Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1985

Vol. 110 No. 7

Teachers' Conciliation and Arbitration: Motion.

Mr. Mullooly

I move:

"That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government (a) to re-assert their commitment to the agreed procedures of Conciliation and Arbitration for teachers and (b) to enter into immediate discussions with the three teacher unions."

The first part of this motion seeks the reassertion from the Government of their commitment to a system that has contributed much to good and orderly industrial relations since its introduction. Over the years both Government parties, Fine Gael and Labour, have on numerous occasions outlined their desire for good industrial relations. Many times, too, over the years both parties have reiterated their commitment to the principle of free collective bargaining.

In the Labour Party manifesto, which was issued prior to the 1982 General Election, there was a section headed "Collective Bargaining". This section stated:

The trade union movement and the public service have faced unprecedented attacks from the Government on pay and on negotiating procedures. Labour's policy is:

(i) free collective bargaining between workers and employers linked to a democratic planning process;

(ii) opposition to statutory control of wages;

(ii) opposition to restrictions by the main parties on the negotiating rights of trade unions.

The Government in their document Building on Reality state that:

...no effort must be spared to ensure that our industrial relations institutions and procedures are the best possible.

For almost 35 years the system that has been in existence for the determination of teachers' pay has been conciliation and arbitration. This is the system that has been agreed and accepted over the years by the teachers' unions, the management bodies and successive Governments. Conciliation and arbitration has been an orderly system. It has worked well. It has ensured that for the past 35 years there has been industrial peace in our schools. Our teachers went about the job of teaching. Salary claims were negotiated in an orderly fashion and resolved. Strike action was a weapon resorted to by others but not by teachers. This has been the situation since the first scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers was agreed and signed on 24 February 1951. In that year there was an inter-Party Government in office and the Minister for Education of the day was the late General Richard Mulcahy. the current scheme was agreed upon and signed in 1973 by the then Coalition Government. This scheme provided that, if agreement cannot be reached by the parties in the conciliation council, then disagreement is registered and the issue is submitted to the teachers' arbitration board for determination. The public service arbitrator, who is appointed by the Government, is the chairman of the teachers' arbitration board. Following the hearing of a claim it is his duty to decide the amount of the award, if any, to be made and to provide his recommendations in a report to the Government.

The establishment and acceptance of these procedures has resulted in 35 years of industrial peace and the orderly resolution of teachers' salary claims. For all these 35 years the arbitrator's recommendations have been regarded as binding on both sides and all arbitration reports have been implemented. Now it would appear that the Government are prepared, and even determined, to undermine and even to dismantle this system.

The public service arbitrator has not been reappointed and threats have been made by Government sources that the 10 per cent arbitration award to teachers will not be honoured. Is it any wonder, therefore, that teachers are up in arms? Is it any wonder that they feel angry and frustrated? Is it any wonder that they came in their thousands to Dublin last week to protest against what they see as the unilateral dismantling of existing conciliation and arbitration machinery and a very definite threat by the Government to repudiate, for the first time in 35 years, a public service arbitration finding? For 35 years the teachers and their unions, the associations of school managers and successive Governments have supported the conciliation and arbitration machinery. The alternative to conciliation and arbitration is confrontation and conflict. The teachers know this, and this is why they are so determined to fight for and to retain their system of free collective bargaining, namely, the process of conciliation and independent arbitration.

Irrespective of how they might try to fudge the issue, the Government are a party to the agreed conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers. It is also important to remember that it was the present Government which appointed the arbitrator whose award they are now seeking to repudiate. Let us look for a moment at the history of this 10 per cent award. The claim which resulted in the award in question was lodged in 1982. There were several meetings of the conciliation council at which the case was argued between the representatives of the teachers and the officials representing the Departments of Education and the public service. No offer was made to the teachers side at council level, and disagreement was recorded. The claim was then referred to arbitration. The arbitrator, in arriving at his decision, took into account the case made by both parties. It is also important to remember that he took account of the state of the Exchequer finances in relation to the amount of the award which he recommended. His findings, as reported in the Irish Independent of Monday, 21 October, contained the following paragraph:

The state of the Exchequer finances is particularly relevant to this claim, having regard to the very high cost to the state of teachers' pay, and full regard is being had to the economic circumstances in these findings, but this cannot mean that the claim should be rejected irrespective of its merits as suggested by the official side. Such an approach would constitute a quite unjustified discrimination against teachers as distinct from all other professional grades in the public service.

From that paragraph it is obvious that it is blatantly untrue to suggest, as has been done, that the arbitrator made an award without any reference to the economic situation or the ability of the State to pay the award. His report then went on to recommend:

...that there be an increase of 10% in the salary allowances of all the claimants, such increase to take effect as to 50% thereof as and from 1st September 1985, and as to the balance as and from 1st March 1986.

I have quoted from the report of the findings of the arbitrator which appeared in the Irish Independent of monday, 21 October.

I now want to refer to certain events which occurred some months earlier, in August to be precise. When the arbitrator had drawn up his draft report, copies of the unsigned draft report were supplied to the parties involved, namely, the teachers, the Government and management. This was in accordance with established practice. However, contrary to established practice, some person or persons decided to leak the terms of the draft report to the media. No one has yet denied the allegation that the leaks came from Government sources. Anyway, as soon as details of the draft report were published in the media both the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service and other Government spokespersons declared that the award would not be paid. the Minister, Deputy John Boland was quoted in The Sunday Press of 11 August as stating:

Only those special pay awards which predated the national plan will be implemented during the life of the plan.

In The Cork Examiner of 12 August a Government spokesman was reported as stating:

There will be no backing down on the Government's decision not to concede the special 10% teachers' award.

