Update Wednesday 18 February 2004 

FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES REFUSE TO PAY UP – FURTHER EDUCATION’S DIRTY THIRTY

Following the recent pay settlement between the main Further Education unions and the employers representative body, the Association of Colleges, a two-year pay deal was created which gave colleges the freedom to pay or not pay a recommended increase to Further Education Lecturers in 2004 and 2005.

At the time the deal was announced, LEAF warned that the deal would lead to further fragmentation of the pay structure in the sector, since colleges had been encouraged by the AOC to decide what they could afford. This despite clear messages from the DFES that sufficient money had been made available to fund all recommended pay increases (See previous bulletin on this website for further discussion and analysis of this issue).

 

CAN PAY, WON'T PAY

According to reports published in the TES (13 February 2004), around 30% of Further Education colleges have not paid the pay increase due at this point in the deal in full, par or at all.

This practice, which is condoned and even supported by the AOC itself, is wholly unacceptable, and has to be fought. However, we are bound to say that the present pay negotiation arrangements that are supported by the main unions, which preserve the right of individual colleges to determine their own arrangements, are at the root of the problem.

We have repeatedly said that in the absence of a determination to reinstate binding collective agreements on pay and conditions, this problem will recur year on year. That is why the pay issue is bound up with conditions of service and the position of the national collective agreement –- the Silver Book.

Without a national agreement on terms and conditions, it is not possible to achieve a national pay structure – or parity with schoolteachers!

Its obvious, but it still needs to be hammered home to every Lecturer, branch union representative and national official!

 

CAN THE COLLEGES PAY?

Of course they can! The refusal of the Dirty Thirty to pay up is almost certainly part of a strategic move on their part, with the collusion of the AOC, to break up any move towards the re-establishment of a national framework for pay and conditions.

The AOC clearly wants a fragmented structure to remain, at least in part to preserve its own position as advisor to colleges on pay, conditions and human resources matters.

Recently published figures show an increasing number of college principals now receiving pay packages in excess of 100K per annum.

Hot on the heels of the principals are the officer corps of vice principals, human resources managers, curriculum leaders and the rest, with comfortable pay packages. It is the Lecturers – the poor bloody infantry – who pay for this corporate excess with poor pay and conditions and the bad faith that is visited on them by colleges who refuse to fund their pay increases.

 

IT’S TIME TO NAME, SHAME AND BLAME THE CULPRITS!

The Dirty Thirty of colleges includes the following, which NATFHE is now in dispute with: Bishop Auckland, Bournemouth and Poole, Bradford, Cambridge Regional College, City College Birmingham, City Lit Institute, City of Westminster College. Hertfordshire Regional College, Lowestoft College, Oxford and Cherwell College, Peoples College Nottingham, the Pershore Group of Agricultural Colleges, Rother Valley College Rotherham, Royal Forest of Deal, Shresbury College, Stourbridge College, West Herts College and Thurrock and Basildon.

 

ARE THERE ANY MORE? WE WANT TO KNOW?

E-mail us now on leafunion@hotmail.com if your college is not paying up in full, part or at all.

 

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO?

Let us know, and we will press these recalcitrant colleges for a detailed explanation for their behaviour.

We will seek to examine their accounts, remuneration policies and cash flow. We will offer them solutions, which will enable them to make sufficient funds available to pay their staff in full.

If they do not respond or take our advice, we will expose their mismanagement of LSC funds.

NATFHE is planning action in the above colleges on 26 February 2004.

We will do everything we can to support NATFHE’s case, although LEAF is not enjoined in this dispute.

 

A LONG TERM SOLUTION CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED UNDER LEAF’S POLICIES.

In 2005, the present pay deal expires. Notice should now be given that no further agreements will be concluded on the basis of the present arrangements. It is actually better to take this stand now than to stumble into another round of national negotiations, which leave colleges free to interpret any outcomes as they please.

Unless a binding agreement is concluded, the unions should not negotiate further with the AOC.

It is the colleges which receive the funds.

It is for the colleges to pay.

