Union ready to challenge any dismissals in court

THE lack of protection afforded to non-permanent teachers is set to become the subject of a handful of legal cases against the state, it has been claimed.

The Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland (ASTI) has confirmed it is considering the move under the Unfair Dismissals Act if any teachers on their second, third or fourth non-permanent contract are replaced with those on their first contract and not protected under the act.

Speaking on the final day of the union’s annual convention, ASTI industrial relations officer Bernard Moynihan said there is growing concern the Department of Education “may try to dislodge” or “redeploy” these workers from potentially permanent posts to save money.

He said he had news for any Government official planning this move: “You cannot override the law of the land. Our view is those people are protected by the Unfair Dismissals Act.

“After 365 days plus one you have rights and entitlements under the act. Should the department proceed, or if that [replacement or redeployment] occurs, our intention is to challenge that. It may not happen but we have our solicitors and our barristers and so forth fully briefed on this matter and ready to see what we can do,” said Mr Moynihan.

However, despite the comment in support of more than 3,000 non-permanent teachers Mark Walshe, a Dublin-based union member who is also involved with ASTI Fightback, said the union should drop the pretence that it is in a position to protect new teachers.

The legal statement of intent was followed by a minor dispute between delegates and the top table over the alleged “guillotining” of a full debate on the pay and conditions of new teachers, including many who are finding it very difficult to obtain posts.

A number of members said despite the issue being one of the key problems which needs addressing, the main discussion had been cut back significantly due to a lack of time.

Union leaders said the lack of space for an in-depth debate was partially because less than a third of delegates turned up on Thursday morning, delaying any motions from being discussed by almost an hour. After further calls they agreed to extend the morning meeting to compensate for the delay.