Breakdown of talks - sequence of events

(18 Dec 2009)

See earlier correspondence from 8th December, 2009

16th December, 2009.

TO: All Branch Secretaries
Executive Committee

Re: Pay Discussions - Clarification

Dear Colleague,

During the discussion at the Executive Committee meeting recently in relation to the pay talks and their eventual breakdown, it transpired that there remains a very significant misunderstanding in relation to some of the events which transpired and I believe it important that members fully understand the entire situation.  Unfortunately this cannot be done briefly, it is necessary to set the context for the discussions to explain clearly.  My letter to all dated 8th December also refers to this issue.

The pay talks between the Public Service Unions and Government commenced in late July against a background of constant threat by Government to cut the pay and pensions of public service workers; at times job security was also threatened by some Government spokespersons.   The Public Services Committee sought a meeting with the Government in order to seek to discover:

(1) if it was possible to come to an agreement with Government which would be an alternative to pay cuts and would protect pay levels, pensions and job security; and
(2) if such were possible, what would be the alternative to pay cuts.

The Government side did not respond directly but indicated that if there were to be such agreement that it would be necessary that there be concessions on the part of the unions.  In effect they said “What’s in it for us”.

Against this background it was decided to open discussions with Government to seek to establish what the price of avoiding pay cuts was.   In opening such discussions it was clear at all times to the union side and indeed to TUI that the price for avoiding pay cuts may be too high.  There was however an obligation to members to find out the cost.  The decision ultimately was to have been taken by the members had this point ever been reached. 

These discussions commenced in September and continued sporadically achieving very little with no commitment of any description on behalf of Government.  There was also an increasing and growing threat to pay; a lack of interest on Government side to any alternative to pay cuts and, with the impending certainty of such pay cuts, the unions balloted for industrial/strike action.  With this mandate, strike action ensued on 24th November. 

Virtually on the eve of this strike, a document was received from Government setting out broad principles for transformation of public services.   This was a document referred to in previous correspondence emanating from an OECD Report.   The document was considered by the union side, however there was no question of the strike being deferred.

The day following the strike a series of intense discussions took place with, for the first time, some measure of commitment by the Government side.  

The position of Government was that it wished to see a reduction in the public service pay bill brought about through the transformation agenda, the details of which were to be worked out.  Government was also aware that any such transformation would have little or no effect on the pay bill for 2010 and, as a consequence, it was necessary to put in place separate measures to reduce the pay bill for 2010 as a bridging mechanism.

The unions understood that any alternative suggestion would need to address both of these issues.  Consistent with the overall policy of seeking to establish the nature of an alternative to cuts, exploration began of these two related factors:

(a) The transformation agenda with its consequent cost saving measures anticipated for 2011 onwards; and
(b) The temporary or bridging mechanism of cutting the payroll costs for 2010.

In relation to the transformation agenda, it was agreed that this would be explored on a sector by sector basis.   In each sector, Health, Education, Local Authorities etc. Government tabled its wish list.  The wish list tabled by the Department of Education and Science was discussed with the unions.   Some items were removed as being entirely unacceptable.   Others, though unpalatable, the Department would not remove.  The document, which was circulated previously, emanated as a proposal.  It is not accurate to call this an agreed proposal, it was not.  It was part of the alternative to the cuts in salary scales which would be considered in the totality of a full proposal had there been one.

It has been alleged that this document was signed off or authorised by the Executive or by certain officials or Officers of the union.  This is not so.  This document was signed off by nobody, not by any official, Officer or member of the Executive.  A draft was seen by the Executive and it was explained that the document had no status or existence on its own.  It was never put to the Executive for decision.

In relation to the bridging mechanism of payroll saving for 2010, a number of proposals were considered.   One relating to what has since been described as layoffs or unpaid leave days is understood to have been a proposal made by the official side at a much earlier sectoral meeting relating to a different department.   This proposal was seen by many as having benefits given the basic demand of Government that there be cost saving.  These benefits being that it would not affect salary levels and thereby pensions and, if limited to 2010, would automatically end at the end of the year.   This by comparison with a cut in salary scales was seen as a less bad option.  Nobody liked the proposals but as they seemed better than the alternative it developed as a proposal.  It now transpires from a recent report that a significant number of private sector companies used exactly this approach to cut their payroll on a short term temporary basis.