–EXPOSE THE MORE THAN DIRTY THIRTY WHO WILL NOT PAY

–A BINDING AGREEMENT ON PAY AND CONDITIONS IN 2005

–PARITY WITH SCHOOL TEACHERS IN PAY AND CONDITIONS BY SEPTEMBER 2005

 

 

Update Thursday 4 December 2003 

SCHOOLTEACHERS PAY SETTLEMENT VINDICATES LEAF STANCE ON FURTHER EDUCATION PAY

Since our last commentary on Lecturers’ pay a few weeks ago, the School Teachers’ Pay Review Body has made its recommendations for schoolteachers’ pay for 2004 and 2005. This has resulted in a pay increase of 2.5% from April 2004 and a further 2.9% from April 2005, with a further increase in September 2005, bringing in a new September pay review date for schoolteachers.

Unlike in Further Education, the recommendations, once accepted, become binding on all employers of schoolteachers, who are bound by the terms of the collective agreements.

 

SCHOOLTEACHERS STILL ENJOY SILVER BOOK CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

This means that in April 2004 and in April and September 2005, schoolteachers in England and Wales will receive the rises. Not a king’s ransom, but definitely money going into their pay packets from those dates. The schoolteachers’ representatives have protested at the settlement, and LEAF supports the teachers’ unions in their work on behalf of their members. It may be that next year’s settlement is a below-inflation award if, as seems likely, inflation comes in at near 3%. The teachers’ unions have pointed out that this would represent at best a pay freeze in real terms next year.

However, teachers still enjoy conditions of service roughly equivalent to the Silver Book. The Burgundy Book sets limits on the working week, the working year, and preserves holiday entitlements. Schoolteachers enjoy much superior conditions compared to Further Education Lecturers. Only the small number of martyred Silver Book Lecturers are on remotely similar conditions. One small difference is that they can earn only £20, 538 per annum (22K in London). Now that is a real pay freeze and measure of the difference in treatment.

 

AOC CHIEF LETS CAT OUT OF THE BAG! THE INCREASES WILL NOT ALL BE PAID

The recent settlement was sold to Lecturers on a false comparison of schoolteachers’ pay now, with potential Lecturers’ pay in August 2005. Ignoring the disparity in conditions (why should it be ignored?), and the fact that Lecturers’ settlements are not guaranteed, whereas schoolteachers’ increases are, an attempt was made to suggest that parity with schoolteachers had almost been achieved. Any brief comparison of teachers’ pay scales (even now) with those of Lecturers, will demonstrate the falsity of this claim. So why make the claim? The answer can be gleaned from a careful examination of the discussions and documents exchanged by the two sides in the recent negotiations.

 

IS HALF AN AOC SIXPENCE BETTER THAN HALF A THRUPPENCE?

The AOC made it clear that unless their final offer, which was only a recommendation anyway, was accepted by the unions, then it would be withdrawn. Both the AOC and NATFHE have made this clear in their statements. Since NATFHE had pledged to achieve parity by 2004 (It’s Parity Time – remember?), it became important to seek to justify this offer in terms of a comparison.

Now, Ivor Jones, Director of AOC Policy, writing in the Times Educational Supplement two weeks ago (Further Education Focus), has clarified further the terms of the final discussions. He has said that not all Colleges will pay the recommended increases, and that the parties to the agreement all understood this. Some simply could not afford to!

So there you have it. A national settlement that isn't!

 

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THIS SITUATION?

Our criticisms of the settlement must be seen in the context they are meant - one of support for all attempts to improve the lot of Further Education Lecturers.

The pay settlement explicitly excluded Silver Book Lecturers, despite an earlier commitment to ensure that they received the full increase.

We understand that it did not task the AOC greatly to extract this agreement from the unions. After all, Silver Book Lecturers are a small (and irritant) minority these days, are they not? The unions’ task is to look after the interests of the majority, is it not? In fact, this small point is the key to unlocking progress for all staff in the sector.

The Silver Book is the benchmark against which all conditions of service elements must be judged in the sector.

 

DO YOU THINK LEAF WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THIS SITUATION TO FESTER?