On the RTE "Morning Ireland" programme of 20 August the Minister for Education Deputy Gemma Hussey, stated that payment of the teachers award would mean that the Government's public service pay policy would be "seriously breached" and that the award "simply can't be paid".

The situation and the dispute was greatly exacerbated by the remarks of the Minister when she delivered her famous "morality" speech to a meeting of Young Fine Gael in O'Shea's Hotel in Bray on 19 August. During the course of that speech the Minister is reported as stating:

It is vital that all those organisations who publicly clamour for increases should address themselves to the morality of what they are about.

This statement caused great resentment among teachers throughout the country. There were two reasons for this. First of all, it was blatantly offensive to teachers to suggest that they were publicly clamouring for increases. The teachers' claim had been processed through the agreed machinery of conciliation and arbitration over a period of three years. The teachers had abided by the recognised procedures. The use of an extravagant phrase such as "publicly clamour" was seen and was taken as a calculated insult to a profession which not only acted responsibly in the case of this particular salary claim but which has a record second to none in relation to the way in which it has conducted its industrial relations over the years. Secondly, the use of the term "morality" by the Minister caused widespread offence. Was the Minister suggesting that it is immoral for any group to submit a claim to binding independent arbitration or is it only teachers or public servants who act immorally when they do so? I sincerely hope that over the next number of weeks the Minister and the Government will address themselves to the morality of participating for three years in recognising agreed machinery for the orderly determination of a salary claim and at the end of the day seeking to renege on their obligations in relation to the outcome.

It is this double-dealing on the part of the Government that has been responsible for the series of one-day strikes which have closed schools throughout the country over the past number of weeks. It is this double-dealing by the Government that brought over 20,000 teachers to march through Dublin last week.

The reason that those 20,000 teachers were on the streets of this city last Thursday was because they felt there was no other way by which they could bring home to the Government the extent of their anger and frustration. They are angry that it has become necessary for them to take industrial action. They are angry because they feel that the Government have forced this action on them. They would much prefer to be in their classrooms than on the streets of Dublin. They regret the disruption of their schools and their classes. They regret the inconvenience to parents and pupils. They are angry that the Government appear determined to discriminate against them. They are angry at what they see as the threat to dismantle their machinery for free collective bargaining. Thursday's march was about more than the implementation of the arbitration award: it was about preserving peace in the education service. It was about maintaining a consistent and high-quality education service. It was about indicating to the Government that teachers expect and demand that the Government act responsibly. It was about indicating to the Government that teachers expect that the Government keep the rules and honour their obligations.

The Government have a clear responsibility to the whole education service, to parents and to children and indeed to teachers, to bring this unfortunate episode of industrial unrest to an end. They have a duty and an obligation to allow the schools to return to the normality under which they have operated for the past 35 years. They can do so by announcing that they will implement the present arbitration award and that they will maintain the system of free collective bargaining through conciliation and arbitration which has existed for teachers for the past 35 years.

The Government should immediately reappoint the service arbitrator as an indication of their commitment to the system of conciliation and arbitration. This will make possible the holding of discussions on the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters, other than awards already made.

If the Government are anxious for changes in the conciliation and arbitration schemes for the public service, I see no reason why such discussions cannot take place after the public service arbitrator has been reappointed. In the meantime the present system should continue as before.

The second part of this motion calls on the Government to enter into immediate discussions with the three teacher unions. On 28 November the Minister for Education was asked in the Dáil if she would agree to meet the teachers' unions for talks and she replied that she had not received any formal request to talks. In col. 656 of the Dáil Official Report of 28 November 1985, she states:

However, machinery exists in the Teachers' Conciliation Council for discussion of teachers' claims. I am perfectly willing to arrange to have officials meet the unions in the council and I would hope that it would be possible to reach agreement on a package which would include the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters, due account taken of the financial constraints on the Exchequer.

I understand that since 28 November, when the Minister gave the reply I have just quoted, the general secretaries of the three unions have written to both the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Education requesting a meeting. I strongly urge both Ministers to agree to such a meeting. I fail to see why such a meeting cannot take place immediately. There is little point in inviting the teachers back into the conciliation council to discuss an arbitration award that has already been granted.

The only matter to be discussed in relation to that award is its implementation. To suggest that the teachers should go back to the conciliation council to discuss the arbitrator's award is like suggesting that a Christmas cake which has been taken out of the oven after baking should be put back into the oven and re-baked or, indeed, even be put back into the mixer to allow the process to start all over again. Let us not forget that this cake has been in the oven for the past three years. I am sure there are many matters the teachers are prepared to discuss in the conciliation council and there is no reason why such discussions should not go ahead but in relation to the arbitrator's award of 10 per cent I would appeal to the Government to have separate and direct discussions with the teacher unions on this issue.

Some weeks ago it was reported that the Government were prepared to discuss the matter with the Public Services Committee of ICTU. This, of course, was not acceptable to either the teacher unions or the public services committee of Congress. I understand that it is established trade union practice that any Government discussions on a pay dispute must be held with the union or unions immediately concerned. The Public Services Committee of Congress has not and never had at any time a mandate to discuss with the Government or with any other employer any award made by the arbitrator or by the Labour Court to an individual union or group of unions. If, instead of trying to confuse the issue by suggesting such discussions, the Government had at that time entered into direct talks with the teacher unions, the massive protest march of Thursday last might never have taken place. The Government still have time to prevent the dispute escalating. They have a duty and an obligation to do so. The way in which they can do so is by meeting the teacher representatives for talks.

