Teachers’ claim for more pay rejected by tribunal

About 600 teachers and lecturers will now have to accept the States’ offer, which had previously been agreed by all other public sector employee groups.

They will get an increase of 5% plus £500 for last year, an increase of 7% this year and an increase of 1% below inflation next year.

Teachers’ unions had asked the tribunal for 2% more than the States offered for 2022 and 2% above inflation in 2023 and 2024.

‘The States considered that its three-year offer was affordable and, if accepted, would deliver a degree of stability and certainty in public finances. This general strategy was both legitimate and justifiable,’ said the tribunal’s report.

‘Against the background of the pandemic, uncertainty over the impact of Brexit and constraints on public finances, the tribunal understands why in 2022 the States favoured the adoption of a common pay policy across the public sector at large.’

Policy & Resources’ employment lead David Mahoney was delighted.

‘As you would expect, P&R is pleased that the tribunal confirmed our pay offer as a good one, something we were already confident about, given that all other pay groups have already accepted it,’ he said.

‘We are disappointed that it was not possible to reach this conclusion without the matter being referred to an industrial tribunal.

‘But we very much hope that we can now draw a line under this and, going forward, work collaboratively with the unions that represent teachers, lecturers and school leaders in Guernsey.’

Teachers’ unions did not respond when contacted for comment yesterday.

At Monday’s tribunal hearing, they argued that other pay groups’ acceptance of the States’ offer was irrelevant to their claim because of pay cuts of 10% in real terms – which the States argued was more like 7% – suffered by their members since 2008.

The tribunal disagreed.

‘While it is true that the pay and other circumstances of those groups inevitably differed from each other and from that of teachers, such general acceptance by the unions representing those groups suggested the States’ offer was not unreasonable,’ it said.

The tribunal found that the States’ offer addressed pay erosion ‘to a degree’ but also noted that the issue was likely to re-emerge in future pay rounds.

The unions had claimed at the hearing that some teachers were struggling to pay for food, clothes and heating and that their members earning up to £50,000 a year were potentially living in relative poverty. They subsequently revised that calculation from £50,000 to just under £39,000.

‘The States’ offer of a lump sum of £500 in addition to the 5% for the pay year 2022 should be seen in the context of relative poverty,’ said the tribunal.

‘The £500 was designed to give a disproportionate benefit to those at the lower end of the pay scale. This cannot be dismissed as mere tokenism... in fact [it] addressed the issue to a considerable extent.’

Despite backing the States’ offer in full, the tribunal expressed sympathy with some concerns raised by teachers about P&R’s approach to pay talks.

The members of the tribunal were Professor Roy Lewis, Nicolla Tanguy and Jamie Roussel.