LEAF is now locked in negotiation with the European Commission about the breaches of EU Law protecting conditions following a transfer, on behalf of every Further Education Lecturer.

Across the Country, LEAF is challenging the employers right to discriminate, oppress, bully and exploit Lecturers. We take up individual cases and pursue our national agenda.

The employers are aware of what we want, and we have a message for them: we are going to win our argument regarding terms and conditions of service and pay in Further Education.

 

WANTED: A NEW PAY AND CONDITIONS NATIONAL COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

LEAF’s position on this critical matter is now accepted by all the major unions in the sector, although LEAF stood alone for many years in advocating an end to the incorporation practice of individual contracts and pay scales. But being alone in a view does not mean one is wrong!

We were right about that, and we are right in our argument with the EU Commission. If a binding collective agreement is good enough for schoolteachers, local government staff, health service staff and others, it’s good enough for us.

 

GIVE LEAF A CHANCE AND WE'LL ‘STICK IT UP ’EM’

The employers are terrified of LEAF gaining majority support among lecturing staff. For good reason.

LEAF would never give an inch in negotiations on pay and conditions which disadvantaged Lecturers vis a vis other groups.

For us, the issue of pay and conditions would never be separated. In negotiation and bargaining, the employers would soon find themselves confronted (for the first time) with an opponent that they could not beat. They would very quickly be outfought, out-thought and out of the game.

With your support we will take the arguments back to them.

 

THERE WILL BE NO WHITE FLAG UPON OUR DOOR!

We want the pay and conditions framework to be re-drawn in the sector.

We are demanding the reinstatement of the national collective agreement across the sector.

We want all Lecturers who have been affected to be compensated for their ordeal.

And, we mean to achieve this.

LEAF will return to the employers with demands on these matters following our campaign in Europe.

This campaign will receive further publicity soon, and we will ask you to play your part.

So, support LEAF and ask your colleagues to do so.

Remember, you can only be beaten if you accept defeat.

 

Update Monday 10 November 2003 

LECTURER'S PAY –– IT'S NOT SORTED !

The news that a recent ballot of Lecturers has resulted in an acceptance of the employers’ recommended settlement, brings to a conclusion the current pay negotiations between the main unions and the employers organisation, the Association of Colleges.

Even explaining this requires virtually every statement to be qualified, since the settlement is merely a recommendation, which is for individual colleges to implement if they agree. This form of national bargaining does not result in a binding agreement, but merely forms a recommendation to colleges. No sanctions from the AOC are ever imposed on colleges which, for whatever reason, fail to implement the deal fully, partly or at all. That’s it’s fundamental weakness. It inevitably leads to greater fragmentation in an already fractured bargaining sector.

 

SILVER BOOK LECTURERS FROZEN OUT FOR ELEVENTH YEAR

However, LEAF fully supports NATFHE’s determination to ensure that the pay deal, which lasts until August 2005, is implemented in every college. With one caveat. We also demand that the pay increase is given to all Lecturers, and not restricted to those on the new contracts.

It seems that NATFHE has agreed with the employers that the pay increase is not to be paid to the remaining Silver Book Lecturers, in what will be the eleventh year of blatant and unlawful discrimination of teaching staff who sought European Community Law protection.

Although NATFHE had earlier said that it wanted to have the increase paid to Silver Book Lecturers (who were 100% of the Lecturing staff until new contracts were introduced), it quickly caved in on this demand. Not clever and not good for the long term interests of the profession. It represents a concession to the official (and unlawful) view that these Lecturers should not be treated fairly. How is it possible in the same breath to go on and demand parity with schoolteachers if you accept that Further Education Lecturers on similar conditions to schoolteachers (as LEAF has outlined), should be institutionally discriminated against because they happen to work in the Further Education sector? It doesn’t scan and it betrays a fundamental weakness.

 

THE PARITY'S OVER !

LEAF does not believe that the settlement (which was notably weakly supported by the Lecturers able to vote), will lead to a long term solution to poor pay in the sector. Parity has definitely not been achieved this year, and will be even further away by August 2005 when schoolteachers’ pay will have been reviewed twice more since this settlement. Only a fool or a mystic would believe that schoolteachers pay will have stood still during that time. One should never try to delude others, but deluding oneself is a sure-fire route to fantasy land.

