MUT explains stand in dispute

I refer to the editorial (June 15) commenting on the Malta Union of Teachers' recent declaration of a trade dispute and the start of industrial action.

The issues over which the MUT council has decided to take action are quite clear but there are certain points raised in the editorial that merit clarification.

The issue over the collective agreement for 2002-2004 dates back to February 1996 when the council wrote to the authorities requesting a review of the agreement for the education class, which expired in December 1995.

The authorities refused to negotiate a new agreement claiming that, at that stage they were only prepared to discuss, anomalies that had arisen as a result of the agreements signed for the various grades and categories of public service employees.

At the time, the council submitted detailed proposals to be considered by the official side. Discussions were held over a period of 10 months. In these discussions the MUT representatives were informed by the official side that the proposals submitted by the council were being grouped into two categories, those that were of a corrective nature and those that were considered to be of a collective nature.

Discussions on the "corrective" proposals were discussed and agreement reached on February 7, 2001. All along these discussions, the official side kept insisting that the "collective" proposals would be taken up in June 2001 when negotiations on a new collective agreement for public service employees were to start.

The first draft collective agreement was forwarded to unions in August 2001 and none of the proposals submitted by the MUT council was included. The council replied immediately stating that the draft was unacceptable.

Meetings were held and a second draft was forwarded to unions on April 12, 2002. This was followed by a meeting on April 24 during which all unions present commented that they were not in agreement with the draft and were insisting on the inclusion of a proviso concerning sectoral agreements.

The official side said it would be sending another draft agreement. Following the lapse of seven weeks, and in the absence of developments, the council decided to declare a trade dispute.

I leave it up to your readers to decide whether the MUT has in this case exercised due patience before declaring a trade dispute.

As regards the issue concerning the recruitment of facilitators, this dates back to August 11, 1999, on which date an agreement was reached between the ministry of education, the education division, the faculty of education and the MUT. The agreement is being reproduced hereunder.

"The ministry of education, the education division, the faculty of education and the Malta Union of Teachers agree that the ad hoc course 'Advanced Certificate in Education (Learning Support Facilitators)' organised by the faculty of education of the University of Malta satisfies the provisions of clause 2.1 of the agreement between the government and the Malta Union of Teachers on the classification and regrading of the facilitator and kindergarten assistant grades as regards equivalence.

"Consequently, candidates in possession of this course would be eligible to apply for the post of facilitator."

Subsequent to this meeting, the education division issued a letter circular (DPD 102/99) on December 9, 1999, inviting kindergarten assistants to apply to follow the certificate course in education (learning support facilitators). The circular clearly stated that "... candidates who complete the course successfully will satisfy the requirements for eventual eligibility to the post of facilitator with the education division".

The dispute relating to facilitators has absolutely no relevance to a new position description for facilitators as is being stated by the ministry of education. It is true that the ministerial committee for inclusive education is drawing up a new position description for this post but this then needs to be discussed and agreed to with the MUT as sole representative of the grade.

The MUT has been insisting for the publication of a call for applications under the present position description. Any eventual agreement on a new position description will be applicable to all incumbents in post.

The council acknowledges and is appreciative of your editorial comments regarding teachers' salaries but is not, at this point in time, insisting on a complete overhaul of salary scales in the public sector. It is, however, advocating the re-establishment of the relativity of 1:4 between salary scales 20 and one in the public sector, which relativity has, at this point in time, fallen to 1:3.733. This would anticipate exceptional increases in the future resulting from a further deterioration of the relativities.