A further significant confusion and apparent misrepresentation which has taken place and which has been the cause of very serious concern to some members, has related to the manner in which this process has been described.

It has been said that the lay off concept and the transformation agenda were both tabled by the union side.   This is categorically not the case.  

The union side was seeking neither pay reduction nor a transformation agenda.  It clearly would have preferred if neither was required.   Both proposals were considered only as an alternative to pay cuts and reluctantly considered in this context.  

The lay off / days off proposal was pursued by the unions and became referred to as a union proposal but only as a proposal as an alternative to a pay cut.  

The transformation agenda was entirely at the behest of Government, was drawn up by Government, was not in any way added to by the unions.   Indeed following discussions with the unions, several items were removed from the list.  

Terminology has been used to the effect that these proposals were “offered” by the unions to Government.   I wish to clarify that the only way in which they were “offered” was as a possible alternative to pay cuts which would have been probably greater in money terms and certainly longer lasting than the temporary reductions suggested.  

Any suggestion that the transformation documents either in education or in any other sector were drawn up by the unions and offered in any context other than is set out above is entirely false.   The contrary is true.   The union side sought to diminish in every way possible the items on the transformation agenda.

Had there been any proposal emanating from Government Buildings last week prior to the Budget, these would have been put to the membership of the TUI and, prior to any such ballot, they would have been the subject of intense discussion and clarification within the TUI.   It may well have been that the Executive Committee would have regarded the items on the transformation list as being a price too high and, in such circumstances, would have advised members accordingly.   The Executive never got the opportunity to take a view on this matter.  As no proposal emanated, the circumstances of the ballot and the surrounding discussion with members did not arise.  

I want to personally assure every member of TUI that there is no question that the Union was engaged in any negotiations to worsen conditions of any members:  nor was TUI putting forward alternatives to the present conditions of service or seeking any change in them in any negative way. 

The Union was, as stated previously, engaged in discussions to seek to establish if there was an alternative to the pay cuts which have been announced.  I believe that there was an obligation to explore this, however unpleasant it may have been. 

Opinions are divided within the Union as to whether alternative proposals, which were being considered as alternatives to pay cuts, would have been preferable to the cuts.  Perhaps the medicine may have been worse than the disease.   Such would have been the discussion had the negotiations concluded.  Such discussion in an open and informed manner is necessary in an open democratic organisation which TUI is.

I hope this fully explains the situation to all.   Should there be further queries or clarifications sought I will be happy to provide such clarification.

Yours sincerely,

________________
Peter MacMenamin
General Secretary
 

 

__________________________________________________________

8th December, 2009.

TO:     Each member of TUI
          School/College Representatives
          Branch Secretaries
          Executive Committee
 

Re: Breakdown of Talks – Sequence of Events
 
Dear Colleague,

You will be aware from reports in the national media that talks between the Government and the Public Service Unions broke down on Friday last and, as a consequence of this, it remains the stated intention of the Government to cut the pay of TUI members in the forthcoming Budget.

Much has been written and said about this breakdown.   However, I wish to outline the sequence of events as seen by the TUI negotiators who were present in Government Buildings throughout the entire process, commencing on Wednesday 25th November right through on a daily basis up to the breakdown on Friday, 4th December.

The Proposal
On the first day, Wednesday, 25th November, the union side considered a number of proposals which had been made in earlier discussions some weeks previously.   Among these proposals was one for a number of unpaid days leave to be taken by all during 2010.   While being in effect a cut by another name this proposal had the following benefits:

• It was able to be applied across all sectors and to all grades
• It could have been done on an equitable basis
• It would automatically terminate in January 2011
• It had no effect on pensions
     
  This proposal was explored during negotiations between the parties.