Surely, after last Thursday, the Government must see that there is massive support from teachers for the campaign which the teacher unions have mounted. The reason for that massive support is that the cause is so obviously just. Teachers are not people who will down tools at the drop of a hat and head for Croke Park or O'Connell Street on a cold December day without just cause. The Government may have been under some illusion that the massive support for the campaign which was so evident on Thursday last did not exist. It may be that they had begun to believe their own propaganda that the leaders of the teachers' unions did not have the support of the rank and file members. The 20,000 teachers who travelled to Dublin from north, south, east and west on Thursday last must surely have dispelled that myth for once and for all as far as the Government are concerned.

By their actions to date the Government have been directly responsible for the series of strikes which have taken place. Let them now prevent an escalation of the dispute by reasserting their commitment to the agreed procedure for conciliation and arbitration for teachers and by entering into immediate discussions with the three teacher unions. It is unrealistic to suggest that these discussions should take the form of renegotiation. That is what the Government are asking when they seek to have the award discussed in the conciliation council. The teacher unions are not prepared to renegotiate an existing arbitration award and rightly so. This award is the outcome of the recognised and agreed negotiation machinery and is the result of an independent investigation of the claim. During the course of that investigation all the arguments and the plea of financial difficulty were fully considered.

The 10 per cent award to teachers is not an award that gives teachers an advantage over other public service employees. This award merely allows teachers to catch up with other employees. It is based entirely on comparisons with similar groups and is fully justified on that basis. Neither is this award an award to a group of people who are already well paid or who have wonderful conditions of service. Teachers are not well paid. I was talking to a teacher the other evening. He and a friend of his both sat for the leaving certificate the same year. He went on to university to qualify as a teacher. His friend joined the Garda at the age of 18. He got his first permanent job as a teacher at the age of 24. His friend retired this year on full pension after 30 years' service. He, the teacher, will not reach the maximum of the teachers' pay scale until next year and neither will be qualify for full pension until he has 40 years' service. Incidentally, his friend's son, who is now 25 years of age, is interested in politics. If that young man had succeeded in being nominated as a candidate for the Minister's party in the last general election, and if he were elected, he might have been appointed a Minister of State or even a Cabinet Minister. If he were appointed a Minister of State he would now be eligible for a pension of over £3,000 a year for the rest of his life. If he were appointed a Minister, his pension entitlement would now be in excess of £5,000 for the rest of his life.

Mr. Ferris

Who decided that?

Mr. Mullooly

These are the points that were made by that teacher as a response to those who would suggest that the proposed 10 per cent arbitration award is not justified or that teachers are very well paid and have wonderful conditions of service.

Finally, I must say that I was amazed when I saw the amendment which has been put down by the Government side to our motion. I could hardly believe my eyes. As I pointed out already, the Government have not adhered to the provisions of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers. Confidential documents were leaked to the media. Government Ministers and spokespersons have indicated that the independent arbitrator's award would not be honoured. In fact, all this happened long before the signed report was presented to the Government and even before the draft report was presented to the arbitration board. Therefore, there were various breaches of the agreed procedures of the scheme.

It has always until now been recognised and accepted that the findings of the chairman of the arbitration board are confidential and that no report from him should be published before its presentation to Dáil Éireann. It is only Dáil Éireann and not the Government that can decide to reject, amend or defer an arbitration award. To suggest, as the amendment does, that the Government have adhered to the agreed provisions of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers can only be described as a further calculated provocation to the teacher unions and to the whole teaching profession. I would hope that the sponsors of the amendment would decide, even at this late stage, to withdraw it. If the amendment is not withdrawn, I would certainly hope that the teacher Senators on that side of the House would not support it.

I must conclude by referring to a report in the Irish Independent of Thursday, November 7. The report is headed “Teacher pay — Labour Backs Arbitration” with the by-line “John Walsh, education correspondent.” That report stated and I quote:

The integrity of arbitration awards should be upheld, Labour Party representatives said yesterday after a meeting with teachers union leaders. An agreed statement indicated afterwards that, as the party had been responsible for setting up the conciliation and arbitration schemes within the public service the party would have to maintain them.

If the Members of the Labour Party have not changed their minds since 7 November, then they should vote for the motion and reject the amendment. I would appeal to all Senators to support this motion.

Professor Hillery

I second the motion. The first part of the motion calls on the Government to re-assert their commitment to the agreed procedures of the conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers. The conciliation and arbitration schemes generally have made an important contribution to industrial peace. A study of strikes, which is being conducted in the Department of Industrial Relations in UCD with which I am associated, shows that in the 20 year period 1960 to 1979, nine organisations in the public sector, mostly State-sponsored bodies, accounted for 86 per cent of the working days lost in the public sector for that period. I should point out straight away that none of these nine organisations was an employment where conciliation and arbitration schemes applied. This is not surprising when one considers the maturity and widespread acceptance of the various schemes of conciliation and arbitration. The conciliation and arbitration system is noticeably different from the Labour Court system in that it has followed strict formality in agreements and meticulous attention to detail. The conciliation and arbitration system has strongly contributed to the non-strike culture in those areas of the public sector where the schemes apply and strike statistics accurately reflect what I have just said.

The teachers, as Senator Mullooly has pointed out, have followed the agreed procedures for their conciliation and arbitration scheme meticulously. They rightly expect the Government to do likewise. In the light of the order and stability that the conciliation and arbitration system has brought to industrial relations in those areas of the public sector to which the schemes apply, the Government should exercise great caution in their handling of the ongoing teachers dispute. This dispute has been badly handled by the Government. It has put the agreed procedures of the conciliation and arbitration scheme at risk and it has created widespread uncertainty among teachers who do not know where they stand in relation to the recent arbitrator's award. Government inaction has damaged goodwill among teachers who, after all, are professional people who have no desire to be on strike. Indeed, the absence of industrial action by teachers over many years proves the point that these professional people wish to continue their essential work uninterrupted.

