentially looking for placement for one day or three days. We have people from the HSE coming in to look after the children with dental and vision checks. We deal with all sorts of people.

At this time of the year, school tours take place and the secretary is left to organise it. Where there are activities in the area, we have advertising for community groups that are organising events through the school. The secretary does this during the summer holidays. We act as public servants. Clearly, we answer telephones and carry out reception duties, which are a full-time job, as well as running the school office. We look after supplies as well. Everything that goes through the school is done through the secretary.

I want us to be recognised for the valuable work we do. When a child comes to school first thing in the morning, the secretary is the first place of contact with the school if that child is upset. On a personal note, we have all kinds of relationships and families with which to deal on a daily basis. As a parent, I know what it is like to get children to school in the morning. Everybody is in a rush, the children arrive and I could be asked, for example, to ring one of their homes because a child has forgotten swimming gear or an Irish book. We would then contact the parent.

That is all in a day's work when we are at our desk trying to do our other work. We would be on the phone trying to contact the parents, who may be on their way to work. We may have to ring a babysitter. It sounds like an easy enough job to do but it is time consuming when it is done in conjunction with administration and keeping our records up to date.

I may be going on a bit. The job is endless and there are not enough hours in the day to do it. As it is with most of the girls, we are embarrassed to say how little we earn. The Department of Education and Science should be ashamed to let this go on any further. We are valuable to the school community and we should be looked after better.

Ms Sharon Cregan

SIPTU represents the majority of school caretakers. I concur with my colleagues with regard to the lack of conditions afforded to the backroom staff in schools. Unfortunately, we have seen in the media recently reports of lack of facilities for pupils, parents and teachers, but there is never a mention of those who prop up the schools on a daily basis with regard to ancillary staff.

As my colleague, Mr. Fox, has pointed out, the terms, conditions and rates of pay we have relayed to the committee are unfortunately very real. These rates of pay were unacceptable in the 1980s and here we are in 2008, with caretakers with 17 years' service on €8.22 an hour and those with 20 years' service on €9.02 an hour. They do not have any promotional opportunities. Like my colleague, Ms O'Doherty, their job descriptions are non-exhaustive and the list goes on. I will not go any further on the matter and I thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.

I thank those present for making the joint presentation today from IMPACT and SIPTU. I was in a school in County Tipperary two weeks ago and was asked by a young student the first action I would take if I became Minister for Education and Science tomorrow. Without hesitation, I stated I would deal with this inequality that exists for school secretaries and caretakers.

The Department of Education and Science has been getting the service of secretaries and caretakers on the cheap for the past 30 or 40 years. I regret there is nobody here from the Department of Education and Science today and when Deputy Quinn, the Vice Chairman, raised the matter in the Dáil some months ago he was effectively fobbed off by the then Minister, who indicated it was a matter for boards of management. This issue should be dealt with by the Department.

I have processed some numbers on the information provided by the delegation on the existing pay structure. Am I correct in saying there are two systems, with one going back to 1978 and 1979, where people are paid directly by the Department, and more recently an ancillary care grant, which is given to schools who must carve up? Effectively there are two systems in place. Am I correct in saying a school secretary under the old system after 12 years' service would be on an average of approximately €20 per hour, where the same secretary in another school under the new system after 12 years' service is on somewhere between €10 and €13 per hour?

We have the same work being done by the same group of people but there are two systems in place. How can anyone justify that in this day and age in a system where special needs assistants have very clear pay structures and conditions within schools and where there is a whole new level of support given in resourcing teaching staff? It is beyond me.

Will the delegation confirm that my interpretation is correct in terms of the distinction between both schemes? I have seen some comment in the press that there might well be a national day of protest on behalf of the members in the autumn. Will the delegation indicate to the committee if that is happening and how widespread it will be? I presume that on the day havoc will be caused in schools up and down the country because the justifiable concerns of the delegation have not been met on behalf of union members.

As a committee we must take a definitive position on this and put pressure on the new Minister and his officials to get off the fence on the issue. He should produce a workable structure that will deliver standardised pay and conditions for all ancillary care staff within our school system, specifically school secretaries and caretakers. The committee would do a good day's service if we took a unanimous position on the issue and put pressure on the Department accordingly.

I join the Vice Chairman in welcoming the representatives from IMPACT and SIPTU and thank them for outlining a very strong case. It has often been said that the two most prized assistants to any principal are the secretary and caretaker because they are effectively the people who assist him or her throughout the day's work and duties. In my time as a teacher and principal I always found that to be the case for secretaries and caretakers in the various schools I have worked in. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to these workers throughout the country, whether they are members of unions or not, for the service given to schools and communities that is very often over and above the call of duty.

