Labour Court ruling slams ASTI leadership

A damning Labour Court ruling issued today has criticised the teachers' union ASTI over its treatment of its own staff and has…

A damning Labour Court ruling issued today has criticised the teachers' union ASTI over its treatment of its own staff and has ordered they be given unpaid expenses immediately.

In an unprecedented move, ASTI did not attend the Labour Court hearing last month. Speaking to ireland.comtoday, ASTI president, Mr Pat Cahill, said the Court's indictment of the union leadership was not a resignation issue.

Mr Cahill said the union had written to the Court seeking a deferral of the case pending the outcome of legal action taken by ASTI general secretary Mr Charlie Lennon over a separate matter.

"We had legal advice that because of the injunction that we couldn't attend. Our hands were tied and we wrote to the Labour Court to tell them that," Mr Cahill said.

READ MORE

Today's ruling was welcomed by the staff's representatives SIPTU and the NUJ. "The recommendation clearly has serious consequences for the running of the ASTI and the welfare of its staff," said SIPTU's Ms Patricia King.

The report said: "Proper attention to the welfare of employees at ASTI's head office has not been in operation for some time."

It also criticised a workplace atmosphere of "constant threat and fear from elected ASTI representatives who appear to have no direct line of responsibility".

Mr Cahill rejected the claim saying the leadership was elected and answerable to the members. He said the dispute over a new expenses form which staff were refusing to use was at the heart of the problem.

"With due deference to the Labour Court, it has only heard one side of the story."

"The new form was drawn up by our accountants ... I had my own expense claim returned and was told to use the new form. When I did so there was no problem I got my money," Mr Cahill said.

The expenses had not been paid to staff since February. But the Labour Court ruled the outstanding amount should be paid and what its said appeared to be "an argument over forms and procedure" could be referred to the Court if the parties so wished.

Mr Cahill, who has not seen the ruling because he is out of the country, said he would contact the union's solicitors upon his return.