I recognise the fact that there are financial constraints on the Exchequer. The reality is that public servants generally have fallen seriously behind on the pay front. This reduction in real living standards has occurred at a time when taxation levels are running at record levels. Despite the excessive demands placed on public servants, including teachers, the Government have not achieved even one of their fiscal targets. Belt tightening at a time of financial stringency has its place but the teachers and, indeed the public at large, are entitled to get some tangible results from the pay restrictions of recent years and the penal levels of taxation they have had to endure. These results have not been achieved by the Government so that teachers, having followed meticulously the conciliation and arbitration scheme to the letter, now want action on the arbitrator's award by the Government.

The Government amendment says that "steps are being taken to convene a meeting of the Teachers' Conciliation Council to discuss the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters." Let us look however at how the Government have handled the 25th round referred to in the amendment. The first teachers' one-day strike took place on 15 October. Up to the previous Friday, 11 October, the public service as a whole was led to believe by the Government that there would be a total pay freeze after the expiry date of the 24th round. The Department of the Public Service had instructed the management side in the public service, including management in the commercial State-sponsored bodies, that they could not open negotiations on the 25th round. This obviously led to uncertainly in both management and trade unions in the public service.

I am aware from my professional work of the sheer frustration felt by the management side in some of the State-sponsored bodies following this suspension, in effect, of free collective bargaining. Here we had a situation where professional union and management negotiators who have in many cases developed trust and personal relationships in the industrial relations field over the years, were effectively told by the Department of the Public Service. "You cannot negotiate." In effect, the Government suspended free collective bargaining. Then on the Friday before the teachers' one-day strike, on 11 October, the Minister for the Public Service convened a meeting with a view to opening negotiations on the 25th round, thereby suggesting that he was dissolving the freeze in one stroke. His action was, of course, too late in the day. His action was mistimed. The union negotiators were not mandated to negotiate in the context put forward by the Minister.

My net point is that the Government do not have a pay strategy. Their approach, which says "Now you have a pay freeze, now you do not" is damaging in a number of respects. It creates uncertainty among negotiators in the public service, management and trade union negotiators alike, so that they cannot plan or conduct their business with any confidence. More seriously, it can damage the fabric of industrial relations and this is in nobody's interest.

There is an urgent need for the Department of the Public Service to formulate a realitic pay strategy which will be backed by the Government, so that the professional negotiators on both sides in the public service and indeed the many thousands of public service employees, including teachers, will know where they stand. The "stop-go" strategy of the Government undermines the credibility of the Government and merely invites more cynicism towards the establishment and towards politicians generally. At the end of the day, this political posturing by the Government on the pay front can only undermine their own credibility and ultimately undermine democracy, and this means bad news all round.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that, in keeping with the Government's adherence to the agreed provisions of the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for Teachers, steps are being taken to convene a meeting of the Teachers' Conciliation Council to discuss the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters."

We note that, in keeping to the Government's adherence to the agreed provisions of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers, steps are being taken to convene a meeting of the teachers Conciliation Council to discuss the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters. Contrary to the hopes and expectations of Senator Mullooly, I, as a former teacher, will stick with this amendment and I hope in the course of what I am saying to show the House that that is the right course of action.

In everything that has been said so far in the debate — and, indeed, I have listened very carefully — one would think that relations between the Minister and the teachers had never been good, that no progress had been made on the education front and that in fact the whole area of relationships between Minister, Department and teachers was one of complete and total disaster. Of course, there may be a temporary difficulty and I feel sure that is all it is.

It is very important to consider the context in which we are speaking. I propose in the course of my contribution to this debate to sketch in the context very clearly and firmly and ensure that it is on the record of this House. We have in the Department of Education and, indeed, with us here tonight — an energetic and thinking Minister who has done more for the standard and stature of education in this country than any other Minister for years. This fact is not one of political propaganda which I trot out in the course of this debate. It is a fact which has been commented on by teachers themselves, by their organisations, by leader writers and by all people who have an interest in education, including parents and, indeed students themselves. It is very important that we are fair and honest in our discussions in relation to this issue; and the backdrop against which this difficulty is arising is an important one that should certainly be considered.

The Minister has always asked teachers to enter into dialogue with her. She has always asked teachers for realism. This she has done while making speeches and, indeed, in the media on radio and television. Of course, she has to look at the wider implications to the taxpayer because she is part of a Government which is charged with responsibility for ensuring that the taxpayers get value for their money and that the economy is kept on an even keel. That is not a particularly palatable task to have to do at a time when there are scarce resources and, indeed, competing wants.

It is important to remember that since 1982 there have been enormous and significant advances in education. Those very advances, which so many people have praised, have only been made because there has been tremendous cooperation between the Ministers, management of schools and, indeed, teachers. This Minister has been the first Minister ever to attend all the teachers' union conferences. She has done that not just one year but three years in a row, which must surely underline her commitment to teachers, her willingness to listen to them debate in their own fora and to take to heart what they are saying. She has established dialogue, good relations, and, indeed, consultation with teachers through their various professional bodies.

It is also important that we should remember that the Ages for Learning document has been published and that 2,000 extra teachers are to be employed as the extra year is phased in. This has been welcomed by every interest, including all the teachers and their unions.

Another important and very significant development has been the establishment of the Curriculum and Examinations Board. There is tremendous work being done by this body with representations of all interests. It is a big breakthrough for education and it has been awaited for a long time. Another document just published — a discussion document — which has caused interest throughout the country has been the Green Paper Partners. It is a first class document and it is an invitation to participate in dialogue. It is not, as has perhaps, been represented by some quarters, a diktat from the Department. It is, again, a consultative process and one which invites comment and dialogue from teachers and interested bodies to the Minister. It has the capacity and the capability for change and development and growth, which is something we all want to see on our education system. I say this by way of an indication of the dialogue, energy and enthusiasm with which this Minister in particular has approached her brief and the recognition that has been hers because of this very attitude.