 

WANTED: A NATIONAL PAY AND CONDITIONS AGREEMENT

The problems of Lecturers’ pay and terms can only be addressed by the conclusion of a new national pay and conditions agreement, which is binding on all the parties concerned. This is LEAF’s avowed aim, and we believe that the conditions for achieving this have not been better at any time since the disastrous and ill-advised transfer of the sector in 1993. At a time when teachers in schools, who still benefit from national terms and conditions which are in most respects identical to the Silver Book, are receiving substantial pay increases as well as standing to benefit from a workload agreement designed to create a better work-life balance, Further Education Lecturers are going in the opposite direction. That is, more hours, fewer holidays, increased responsibility and less pay.

The Governments 14-19 initiative has put Further Education at the centre of the drive to improve the uptake of relevant vocational education for school pupils for whom the GCSE/A Level route is not appropriate. Apart from the issues we have with school pupils in Further Education, we also have the prospect of Further Education Lecturers teaching in school settings, or teaching 14-16 year olds in colleges, and being paid less well under poorer terms than their colleagues in schools.

That is why LEAF’s campaigns are of critical importance to every Lecturer. Whatever anyone else may tell you, our opponents in the college employers and Government fear and respect LEAF. Only we have the vision and commitment to bring the sector back from the 19th century, where it has been sent, to the 21st, where it should be.

 

NATIONAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS

LEAF is holding elections this year in order to elect a ten-person National Council for the period 2004-2005. Members are invited to put their names forward, supported by a proposer and seconder.

This can be sent by post to LEAF, 126, St. Augustines Avenue, Thorpe Bay, Essex, SS1 3JF

or by E-mail to Leafunion@hotmail.com

Please send nominations in by the 15th December 2003.

National Council meetings are held periodically and you may be asked to attend up to four meetings a year, mainly on Saturdays.

 

CASE WORK SUCCESSES

LEAF is involved in casework on behalf of members on a continuing basis.

 

 

Update Friday 1 August 2003 

Update Wednesday 26 June 2002  

 

Update Monday 10 June 2002  

Update Friday 19 April 2002  

Update Monday 3 December 2001 

Update Friday 16 November 2001  

Update Sunday 14 October 2001  

Update Saturday 11 August 2001  

OFFICIAL: SILVER BOOK LECTURERS ENTITLED TO TPI

We have received a great number of enquiries as to whether or not Silver Book staff will benefit from the Teachers’ Pay Initiative. Indeed, we have clear evidence that certain principals have expressed the intention that they will do all they can to deprive this group of staff of any benefits under TPI.

However, on the 17th July 2001,in a written answer to a question on the continuing denial of pay to Silver Book staff, Margaret Hodge gave this response:

Further Education Lecturers:

Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she plans to take in respect of Further Education Colleges which do not award annual pay increases to Silver Book Contract Lecturers. [4415]

Margaret Hodge: Further Education Colleges are self-governing institutions. The implementation of annual pay awards is a matter for employers and their staff, and is not a matter on which it is appropriate for the Government to intervene. Nevertheless, I can reiterate the reply given by my Hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning on 9 July 2001, Official Report, column 388W, that the additional moneys allocated to FE colleges under the Teaching Pay Initiative are intended to be fairly distributed among all eligible staff.

[Hansard - written answers - column 136 - 17 July 2001]

If you have problems with your College on this or any other matter, we want to know about it.

OFFENSIVE ON SILVER BOOK PAY FREEZE UNDER WAY

LEAF’s lawyers have lodged two important tribunal applications on behalf of our members. The cases “include” the claim that there has been a breach of the implied term that the employers would pay cost of living salary increases. In both instances, the members involved were employed on the terms of the Silver Book.

In regard of Claim One, our member was forced to tender her resignation due to the persistently unreasonable decision not to award cost of living pay increases, and the expectation that she should take on more work than she could physically cope with.