I will ask a couple of questions. Has this issue formed part of the national pay talks in the past partnership negotiations, which the unions would have been involved in? Is it scheduled to be part of the pay talks in their coming round, as it would strike me as being the kind of issue that should be discussed at the wage negotiations where all the unions, employers and Government are represented? This would be preferable to it being raised in an Oireachtas committee. What is the position in that regard?

Will the delegation give an idea of how many secretaries and caretakers are currently members of the unions? What proportion of secretaries and caretakers in the system are members of unions?

I have some experience of schools and I am a little surprised by one of the statements from the delegation. It indicated that school secretaries and caretakers in many schools are working in environments which are hostile to union membership, fair procedure and decent conditions of employment. There was also an indication that there is a palpable fear among many to raise even the simplest of issues with the principals or boards of management.

Having almost 30 years' experience in the field, I see this as quite a sweeping statement. It is possibly an unfair representation of the goodwill that would exist towards secretaries and caretakers from many principals and boards of management, membership of which is in many cases voluntary. These people are working for the community. Will the delegation substantiate the statement or perhaps temper it a bit? Many employees of schools work as a community. In my experience I have not seen hostility to secretaries or caretakers raising issues they believe are important. Nobody would want to see such hostility. It is a serious statement to make and I ask that it be backed up with evidence.

Deputy Hayes made a point regarding a unanimous recommendation. There is no motion before the committee today so there will be no vote. We are all entitled to express our opinions and I feel the proper forum for this, where these issues can be resolved, is the partnership negotiations. If Deputy Hayes wishes to table a motion for another date that is something we will have to discuss. We will have to see how the Department of Education and Science responds.

I welcome the delegation which embraces all aspects of this area, including secretaries, caretakers and union hierarchy. As a former teacher, I know that to find out what is happening in a big school, the best people to befriend are the secretary and the caretaker. I am also a member of a board of management and heard the phrase Deputy Behan used in this regard. We understand that a number of caretakers and secretaries feel they are not receiving what they deserve and the case that has been made illustrates this clearly. If two people do the same work they should not be on different pay scales.

My question is one that has already been asked. How could IMPACT and SIPTU have been central to negotiating improved pay scales when we ended up with the 1978, 1979 and 1990 versions? Whatever of the national pay agreements, how can the national minimum wage be circumvented if the money comes from the Central Fund and goes to schools as a lump sum to be distributed later? Legally speaking, how can anyone pay below the minimum wage?

I accept that the workload of secretaries can be sizeable. I once sought a secretary and was asked to supply a job description, but even in my position, I could not begin to do this. I said I could not supply a job description and a year later the secretary who got the job said she could understand why this was the case because there are so many elements to the work. However, our secretaries work under a definite pay scheme and that is the difference.

Some schools are very small, some have walking principals and some have a caretaker, a secretary and a walking principal. The point was made that some secretaries are shared between a number of schools. Would the delegates agree that this is the reality in a minority of cases? Those people still need to be paid a wage commensurate with the job they do. The fact that they work in a couple of schools may not be the central point. The central point may be that they are not being paid properly for the work they do.

Mention was made of promotion structures that recognise the responsibilities and the nature of the work secretaries perform and that depend on neither the number of pupils nor teaching posts in a school. Some schools are very small and one wonders whether they need so many employees. It might be possible to share them with another school. On the other hand, some very big schools have only one secretary who must juggle many events and students. Do the delegates have criteria relating to caretakers and secretaries for the money they receive? Small and large schools may need a certain number of secretaries and caretakers.

I thank the witnesses, Mr. Fox, Ms Cregan and Ms O'Doherty, for supplying an informed document. I come from a business background and never realised the work done by secretaries and caretakers, although when I was at school a long time ago, we took them for granted. I was on a vocational education committee, VEC, interviewing for caretakers and the chief executive officer advised me that the interview for a caretaker is probably more important than the interview for a headmaster because the caretaker liaises between students and teachers. It was outlined that this was part of the work of a caretaker and this made me realise the importance of the job.

I believe that secretaries do a substantial amount of work and I am amazed that this inequality has not been addressed. I congratulate the delegates on their professionalism, expertise, commitment and vocation. The matter of inequality should be dealt with immediately. Perhaps the secretaries were not organised before but they are now and I hope their presence here with Mr. Fox will open doors for them. I suggest this committee should develop a cross-party view to allow us put pressure on the Department to ensure the needs of the secretaries are addressed.