It is also important to stress that there is already under way important curriculum development and reform. For example, this year for the first time ever something which many people have clamoured for a long time is finally about to happen in that this June there will be orals in modern languages in the schools certificate examinations. Again, this has only come about because of the very good co-operation which the Minister has had from teachers and school management and in co-operation with the Department.

It is also important to recognise that the context of this debate is one of enormous financial constraint. There are major difficulties facing the Exchequer. While I listened intently to the comments of Senators Mullooly and Hillery, I must say in all honesty that they did not exactly address the issue. They bemoaned the situation as is. They were lyrical in their appreciation of the problem and the difficulties experienced by teachers.

Professor Hillery

With all due respect to Senator Bulbulia, we were much more careful in addressing the actual motion before the House than she has been with her references to curriculum development and so on.

Mr. Mullooly

What about all the uncollected taxes?

Mrs. Bulbulia

I am afraid I must have touched a sensitive nerve.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Bulbulia

I feel very strongly that the preceding speakers, who proposed and seconded the motion, did not concretely say how this award is to be paid. I know that it is not their function, although they might wish that it was their function. Nevertheless, they failed to grasp the kernel of the issue. That is the responsibility that rests with Government. These are the practical difficulties which Government are against in relation to this claim.

The difficulties being faced by the Exchequer are clear. Public spending increased by 40 per cent between 1977 and 1981. Teachers got 28 per cent in 1980 and they got the general round every year. This special award under consideration at the moment would be on top of the general round. It is a time for consideration about moderation. It is only natural, correct and proper that the Government should be cautious and considerate about the country's financial position. It is important that it should do so and I would fail to have faith in a Government that did not approach the taxpayers' hard earned money with that very proper and correct attitude.

Now, to turn directly to the report of the teachers arbitration board on the claim for a special pay increase, it was received by the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service on 5 November 1985. It was presented by the Ministers to the Dáil and the Seanad on 5 December last. The chairman of the arbitration board in his finding recommended an increase of 10 per cent in the salary and allowance of teachers, such increase to take effect as to 50 per cent thereof from 1 September 1985 and as to the balance from 1 March 1986.

We all know now, because the figure is probably etched on our minds, that the annual cost of meeting such an award and implementing it is estimated at around £60 million. We know that under the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers the Government are required to adopt one of the following courses in relation to the arbitration report: within three months of the date of receipt of the report by the Ministers, that is 5 February, they must signify that they, the Government, propose to give immediate effect to the findings in full; or, at the expiration of three months from the date of receipt of the report by the Ministers, or, if Dáil Éireann is not then sitting, on the first day of the next sitting, introduce a motion in the Dáil: (1) proposing rejection of the findings; or (2) proposing modification of the findings; or (3) proposing deferment of a final decision until the budget for the next following financial year is being framed and indicating to what extent, if any, they propose in the interval, without prejudice to the final decision, to give effect to the findings.

In response to a parliamentary question by Deputy Mary O'Rourke on the 28 November asking if the Minister for Education would agree to meet the teachers unions, the Minister replied: "I have not received any formal request from the teachers unions for talks." That is a fact. No formal request had been received, though heavy propaganda was made out of the fact that the Minister had in some way refused to meet the teachers. In fact, no request had been made and it is important that that should be very firmly on the record of the House.

Mr. Mullooly

A request has since been made.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Yes, I will come to that. The Minister continued:

However, machinery exists in the Teachers' Conciliation Council for discussions on teachers' claims and I am perfectly willing to arrange to have officials meet the unions in the Council and I would hope that it would be possible to reach agreement on a package, which would include the 25th round of pay increases and other pay related matters, due account being taken of the financial constraints on the Exchequer.

That, I would like to comment, was a very responsible factual reply to the question that was asked. The reply went on:

On 28 November an invitation was issued to the unions to a meeting of the Conciliation Council for Teachers for the purpose indicated in the Minister's reply to the Parliamentary Question, the meeting was to be held at any time convenient to unions. Following correspondence with the unions, a meeting of the Conciliation Council is now being arranged for Monday, 16 December.

——which indeed will be a fateful day, I would think.

I would like to comment on the campaign of strikes which we have all witnessed over the last months. I must say that it is always regrettable when a group of workers, any group of workers, particularly people in sensitive areas such as education, resort to industrial action. As a teacher myself, I know that this action was not embarked on lightly. But what concerns me, and I know concerns a great many people in the general public, is that in this case the teachers embarked on their campaign of strikes long before the normal industrial relations procedures had been exhausted, until the Government had taken their decision on the arbitrator's report. Strike action while claims are in normal procedures can never be condoned and for that very reason the series of strikes which we have seen countrywide, culminating in the major one in Dublin on the 5 December, are a regrettable feature of this present difficulty. I would refer to paragraph 7 of the Teachers Conciliation and Arbitration scheme, which provides that:

...no formal public agitation shall be sponsored or resorted to by any of the parties to the scheme in furtherance of its case nor shall any of the parties move any outside body to make representations on its behalf.

Perhaps it could be said that the teachers' campaign of industrial action, and indeed the parliamentary lobbying that accompanied it, were in breach of this provision which I have just read out to you.

Mr. Mullooly

Nonsense.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I would be interested to hear Senators, when their turns come, comment on that point.

The national plan, which. I would remind Senators, was passed in this House not so very long ago — it was published over a year ago now — clearly stated that:

...it was not possible to provide for any further special increases over the period of the plan.

The policy applies to all claims for special increases across the board of the public service, with the exception of certain claims which were committed before publication of the plan. It does not discriminate against teachers or any other group of public servants. I would remind Senators that the plan was published. It was debated in this House. It was adopted by this House and indeed by the other place and the implications of the pay policy in the document should not have come as any surprise for any group of public servants with an outstanding claim for a special pay increase, because that policy affected them all.

