Scheme introduces arbitration criteria

UNDER THE NEW SCHEME of conciliation and arbitration for teachers, five criteria have been introduced - where in the past there was only one. These are:

"the necessity to take account of the need for a high quality education service and in this context the need to ensure the recruitment, retention and motivation of staff with the qualifications, skills and flexibility required so that the education service can fully contribute to social and economic development";

"the necessity to take account of the prevailing position in relation to any national policy on pay which may be agreed between the ICTU and the government as employer from time to time";

"the necessity to take account of the state of the public finances including the consequences of the Treaty on European Union and the general economic and employment situation";

"the necessity to take account of the extent to which pay, working conditions and the organisation of employment and other relevant benefits of eligible grades differ from those of employees in other employments with whom they might be compared";

"the necessity to ensure that the education system can continue to adapt to necessary changes and to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness".

According to Paddy Healy, "the term necessary changes needs to be understood in the context of Partnership 2000, which sets out the principal of performance management at all levels." As a price for these, the Government has conceded on issues of negotiability of conditions of service - pensions, part-time teacher issues. These have been sold to the teacher unions on the basis of these advances within the framework of the existing conciliation and arbitration scheme, he says.

Meanwhile, the public-service unions' negotiating team is currently considering a review of public service pay determination (the Fitzpatrick Report), which has been circulated in advance of talks with the Government on the successor to Partnership 2000.

According to this report, "since pay constitutes the bulk of current public spending, the public service pay determination system must therefore help ensure value for money to the public and the taxpayers, i.e. maximum output and quality of service for any particular level of expenditure."

However, the report stresses that to be successful, performance-related pay of any kind must be part of a holistic system of modern management, including strategy, culture, flexibility, measurement systems and management practices.

A change in the pay determination system demands a huge culture change - an acceptance that "pay increases must be earned rather than being a right, that the public-service reward system should be about delivery of outputs."

The report suggests a four-level implementation process: first, an agreement, to include a strong "performance dimension", would be agreed by the Government and the social partners. Following this, individual organisations or sectors (including health, education and security) would agree explicit strategic objectives and goals of quantified performance indicators. Thirdly, agreements, mirroring the overall sectoral objectives, would be defined at group or team level. Individual pay would be determined at level four.

However, the report notes that "a major limitation in attempts to introduce a performance dimension at any level in the system is the absence of adequate measures of public service output and productivity. International work on this subject is underway at OECD level. It would be important that Ireland participates fully in this work."