I apologise for not being present to hear the oral presentation, although the written version was circulated and I had a chance to go through it prior to this meeting. Some of the delegates will be aware that I am very familiar with this issue and have spoken to many of their organisation's members in this regard. I raised this matter in a number of fora, both in the Seanad and directly with the Minister for Education and Science, and I find what is going on with school secretaries and caretakers appalling. This issue goes to the core of what is happening in our education sector and the fact that some staff are being treated in this way is ridiculous.

Not long ago a Private Members' motion was put forward jointly by the Labour Party and Sinn Féin in the Dáil on agency workers. I feel this issue is similar but instead of private companies trying to circumvent legislation on workers' rights, the Department of Education and Science is doing so through the back door, using boards of management to carry out the dirty work. This matter is difficult and we raised it with the patrons of the education bodies when they were present. We asked why this is happening and why boards of management and patrons are acting in breach of the legislation. We were told this is an issue of funding and the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Hanafin, reiterated this when, in response to a question of mine in the Seanad, she said school boards of management are allocated enough funding to employ secretaries and caretakers for four and a half hours per day. She pointed out that the working day of a school is only five hours and 20 minutes. The patrons said the same thing when they were present. They believed that if they were to resolve this matter on their own, as patrons and members of boards of management, their only option was to reduce working hours for school secretaries and caretakers.

Can the delegates discuss this approach? I do not feel that cutting back the working hours of school secretaries and caretakers would be right. This is only one issue but other matters include terms, the right to a contract and various rights and entitlements workers have fought for over the years and now take as given. Unfortunately, school secretaries and caretakers are not able to avail of these rights and entitlements.

Regarding the informal discussions in the forum on Towards 2016, has progress been made? I understand the Department of Education and Science is in some way washing its hands of the issue and saying it is between the boards of management and the union. This situation is only going to get worse. The school secretaries being paid under the 1978 and 1979 schemes are being phased out and the system will not be replaced. There will not be two different systems for school secretaries and caretakers; everyone will be in the worse system. This must be resolved quickly. On behalf of my party I support the campaign and I look forward to the protest in Donegal on 17 June. We will support it nationally as well. We need to be able to propose a motion, as suggested by Deputy Hayes, in order that this forum, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, can take a position on this. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the committee — I only attend at the discretion of the Chair — and I would not be able to propose or vote on such a motion, but I can tell the representatives that my party will informally offer its full support if such a motion is introduced.

I thank the representatives for their presentation. As somebody who taught for more than 30 years in a previous existence, I am only too aware of the services, the commitment and the vocation of school secretaries. Service to parents and community was mentioned, but they give a service to teachers also. I concur with Deputies Hayes and Feighan about the idea of resolving this issue with cross-party support. Having listened to the presentation and with my knowledge of teaching, it is a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. For all the years I was involved in teaching I did not realise the pay difficulties that existed and how silent these people were about the issue. Why is it only coming out now? They have been very patient. I am not into the technicalities of whether we need a motion or not, but Deputy Hayes already has a motion on this issue on the Dáil Order Paper for Private Members' business, and I would like to read it into the record. It states:

That Dáil Éireann notes with grave concern the failure on the part of the Department of Education and Science to engage with those unions who represent school secretaries and caretakers within the informal process established under the Towards 2016 National Agreement, and having regard to the continuous and serious pay inequalities faced by school secretaries and caretakers within the Irish Education System, demands that the Minister for Education and Science immediately enter into meaningful discussions to address this issue by standardising the terms and conditions of employment commensurate with appropriate public service grades with effect from the 2008/2009 school year.

If a motion is required, we on this side already have a policy.

I ask the representatives to respond and request that they concentrate on the questions asked.

Mr. Johnny Fox

I will do that. Deputy Hayes was the first to ask a question and he asked me to confirm a number of points. I can confirm that the majority of school secretaries, particularly those employed in primary schools, are paid between €10 and €13 per hour. It would be slightly higher in secondary schools because they receive slightly more funding from the ancillary services grant scheme. One of the messages we are trying to give is that the commitment was to raise the wage at primary school level to that paid at secondary school level. I can confirm that. If members wish to know how I can confirm it, it is on the basis of having visited 13 regions in the country to meet school secretaries. We have also done both telephone and e-mail surveys of as many school secretaries as we could, with more then 500 responses. SIPTU has carried out similar surveys. That is how we can confirm it.