In these proceedings the Applicant claims:

a] Compensation for constructive dismissal.

b] Damages for breach of contract for losses in pay increases from 1994 - 2001, including the effect of the loss of salary upon the Applicant’s pension as the Teachers Pensions scheme is a final salary scheme.

c] Disability discrimination.

In regard of Claim Two, our member was forced to resign because of the conduct of a manager, which had the effect of making the Applicant ill, and the failure of the Principal to address the problem and provide a satisfactory solution.

In these proceedings the Applicant claims:

a] Compensation for constructive dismissal and damages.

b] Compensation for sex discrimination under Sections 1 and 41 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

c] Damages for breach of contract in relation to the failure to make reasonable pay increases between 1995 and 2001.

If either of the Applicants succeed on the breach of contract matter relating to the employer’s failure to make pay increases to Silver Book staff, these cases will lead the way forward to widespread claims in regard of breaches of this type involving others who have received similar treatment while employed on the terms of the Silver Book.

We do not as yet have a hearing date, but we will notify members as soon as the cases are listed for a hearing.

PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS VOTE TO ACCEPT PAY RISES OF UP TO 42% (PLEASE NOTE: RESTRICTED TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)

Lecturers’ pay negotiations are going nowhere again, as the college employers refuse to even talk about NATFHE’s claim for an interim pay increase of £3000 for all Further Education Lecturers, to redress years of underpay. No such problem exists for our MPs. No doubt taking their lead from the New Labour Cabinet, which took pay increases of 40% following the June election, MPs have decided to follow suit.

Last week, members voted themselves a basic pay increase of 10%, accommodation allowance increases of 42%, and office costs allowances of 50% more. In doing so, they threw out the recommendations of their pay review body, which had suggested smaller increases. It will be recalled that following a similar ‘pay review’ exercise in 1996, MPs awarded themselves a 26% salary increase.

It is not clear that any increases in ’productivity’ have been secured or are promised, in exchange for the increased burden placed on the taxpayer.

We in LEAF were not surprised to hear this news. Having secured a second term of office after one of the most downbeat elections in living memory, New Labour is shortly to publish and ‘debate’ a White Paper which will discuss measures aimed at increasing the ‘efficiency’ of workers in the public sector.

They are likely to face trenchant and prolonged criticism, and become collectively more unpopular. They can comfort themselves though, that they at least can expect to end the next four or five years much richer than they are now.

The same will not be the case for the six or so million public sector workers whose pay and conditions of service, hours of work and prospects, are likely to deteriorate sharply, if Labour’s apparent plans are realised.

Significantly, during the debate in Parliament on MPs pay, a proposal by Chris Mullin MP, to link members’ pay rises to those given to teachers and nurses, was decisively thrown out. You should not hold out any hopes, though, that the reverse argument (that teachers and nurses pay increases should be linked to those of MPs) will find favour with our parliamentarians! Of course, housing costs have risen, particularly in London, where our pampered representatives have to keep homes. But is it only they who have these costs, of all those paid from the public purse?

TEACHER’S PAY INITIATIVE IN FURTHER EDUCATION

The Teacher’s Pay Initiative (TPI) funds have now been allocated to Colleges, for distribution, after consultation with the recognised unions. LEAF has made known its views on TPI and other aspects of Further Education Teachers’ pay.

The TPI monies are earmarked for payment to teachers. In this sense they can be distinguished from the FEFC/LSC funding, which use is controlled entirely by the college governors of Further Education institutions, and which are commonly ‘top-sliced’ to ensure that the elephantine management and administration systems can be maintained in our colleges.

TPI money must be paid to teachers. LEAF has already received reports that college governors and principals are attempting to distribute funds to non-teaching managers (a sizeable proportion of ‘academic’ staff in our colleges), or alternatively not pay the increase to some teachers. Others have been reported as saying that TPI increases will not be paid to Silver Book Lecturers, or that TPI money will be the pay increase for this year.

None of this is acceptable.

We would like your help to ensure that the TPI increases are paid fairly to all teachers in Further Education.

Please monitor the situation at your institution to ensure that: