- About ASTI
- Pay and Conditions
- ASTI Membership
- Operation of Schools
A teacher can be seconded to work for a seconding body / organisation only if approval has been granted by the teacher’s Board of Management and by the Department of Education and Science.
Application should be made to the Department of Education and Science.
Normally the seconding body will have obtained approval from the Department of Education and Science to make a seconded appointment.
For full details on the secondment of a teacher to another employer see Department circular 0107/2006 below.
Circular 0009/2007 deals with secondment to a European School.
The salary of a seconded teacher is governed by the following Arbitration decision. At the time of going to print the detailed implementation of this decision is ongoing.Report of the Teachers Arbitration Board in respect of a claim on behalf of teachers on secondment:
1. The Claim
This claim is brought by the ASTI, INTO and TUI and is that teachers on secondment to implement national initiatives be paid a salary commensurate with the level of responsibility involved and the changes in their working conditions.
2. History of Claim:
The claim was first presented by the Staff Side at a meeting of the Teachers Conciliation Council on the 2nd of February, 2000. A sub-committee of the Council was established to consider the claim. Over the following two years the sub-committee met on a number of occasions. No agreement was reached by the sub-committee in regard to the substantive dispute; however there was agreement that the matter should be sent to facilitation.
The Chairman of the Council, Mr Tom Pomphrett acted as Facilitator and a facilitation meeting took place on the 5th of February, 2002. The facilitation was unsuccessful and the matter came back before the Conciliation Council. A report of the Council dated the 24th of May, 2002 records disagreement in relation to the claim and both sides agreed to refer the matter to arbitration.
An oral hearing took place before the Arbitration Board on the 9th of June, 2003 at which the Board heard submissions and also heard evidence from a number of teachers who are carrying out work on secondment namely Ms Deirdre O’Connor, Mr Tony Collison, Mr Christie Carroll and Mr David Kearney. Their evidence covered the nature of work on secondment in different areas including the primary and secondary sectors; school development, planning and the work of ICT advisors.
3. Arguments on Behalf of the Staff Side:
4. Arguments on Behalf of the Official Side:
The following is a brief summary of the main arguments advanced by the Official Side:
5. Conclusions and Recommendations:
In reaching the following conclusions and recommendations the Arbitration Board has had regard to all the submissions both written and oral advanced by both sides and to the evidence given by the witnesses. It is grateful to the advocates and the witnesses for their assistance in this regard.
There would appear to be agreement that national co-ordinators be paid on a scale equivalent to a senior / divisional inspector that is €62,408 - €73,352 as of the first of October 2002 rates. The main areas of disagreement were
The Board believes that it is appropriate to have regard to the following matters in considering this issue. There can be no doubt that the present arrangements in regard to the payment of teachers on secondment are inadequate and throw up many anomalies. Teachers can be carrying out almost exactly the same work but getting substantially different pay. One teacher can be in receipt of an allowance while doing certain work while another teacher doing similar work does not receive any allowance. What is more there would not appear to be any logical basis for the decision to pay an allowance in one case but not in the other.
It is clear therefore that change is needed. However the Board must be aware of the limitations of its own functions; it is a Board designed to establish appropriate rates of pay rather than deciding how particular services should be delivered. Insofar as there are policy decisions to be made in regard to the provision of services, such decisions would appear to be matters appropriate to the Department of Education and Science and the Board should be careful in carrying out its functions not to trespass into areas outside its remit.
The Board believes that what is required is a coherent system of payment for different categories of work which ensures that people who carry out the same work receive the same pay. It seems to the Board that the achievement of this objective is not consistent with the continued payment of pre-existing allowances for posts of responsibility. However it would be even more inconsistent with the achievement of this objective that the proposed arrangements would only apply to new appointees and not to teachers who are already carrying out work on secondment. Further in our view any such restriction of the application of the proposed arrangements would be fundamentally unfair to teachers who have up to new carried out work on secondment.
The Board was impressed by the evidence of the various teachers who appeared as witnesses before it. Having regard to their evidence the board accepts that teachers on secondment can find themselves carrying out more onerous duties and working longer hours than a teacher working in a school in a normal classroom environment.
Bearing in mind all the circumstances of the claim, and in particular the matters set out above, the Board recommends that the following arrangements should be adopted:
Regional and Deputy Directors of Major National Programmes, ICT Advisors (or equivalents):
The salary scale for this category should be the teacher’s common basic scale plus honours degree and honours H.Dip allowance plus a standard allowance of €12,459.
Dated the 7th July, 2003
Signed: Gerard Durcan, Chairman
Signed: Derek Hunter
Signed: Thomas Wall