I was also asked about the protests. SIPTU has decided against this, but members of IMPACT, particularly secretaries, have decided enough is enough and have voted 98% in favour of having one-day regional and, if necessary, national work stoppages to highlight their case. The first stoppage is on 17 June in the Donegal region. It will be confined to secretaries of primary and secondary schools and there will be minimal impact on the schools. We have ensured this particularly because it is examination time and we did not want to upset the students. For this reason also, we did not include caretakers. It is the first time in the history of the State that school secretaries will have taken this step. School caretakers in the Dublin region represented by IMPACT voted 100% in favour. They will not be taking part on 17 June but if we cannot crack this issue we may have a national protest in the autumn. As I said, ballots have been taken. I confirm these two positions.

The next Deputy to ask questions was Deputy Behan. First, I thank the Deputy for his kind words. If the key to unlocking this problem was the kind words of teachers, TDs and members of the public, we would not be sitting here today. The Deputy asked a number of questions and made a comment to which I want to respond. The issue was part of the talks the last time and what came out was that an informal process would be established to consider the issues at hand. That has collapsed unceremoniously because the Department——

Is Mr. Fox referring to the process between the representatives of the caretakers and secretaries and the Department of Education and Science?

Mr. Johnny Fox

Yes, and the Department of Finance was also involved from a funding perspective. It facilitated the process.

The process collapsed after three meetings because representatives of the Department of Education and Science stated that it was not the employer of school secretaries in primary and secondary schools who are employed under the PESP scheme, and that, therefore, it had no role in either determining or resolving issues of pay or conditions of employment. The talks collapsed immediately because the Department failed, in my view, to take the issue seriously, to try to find a solution or even to go back to the Minister with a solution. Will the issue be part of the upcoming pay talks? I hope so. We have put forward a position to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. We have asked ICTU to raise this issue in the current talks. However, I would be less than honest if I agreed that was the right place to deal with this. Yes, it would be the right place in terms of determining the next round of pay, but determining Government policy and funding is a matter for Government and for the Minister. It certainly has a place in the talks — of that there is no doubt — because it relates to the economic needs of workers in terms of pay increases in the future. As we have not obtained any benefit from the talks and agreements to date, it has a place there, but it also has a place in the political system. That is why we are here today.

I ask that the committee take a joint view. As I said at the start of my answer to Deputy Behan, if goodwill was all we needed, the problem would be solved by now. If goodwill is to be extended, the committee owes it to the secretaries to take a common view. Before I leave I ask the committee, on behalf of the secretaries and caretakers, to do that.

Deputy Behan also asked about the proportion of secretaries and caretakers who are union members. The proportion of members is very low by public service standards. There are approximately 5,000 school secretaries and caretakers throughout the system. Between SIPTU and IMPACT we represent probably between 1,000 and 1,300. Thus, it is relatively low; hence the statement I made about an environment hostile to unions. I thought long and hard about whether to put that statement in the presentation. I felt that I had to if I was to be honest. There is a hostile environment out there. There is no doubt that school secretaries are afraid to raise issues. Some school secretaries call me and tell me about their problems and then say in the next breath that I am not to write to their school principals. When I ask why, they say they might get into trouble.

We have raised this issue with the employers who acknowledge that it is a problem. I do not believe that the problem was created on purpose by school boards. It has simply evolved over time. Secretaries and caretakers feel themselves to be very much in the background. We have asked employers to look at ways of bringing them into the mainstream where they actually belong in terms of how they feel their schools treat them. We are finding it very difficult to unionise these people because they are afraid. I must make this point.

Are they worried about bullying? I assume that is the correct word for it if they are afraid to come forward. Which are they more concerned about — the school principal or the board of management?

Mr. Johnny Fox

They are worried about two things. In rural Ireland, if a person puts a case to the local board of management it is likely that the board's membership is made up of that person's neighbours. One does not really do that. These people feel that they would be talked about. They also feel that it would be disloyal to raise an issue. I do not believe it is a question of bullying rather that they are afraid of how they would be viewed.

I will give the committee an interesting example, one that we come across more and more. I have a letter from the chairperson of a board of management in response to a claim from a member who has had no pay increase since 2003. The offer in the letter was made in "take it or leave it" terms. The person in question works eight hours a week and was on a rate of €12 per hour. The first offer was that she might continue to work eight hours a week and would get an increase of €0.85 to €12.85 per hour. That would be an 85 cent per hour increase, or €6 a week. A second offer was that she might reduce her hours to six per week and work for €13.90 per hour. That would be a drop in her income to €83.40 because the original rate and hours gave her €96 per week. Another option offered was that she work five hours a week at €15 per hour, bringing a drop to €75 per week.