It was further indicated by Government that in respect of each sector a transformation agenda would be required.   This was to be based on an OECD Report “Towards an Integrated Public Service” which had been published in April, 2008. This report can be found on www.oecd.org. The main impact of this was to be on the broad public service.   However, a specific agenda was to be drawn up for the education sector.

In the education sector transformation agenda the Department had sought an additional hour, which could be used for teaching/lecturing, at both second and third level.   The union side resisted this and following lengthy negotiations a transformation document was agreed for your consideration in the event, but only in the event of a total agreement. A copy of this is attached. This document now has no standing whatsoever and the Executive has decided that it is now off the table.

It was clear at all times, both to TUI negotiators and to the Executive Committee, that the presence of TUI at the discussions in Government Buildings was for one purpose; to establish if there was an alternative to a pay cut and, if so, what that alternative was.   At all times participation in the talks was with a view to clarifying the precise proposals which would, had they survived, been put to you for decision.

There would then have been a clear choice between:

• a pay cut commencing in 2010 and continuing into the future or
• the proposal comprising the transformation agenda with the pay reduction associated with the 12 unpaid days leave for the year 2010 only.
  
   

The Strike
Very early on the morning of Tuesday, 1st December, two days before the impending strike, Government conveyed a decision to the union negotiators that this proposal in relation to the unpaid days was being considered at the highest level. Later that day at approximately 5.15pm it the Government gave the green light to the union negotiators confirming that it was prepared to enter an agreement with the unions on the basis of unpaid leave but that the total amount of pay reduction must meet its target of payroll cut.   It was recognised that 12 days pay fell somewhat short of the target and the gap would have to be made up but, in principle, Government was comfortable with such an arrangement.   It was also stated that a transformation agenda would be required for each sector.   (In many cases these documents were already close to agreement.)

On the basis of this assurance by Government, a decision taken at the highest level, and conveyed to the union negotiators, the strike scheduled for 3rd December was deferred.   This decision was initially recommended by the Public Services Committee of the ICTU and was subsequently endorsed by the Executive Committee of TUI. In effect TUI Executive had little alternative. A deal was possible and where a deal looks to be possible it is usual to withdraw strike notice.

The Breakdown
The discussions in relation to this matter continued over the subsequent days.   On Wednesday, 2nd December, the Irish Independent ran a front page headline “Cowen caves in on public sector pay”.   This together with mis-information as to the application of the days leave proposal caused a public backlash and caused a number of backbench TDs on the Government side to express serious concern.   The days leave in respect of schools and colleges was characterised as days off for teachers, days of school closure, days on which parents would have to find alternative means of looking after their children and a range of other inaccurate descriptions. Despite public clarification that this was not the situation the disquiet continued and by early afternoon on Friday, 4th December, Government changed its position and withdrew from the deal.

A deal was possible in that:

• The proposed savings met the Government target
• There was a transformation agenda agreed by each Government Department
• The implementation of the 12 days annual leave proposal had been agreed without impact on service delivery for each sector.  
  
  It was with this knowledge that the Government withdrew its agreement to the proposal.

Once Government had withdrawn its agreement there remained no alternative proposal for consideration by the unions.   As a consequence there was no alternative to put you to seek to protect you from cuts to your basic salary, cuts which would continue into the future.

It is now anticipated that there will be a significant reduction in public service salaries announced in the Budget. The Public Services Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has resolved to act as one significant united body in its opposition to this action.

Members have legitimately raised a number of questions.

Why was TUI involved in negotiations which could be seen as worsening the conditions of members?
TUI was involved in negotiations to seek to protect members against a pay cut.   The price demanded by Government to protect against a cut in basic salary levels was a payroll reduction of some nature and the proposed transformation agenda.   The only purpose of the discussions was to ascertain the full alternative to a pay cut.   It would then be a matter for all TUI members to decide which was preferable, a pay cut or the alternative pay reduction in 2010 together with the transformation agenda.

