Teachers’ pay dispute heads to tribunal
TEACHERS in States-run schools and lecturers employed by the States will face their employer at an industrial tribunal next Monday.
The date of the tribunal was announced today following a long-running dispute over pay and workload.
Teachers and lecturers will be represented at the tribunal by the Negotiating Committee for Teachers and Lecturers in Guernsey, which brings together local members of the two largest unions, the National Education Union and the NASUWT, and others such as the Association of School and College Leaders, National Association of Head Teachers and University and College Union.
The tribunal will be chaired by Professor Roy Lewis.
He will be joined by lay members Nicolla Tanguy from the employers’ panel and Jamie Roussel from the employees’ panel.
The hearing, which is open to the public, will take place at the Peninsula Hotel, starting at 9.30am. A second day has also been set aside, should it be needed.
The island’s recently-appointed industrial disputes officer, Steve Naftel, announced last month that he was referring the pay dispute to an industrial tribunal for a binding award, after no agreement had been reached after a year.
Just days earlier, local members of the NASUWT backed strike action in a ballot, although the States’ senior committee, Policy & Resources, quickly brushed off the strength of support for a strike and warned teachers there was no lawful route to walk out.
Around the same time, local members of the National Education Union said their concerns were being ‘brushed under the carpet’ by the States and announced they would also organise a ballot to see the strength of support for industrial action.
P&R has offered teachers and lecturers a three-year pay deal – a 5% increase on salaries plus £500 for 2022, an increase of 7% in 2023, and an increase of 1% below the rate of inflation in 2024.
The committee’s employment lead, Deputy David Mahoney, has insisted the offer is fair to the profession and taxpayers.
The unions have rejected the offer as inadequate and argued that it represents a real-terms pay cut.