That is a common response across the country. The funding is not there so the solution is to tell people to reduce their hours and have their hourly rate increased. The situation is not being taken seriously. At the beginning of the letter I mentioned, the person was told that her input and contribution to the school was valued. That is not an example of being valued and it is the point I wish to make. People are afraid of receiving that kind of response, of what their neighbours might think of them and of being disloyal. I do not wish to say that it is a question of bullying but it is hostile. There is no doubt about that. To be honest, I thought long and hard about quoting that response but it seemed appropriate. This is an issue that we have addressed with employers and they have acknowledged that there is a problem. I believe that what we say is the truth.

Ms Sharon Cregan

Senator Keaveney made a point concerning the numbers of pupils or pupil ratios in certain schools. SIPTU carried out its survey in schools across the country that had more than 150 pupils. There were quite a few schools in more rural areas that would not have adequate funding to employ either a secretary or a caretaker. Our campaign was a desk-based postal and telephone survey. By speaking to people on the phone we found that those smaller schools did not have the funding. Principals were very forthcoming with the information that they brought in an odd-job man or had a secretary for a couple of hours a week. We left those schools out of the survey. Our findings in the report are based on schools that have the funding even if it is capped at a certain amount.

We thank Deputy Feighan for his kind comments. He made the observation, about which we agree, that so far the unions have not been organised. We are now becoming more organised concerning the individuals employed in these grades. I believe that my colleague, Mr. Fox , is understating our current membership. It is not in the higher ranks but is building on a weekly basis, I am glad to say.

I thank Senator Doherty for his comments and support on this issue. The terms in question are truly appalling as is the issue itself. It leaves people flabbergasted. I am sure that some of the members will agree with us about this. We would compare it with the agency issue. It is a question of funding and Mr. Fox has outlined the process regarding that. We hope the issue will be brought back to the national pay talks. Our unions will do everything in their power to ensure that happens.

We agree that the issue must be solved immediately, as the Senator has said. Many such issues have come to the fore recently because of increases in student numbers and the expansion of schools in particular areas, both urban and rural, particularly the latter. The individuals involved, who are greatly affected by the lack of terms and conditions and dismal pay rates, are now beginning to come forward. Returning to Deputy Feighan's point, that situation allows us to organise more properly and efficiently.

Mr. Johnny Fox

Senator Keaveney asked how the minimum wage can be circumvented. It can only be circumvented if funding is available to ensure that school boards of management are not put in that position. We might have gone to the Labour Court on numerous occasions or to the employment inspectorate concerning this matter. We chose not to do so simply because we do not wish to be in the position where we take ordinary members of a community to court and tarnish them with such a matter. We have chosen instead to try to get the political system to recognise that the only way in which this will be resolved is through a combination of the pay talks and political will to ensure that funding is available. Whatever is agreed in the pay talks will not work unless the funding and the political will are in place. That is the reason we have not gone mad on this issue although we might have done so. It is hard enough to get volunteers and the last thing trade unions wish to do is to put people off volunteering to do community work on school boards of management where they are badly needed.

The second of the Senator's questions was about small schools sharing secretaries and whether we are looking at pay for that job role. We are doing so. There are different levels and the public service recognises this. If a person is employed by the VEC, depending on role and location, he or she may be employed on a scale from grade 3 to grade 6, and so on. Obviously, a person in a small school will not have the responsibility or the range of duties to attract the higher grading. We believe that the work done is the same, albeit on a smaller scale. It is no less important. As with any job, there is a rate for the job done. Some Deputies, for instance, are in bigger constituencies than others but there is a rate for the role and it is recognised that the value of the role is X, Y or Z. That is what we are trying to achieve but we recognise that small schools will need less input than bigger schools. The system and method of pay and the way in which those are addressed can sort that issue out.

On behalf of the committee I thank the members of IMPACT and SIPTU who came here today. I inadvertently forgot to offer the apologies of our colleagues, Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, Deputy Paul Gogarty, the Chairman of the committee, who recently had a family bereavement, and Deputy Ulick Burke.

Deputy Margaret Conlon also sent her apologies.

I thank all colleagues for their constructive questions. It is up to the members of the committee to decide what further action they wish to take.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.38 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 June 2008.
Top
Share