In all, there are some 60 arbitration findings or Labour Court recommendations affecting over 52,000 civil servants, teachers, local authority and health board staff, which have been processed since the publication of the plan and which are now debarred by the plan policy on special increases. The full year cost of implementing these awards or findings would be almost £70 million. There are also many other claims in the pipeline and the cost of implementing known findings, that is £70 million a year, in addition to settling other claims, including 25th rounds claims, must be examined in the cold light of economic realities. I would be very interested to hear contributors to the motion talk about the cold light of economic realities in addition to talking about conciliation and arbitration and the integrity of it, which I contend the Government have not breached in any way.

With reference to the famous morality speech of the Minister, I think that has been taken entirely out of context. Perhaps people in this country do not understand when one talks about morality in the area of pay, pay restraint and moderation. The Minister was not making any specific reference to the teachers. She was talking in general terms. We should all, if we are responsible citizens of this State, talk in general terms about pay restraint, about moderation and about morality in this area as in all other areas of life. It is important to remember — and again back to economic realities — that the Government can only spend what it raises by taxation or borrowing. Everybody, including the proposers of this motion, agree that taxation is too high and that there are arguments against further increases in real rates of taxation.

I would conclude by reiterating my support for the amendment to the motion and I look forward to hearing the remainder of the debate.

Mr. Ferris

In seconding the amendment, I want, first of all, to say that I would not disagree with Senator Mullooly in his presentation of the proposal itself, in respect of most of what he said. I would disagree with one aspect of it, and it is that he presumes in his comments that the Government in some way have not honoured their commitment. I want to spell out exactly from the Labour Party's point of view our attitude to this problem. I want to thank Senator Mullooly for reminding me of the Labour Party's stand on these issues, because our stand is well known, not alone on this issue but on many other issues, even when a Fianna Fáil Government postponed the public service pay increase for six months without discussion or negotiation. Our point of view was well known at that time, and that is not the political point. The reality is that our party have been absolutely clear on where they want to go, and we are part of the setting up of this whole machinery for conciliation and arbitration. In the first line of the Opposition motion we are asked to reassert our commitment. In the first line of the amendment, the Government — and the Labour Party — are availing of the opportunity to confirm our adherence to the agreed provisions of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration. The Government are availing of the opportunity of confirming that they have taken steps to have discussions with the teachers conciliation council regarding the 25th round of pay increases, which is not an issue in this, and also to discuss other pay-related matters.

Senator Mullooly stated that the only reason for discussions arising out of a finding from the arbitrator was to discuss its implementation. That is true. It is not the issue of what the arbitrator found; it is the implications of how the Government are to meet the finding. There is and there never has been any suggestion from the Government that this award would not be honoured. Discussions should take place on how the award would be implemented so that it could be honoured.

I would be the first to accept in this House that the teachers have taken their present stance because individual Ministers have from time to time since last August made various statements. This has been representation or misrepresentation, depending on your point of view. The Government have made no statement to date that they are not honouring this award. Individual Ministers have given opinions that it could not be paid or that it should not be paid. They are entitled to their opinions. While the Labour Party are part of the Government it is what the Government say that concerns me as a Labour Party Senator when all the discussions and deliberations have taken place. The cause of some of the upheaval that has taken place in the education system is probably the individual statements made, whether they have been represented correctly or misrepresented, as to whether there is morality involved in the teachers claim of otherwise. I will not deal with this question as it has already been dealt with and will be dealt with next week also.

The controversy on public service pay arose from the statement issued by the Government on 14 August. The Government reiterated in that statement what was in the national plan regarding income developments and said the basis which determine conditions of pay and employment should be free collective bargaining. There is no deterioration in this, as the Labour Party have always fought for it. The Government will continue to lay down certain parameters in regard to their responsibility as a Government. These must take into account the public interest, particularly in regard to employment requirements.

The Government statement of 14 August has been misrepresented as a pay freeze. The statement reads as follows:

The National Plan provided that the Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill should not exceed £2,400 m. in 1985 and £2,525 m. in 1986. Subsequent to the publication of the Plan the Government decided to implement the arbitrator's finding on the Civil Service 24th Round claim as widely as possible throughout the Public Service. The revised 1985 Estimates provide for an Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill of £2.464 m. which exceeds the target in the plan. Even without any further pay increases, the carryover cost of the 24th Round in 1986 and the cost of additional increments and committed special increases would lead to a significant increase in the public service pay bill in 1986. In these circumstances, the Government conclude

——and I emphasise the word "conclude"——

that, apart from existing commitments under the National Plan, there should be no pay increases in the Public Service for at least 12 months from the expiry date of the 24th Round.

The Government used one very important word —"should". They said that the ideal position "should" be that there would be no pay increases. The ideal is one thing: the Government have a responsibility to the Exchequer. The reality is that there is not budgetary provision for special increases they will not be taken into account afterwards. The ideal would be that there should be no increases. It is now clear that the Government accept that there should be some level of pay increase in the public service for the 25th round, which effectively means for 1986.

The Minister for the Public Service stated in October that he was prepared to make an offer on the 25th round and re-appoint the public service arbitrator provided that the unions were prepared to enter into discussions on the various methods of pay determination and on special increases. If anybody wants a special pay increase, surely the sensible thing to do is to have discussions with the person who has to pay them as to how they will be paid and when they will be paid — not if they will be paid, assuming from the first line of the Government amendment, of which I am a signatory, that we are adhering to the agreed principles of conciliation and arbitration for teachers as well as everybody else.