Why was the Union side not pursuing increased taxation as an alternative?
This was vigorously pursued by the ICTU General Secretary and President as part of its overall policy “There is still a better, fairer way”. It was also raised on a number of occasions by TUI in the Public Services Committee discussions.   In the direct discussions between the officers of ICTU and senior Government figures, the taxation alternative, as part of the ICTU’s overall plan, was raised and was fought very strongly.   However, at all times there appeared to be a determination on the part of Government to cut public service pay.   It has been strongly suggested that a purpose of this was as a prelude to cutting private sector pay in those areas where this cut has not already taken place.

In conclusion, there is no alternative at this stage being offered to TUI members to having their pay cut.   TUI will fight vigorously for a fair solution, along with its colleague teacher unions, ASTI/INTO/IFUT, and with the other public service unions under the overall umbrella of the ICTU Public Services Committee.   Never before has there been such a unity of purpose among this group of unions and nothing less than such a unity will be necessary in order to redress what, at this time, appears the inevitable.

TUI is not saying that its members should play no part in the solution to the economic situation. It is saying that the solution must be fair and equitable. A pension levy of 7%, the loss of an agreed pay increase of 3.5%, a moratorium on promotions and a pay cut, all targeted at public servants simply because they are public servants, all made without regard to income level or individual circumstance, is neither fair or equitable.

Your support along with the support of each member of TUI is of absolute importance in this overall fight. Collectively you are the union. If we are to succeed we all must act together.

Yours sincerely,
Peter MacMenamin
General Secretary

Elements of deal discussed last week: 

Education Sector
The following range of measures are designed to facilitate the most effective and efficient use of resources and to maximise the quality of educational delivery.

Teachers

• The provision, with effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year, of an additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of management, school planning, continuous professional development, induction, substitution and supervision (including supervision immediately before and after school times). This list is not exhaustive.
   
• With effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year, post-primary teachers to be available for three timetabled class periods per week under the supervision and substitution scheme (while leaving the current maximum number of hours used per teacher per week under this scheme the same as at present).
   
• Full implementation of new procedures providing for redeployment of surplus teachers, to commence from January 2010 and to be fully implemented for the start of the 2010/11 school year.
   
• A comprehensive review and revision of the teaching contract to identify and remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective teaching to students in all sectors. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 school year.

 

Special Needs Assistants

• A comprehensive review and revision of the existing employment terms and conditions to identify and remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective support for students with special care needs. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 school year and to have regard to those elements of the Towards 2016 Agreement relating to SNAs.
   
• Flexible deployment of Special Needs Assistants within schools to respond to urgent work demands and to cover for periods of absences by SNA colleagues.
   
• Where work demands arise during non-instruction days, school management will continue to have discretion to deploy staff to appropriate SNA duties.   

 

Vocational Education Committees (Other than teachers and SNAs)

• A comprehensive review and revision of existing employment terms and conditions to harmonise them with similar grades in the public service. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 school year.
   
• Co-operation with the restructuring and rationalisation of the VEC sector.
   
• Co-operation with the introduction of shared services in areas such as payroll, student support, procurement and purchasing, ICT and HR management.
   
• Implementation of redeployment schemes across the VEC sector and the wider public service with effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year. These schemes to have regard to schemes developed in comparable sectors.

 

Institutes of Technology

• The completion by 30 April 2010 of all elements of the review of the academic employment contract currently in train.
   
• With effect from the start of the 2010/11 academic year, the provision of an additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of management, all educational activities in the Institutes. This usage to be informed by the outcome of the review referred to above.
   
• Flexible delivery of new courses specifically targeted at unemployed individuals.
   
• Implementation of redeployment schemes for academic, administrative, technical and support staff across the Institutes and between Institutes and the wider public service as appropriate with effect from the start of the 2010/11 academic year.

 

Universities and other Higher Education Institutes

• With effect from the start of the 2010/11 academic year, the provision of an additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of management, teaching and learning in the university/institute.
   
• Co-operation with the introduction of academic workload management and full economic costing models and with the compilation of associated data to support these.  
   
• Co-operation with redeployment/re-organisation/rationalisation arising from the review of Higher Education strategy and changing economic and social circumstances.
   
• A comprehensive review and revision of employment contracts to identify and remove any impediments to the development of an optimum teaching, learning and research environment.   This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 academic year.