As regards the Government re-asserting their commitment to the agreed procedure for teachers, it should be crystal clear to all of us that the Government were not officially in receipt of the arbitrator's award in respect of teachers until the first week in November. This means that the Government have until the first week in February to decide how they will deal with it. As a trade unionist, I object to teachers unions' lobbying outside interests, including members of local authorities, to influence the situation, which basically is a trade union negotiating matter which has gone through conciliation and arbitration. It is now with the Government, who have not said yet that they are going to pay it and are asserting here now that they are agreeing with the normal principles. If we agree that the Government have until February 1986 to make up their mind, a lot of unnecessary disruptive action has taken place in the meantime. I can understand why this happened: it was because of statements from certain people. Those statements were either represented or misrepresented — whichever way you like. This is the reality of the situation. I accept this.

The second part of the motion is a standing invitation by the Government to the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to enter into discussions on any aspect of pay increases which have implications for the special award — not that it is being negotiated but as to how it will be implemented. In the private sector any firm would be disputing ability or inability to pay. The Government are now in the situation that without budgetary provision I suppose they could say they are not in a position to pay, considering that this award alone will cost £60 million. This can only be found by increasing taxation which the trade unions do not want——

Mrs. Honan

£23 million.

Mr. Ferris

——and further borrowing, which Fianna Fáil do not want. The teachers pay award for 1986 will be £60 million.

Mrs. Honan

Minus the taxes.

Mr. Ferris

The three areas of funding are not very palatable to any of us especially in a tough budgetary situation. Nevertheless, it should be possible to reach an agreement in discussions that would satisfy the Government, who have a responsibility to all of us, including the teachers, and the unions involved, who have a responsibility to the teachers and the taxpayers, for whom all of us must have consideration. Surely the resulting formula must arrive at a reasonable 25th round increase for all public servants together with an agreed phasing in of all special increases, not just for teachers. I remind our colleagues on the other side of the House that there are many other special pay increases in the public sector area and it is not just confined to teachers. The public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions should take up this offer and invitation from the Government immediately and enter into discussions.

The teachers are a special group of people; all our children are in their care and we are anxious that they would be dealt with properly and expeditiously. Under the public service conciliation and arbitration scheme we have the school inspectors' claim which has been settled in the sum of £74,000. To pay the 40,000 teachers' claim at the end of this year would cost in the region of £10 million and £56 million for next year. The agricultural inspectors have been awarded an increase amounting to 26 per cent. Senator Mullooly and myself are both members of the general council and are aware that as soon as that is conceded all the people in ACOT ambience including the agricultural instructors, will also have a parity claim then. The engineering section, grade one and related grades, have a claim. Also, the findings for the assistant principal and principal officers in the Civil Service could cost £2.4 million and the rates investigation officers of Dublin Corporation are in the same category, all having gone through this tedious machinery which the Labour Party were at pains to set up.

None of us on this side of the House and certainly not the Labour Party, are questioning the actual results of that arbitration system. We are questioning how they can be implemented and how awards can be paid. We are asking the beneficiaries to come and meet the Ministers involved while the subject matter is being discussed by the Cabinet as a whole. The Labour Party is part of this Cabinet. It is imperative that everybody should know where the Labour Party stand in this particular issue. We will fight for the principles of conciliation and arbitration. We will also fight for the principle that the findings are final and should be accepted by both sides. How they can be met is a matter that is the responsibility of the Government. All of us who support the Government must keep a watching brief on how we are going to do this and what implications it will have for all other sectors of the community. In that way we can reach a settlement of this problem, which none of us welcomed, which none of us wanted in the first place.

This is a word of warning to Ministers who make individual statements. It is improper to give statements unless it is a Cabinet decision and then all of us have to live with it. We may influence it in advance or live with it when it is made. The whole Cabinet should not be held responsible for individual Ministers' comments on how or where or when the Government can meet a particular award that comes through a procedure and machinery that the Labour Party particularly has defended all its political life. Our political life is longer than that of any other political party in this country especially with the trade union movement.

Mr. Kirwan

I propose to be brief. The motion which is before the House has the signatures of some 18 Senators from the left side of the House and I hope that that was a geographic aberration rather than a manifestation of ideology. Nevertheless, it is clear and distinct, it is explicit and it is definite in its terms. It expresses a viewpoint without dubiety in that it calls on the Government to reassert its commitment to the conciliation and arbitration mechanisms and the conciliation and arbitration scheme which was set up to determine industrial relations matters in the service to which it is appropriate. I am not going to give the background to it because the historical resumé was more than adequately given by the mover of the motion but I want to stress for the benefit of everybody in this House that the conciliation and arbitration scheme was introduced into the industrial relations set-up by a Government which had a very substantial Labour element within it. It was clearly recognised — and I do not profess to be an expert on it; I am learning every day — and anybody who knows anything at all about industrial relations will know that conciliation means exactly what Webster's dictionary would define it as, the two parties sitting down to draw the two ends to the middle.

If anything else was needed it could be described as a conciliation and mediation scheme but arbitration similarly means exactly what the dictionary says it should mean. It means that a referee steps in between the combatants, listens to the arguments from both sides and then determines the issue on the basis of a value judgment. This was in the minds of the creators of this scheme. Quite clearly any such scheme would be useless without the provision of an arbitrator or arbitration mechanism. That is the key to the problem, because without an arbitrator there is absolutely no pressure on the employer to come to terms with the problem; without an arbitrator no moral pressure or judicial pressure or quasi-judicial pressure can be brought to bear to teach him what the actual situation is and he can be as obdurate as hell and decide not to do business with anybody.

There is no doubt in my mind, because I am conversant with the policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and I have had consultations with the general secretaries of the three trade unions catering for the teaching profession, and they are quite sure that the Government are clearly in breach of the conciliation and arbitration procedures. This in its own way is representative and symptomatic of the pressure which has been developing inexorably over the past two or three years in regard to the trade union movement generally. It has been said that when the United Kingdom develops a cold we immediately contract pheumonia. Perhaps that is the fate of a small island off another island off the mainland but nevertheless there are all sorts of developments in the field of industrial relations which have as their genesis a recognition of the insecurity and fear that exists in most employments, not only of teachers. This fear and this insecurity are being used to bring about settlements that would not normally be agreed in an open and free collective bargaining environment.

It may well be that the refusal to recognise the set procedures with the conciliation and arbitration scheme represents one of these attempts to crush the only defensive mechanism that workers have in western democracies. If that is a fact let me disabuse those who are practising this philosophy because even though we may grow wealthy from time to time the trade union movement is like the phoenix; you can destroy it or seemingly destroy it but it will rise from the ashes. To decide that you can kill trade unionism is tantamount to saying that you can kill nationalism. The answer is clear and apparent. We have for example again a parallel with the teachers, the developing situation in CIE where the employment of a latter-day McGregor has produced a situation which is clearly in conflict ——

An Cathaoirleach

You had better keep with the teachers, Senator.

Mr. Kirwan

Nevertheless, it is symptomatic of the general malaise. It warrants repetition. The Government after all are the supreme body to set an example and if it can be seen that the Government can lightly disregard its obligations under agreed procedure then it is a simple and an easy matter for the ordinary employer to do likewise and point to the Government as the paragon of virtue in this regard to validate and sustain its actions. The teachers' position is quite clear. ICTU's position is quite clear. If an arbitration award was made it was made on the basis of both parties freely going to the arbitrator and asking the arbitrator to exercise his judgment on the merits of the particular cases put to him. In this instance he did just that and the teachers and the trade union movement take the view that once that arbitrator has issued his award, then there is an obligation on the Government to honour that award.

I wish to talk briefly on the amendment. I am at a loss as to the purpose and the objective of the amendment. It appears to me — and I do not wish to be unduly harsh — to be something that is primarily designed to obscure one's vision. It is the use of the English language to produce something which appears to be correct but nevertheless meanders its way like a river into a dry hole and disappears, because I have not been able to make sense of the resolution.

In that regard I would like to ask a few specific questions and seek a few specific assurances. The amendment to the resolution reads: "notes that in keeping with the Government's adherence to the agreed provisions of the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for teachers". i take that sentence and I add to it the statement made by my colleague, Senator Ferris, who said that the Labour Party, and indeed the Government, are wedded to the principals of conciliation and arbitration and to the obligation on both sides to accept and honour recommendations so made. I would like to have an assurance that, in effect, this amendment means what is says — that, in effect, the Government are prepared, once they are direct participants, in the machinery, to accept the recommendations, whether they are to their advantage or not. It is not enough at this stage to argue the overall perilous economic situation. The Government knew that when they were going into this situation. That was part and parcel of the argument which was put before the arbitrator. That was known in advance by both sides. But, notwithstanding that prior knowledge, the arbitrator, in his wisdom or otherwise, decided that a certain level of increase was warranted in this instance. I would like an assurance from the Government that they accept that they participated in the machinery of their own volition and are wedded to the sacred concept of acceptance of independently rendered judgments on pay issues that go before them.

The economy is another matter. That will have to be tackled in another way. It cannot be tackled on the backs of the teachers. It cannot be tackled on the backs of public service workers. It cannot be tackled on the backs of busmen. It cannot be tackled on the backs of the labour force generally. If there is machinery instituted to deal with industrial relations, then let it be used. Our busmen are being told at this moment that there is a Labour Court recommendation which says that they should operate one-man buses. I am now saying to the Government that there is an arbitrator's award which demands that they recognise that the teachers are entitled to the increase in salaries recommended. I would like that assurance from the Government side before I sit down.

Finally, there is a dangerous element to this affair which demands that it be brought to a speedy and mutually acceptable conclusion. There is the danger that the painfully built up process of dealing with industrial relations problems, the painfully contrived mechanism to enable both parties to come to an independent tribunal, an independent arbitrator, an independent agency, is now at risk. The party putting it at risk is the Government in not honouring the mechanism which they helped to establish in respect of the teachers.

Mr. Lynch rose.

An Cathaoirleach

We have a few minutes left. You may speak for a few minutes, Senator Lynch, and you will be in possession for next week.

Mr. Lynch

I speak in support of this motion. It is evident to me that there is utter frustration in the teaching profession at present. It is more apparent in my own constituency than anywhere else. It is a fact that the teachers enjoyed industrial peace for nearly 40 years. It is something of which they are very proud, even though in that period of time their profession has changed considerably. Ironically the 40 years of peace to which I refer was found after a long and bitter dispute over teachers salaries in 1946, a strike that lasted for seven months. When I walked across the courtyard of Leinster House last Thursday I asked myself whether history is going to repeat itself in 1986. I am not a member of the teaching profession but I am convinced that teachers are now united as never before, and it is thanks to the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service. The teachers are the biggest single trade union group within the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with over 40,000 members at present. Arising from that dispute in 1946, which I referred to, the then Coalition Government in 1948, through its Minister for Education, Mr. Mulcahy, announced that the Government had accepted the principle of a conciliation and arbitration scheme for determining teachers salaries. The Minister of the time, Mr. Mulcahy, took the view that the bitterness of 1946 should not be allowed to repeat itself and that teachers' salary claims should be resolved in an orderly and fair manner and that teachers should be allowed to teach the children without the disruption of prolonged and unnecessary salary disputes.

The first claim under the new scheme was made by the INTO in 1951. The scheme was amended, I understand, in 1973 to establish a common conciliation and arbitration scheme for all primary and post-primary teachers.

Debate adjourned.