SNCT Negotiated Agreement on McCormac

Report

Consultative Ballot

The BallotBallot Opens 20 September 2013

Ballot Closes 21 October 2013 at 10.00amEmailed to those EIS has an address forPosted otherwiseIf not received by Friday 27th, contact HQ

ballot@eis.org.uk

SNCT McCormac Package Following the publication of the McCormac report

17 of the 34 recommendations made were sent to the SNCT for its consideration

Most issues were neutered but there are three remaining principal areas of potential change:I. Following end of Chartered Teacher Scheme, pay

protection agreed for those already in postII. Replacement of Appendix 2.6 (Annexe E: list of

duties a teacher should not routinely undertake) with new professional statement:

"Teachers will not be expected to undertake the duties generally undertaken by administrative and support staff, but will work cooperatively with all staff to ensure an appropriate distribution of workload.”

SNCT McCormac PackageIII. Potential agreement re local flexibility of

Working Week A school may operate class contact time, preparation and correction time and remaining time over a longer period, normally 2 weeks, but not exceeding 4 weeks Subject to:

a) agreement by staff in the school

b) the school meeting criteria set by the SNCT, including staffing

c) LNCTs (Local Negotiating Committees for Teachers) having an overview of agreements.

Arguments for acceptingOf 17 recommendations sent to SNCT only 2

contentious issues remain These 2 have been greatly modified through negotiation If there is no agreement there is a strong possibility that other issues, previously rejected, will come back into play

If rejected there is a danger of losing the current pay protection for Chartered Teachers

Professional statement of duties of a teacher offers as strong a protection as current situation

Annexe E did not protect admin jobs

Arguments for acceptingPotential for flexible working week

arrangements is very limited Depends on staff in school agreeing as part of WTA, with LNCTs having a strategic overview Depends on having staff in place to pay back time In many cases will mean that teachers who are already being flexible will actually get their time back

Arguments for rejectingWhilst many of the most unacceptable

recommendations in the original McCormac report have indeed disappeared,

Still a move away from the collective protection of national conditions and focus on local agreement and on the individual teacher

If COSLA and Scottish Government attempted to renege on the agreement re Chartered Teachers because of a failure to agree an overall package, the EIS would need to resist this.

Arguments for rejectingThe removal of a list of duties a teacher would

not routinely undertake Puts duties back onto teachers = lets LAs make further cuts to support staff Only recourse would be grievance procedures by individual teacher

Working week flexibility Teacher potentially teaching 25 hours a week = workload Dangerous principle established = potential for employers to seek more flexibility

The Pay Offer 2013-14

1%

2014-151%

Redefinition of Short Term Supply From 5 days to 3 days (to be funded by SG)

Offer is dependent on acceptance of the SNCT McCormac agreement (Note: The EIS did not agree to this link being made.)

Whilst Salaries Committee think this is the best deal that can be gained through negotiation, at this time, if McCormac agreement not accepted then the pay deal cannot be concluded. Further consideration at EIS Council and the SNCT would be required.

FAQsQ. What exactly am I being asked to vote on? Are we being balloted on the Pay Offer?

You are voting on the SNCT negotiated outcome on the McCormac report. This was agreed within the SNCT in March, before pay discussions had commenced fully, and would have been balloted on irrespective of pay discussions. The complication is that COSLA and SG have made the ‘pay and short term supply offer’ contingent on a ‘Yes’ vote on this negotiated package. The EIS did not agree to this link and the ballot, therefore, is focussed on the post-McCormac agreement – not on salaries.

FAQsQ. Why are we not being balloted on the Pay Offer?

The Salaries Committee has voted to accept the pay offer, as is within its powers, but because of the condition imposed by COSLA and SG this cannot be processed until we know the result of the McCormac ballot.

FAQsQ. Other workers have received 1% pay awards without changes to conditions.  Why is it different for teachers? 

There are two points here: COSLA and SG would undoubtedly claim that what has been offered is more than 1% as the improvement on short term supply requires at least an additional £1.5 million per year to fund it (which SG has agreed to pay); the second point is that the McCormac discussions had concluded before the pay round began. Salaries Committee was minded to recommend acceptance of the McCormac discussions but Council decided to ballot without a recommendation to encourage debate and discussion. The link between the two was not part of the salary discussions but was a last minute condition introduced by COSLA and SG.

FAQsQ. If we reject the SNCT proposals, what happens to the pay offer?

We would need to revisit the issue at the SNCT. It is difficult to speculate as it would depend on what COSLA and SG decided to do; however, it is likely that the current offer would be withdrawn or amended. At the very least a further round of negotiations would be required.

FAQsQ. What improvements are being offered for supply teachers on pay and conditions?

Basically, a reduction from 5 days absence to 3 days absence, as the period where short term supply conditions apply.

There is also an automatic 10% uplift in pay for displacing preparation and correction time to the end of the pupil day (i.e. being available for full pupil day class contact)

FAQsQ. Why did the EIS agree to an offer that links pay to conditions of service changes?

We didn’t. The link was not part of the salary discussions but was a last minute condition introduced by COSLA and Scottish Government. The EIS did not agree to this link and the ballot, therefore, is focussed on the post-McCormac agreement – not on salaries.

FAQsQ. The EIS was campaigning for a restorative pay award - why only a 1% offer for this year and next?

We commissioned research into teacher pay rates to confirm our contention that our salaries are failing to maintain pace with the cost of living. This pay offer does not come close to restoring our salaries but we are operating in the context of public sector pay restraint / policy and fixed three year Council budgets. We made clear that at some point a major restorative award will be required.

FAQsQ. I don't know what to make of the McCormac outcome proposals - does the EIS think this is a good package or not?

The commentary provided tries to set out the arguments made at Salaries Committee. As reported in the April edition of the SEJ, Salaries Committee was minded to accept the negotiated outcome but Council decided that no recommendation should be made and that the matter should be debated and discussed by members.

FAQsQ. What are the implications of the ballot for Chartered Teachers?

If the package is rejected, the current pay protection will be under threat. Both COSLA and SG have indicated that this is part of the agreement and that "either everything is agreed or nothing is”. Any move to rescind the current arrangements would be resisted, of course, but the issue would be back on the table for discussion.

FAQsQ. If we agree to the proposal, will I have to undertake additional admin duties?

The professional statement which would replace Annexe E makes clear that it is the professional judgement of the teacher which determines what work she/he carries out.

FAQsQ. Will the flexibility proposals increase my working week?

The flexibility proposals have to be agreed at a school level. If you have an arrangement in place then your working week would be increased in week 1 by your non class contact time plus 1/3 preparation and correction. However, in week 2 you would get this time back and your working week would be decreased by the same amount of time – as a simplified example if you work 37.5 hours in week 1 you would work 32.5 in week 2. This is time off school (time in lieu) – not simply time out of class. Agreement can be reached only where the additional staff cover required is identified in advance.

FAQsQ. Will the proposed new working arrangements mean the end of nationally agreed conditions of service such as maximum class contact?

No – the negotiated outcome specifically excludes any variation to the current SNCT contractual divisions e.g. 22.5 hours class contact, one third preparation and correction, balance for WTA. [Any agreed local flexibility is subject to this national framework]

FAQsQ. Will the proposed new working arrangements mean the end of nationally agreed conditions of service such as maximum class contact?

No – the negotiated outcome specifically excludes any variation to the current SNCT contractual divisions e.g. 22.5 hours class contact, one third preparation and correction, balance for WTA. [Any agreed local flexibility is subject to this national framework]

FAQsQ. What McCormac issues were removed through the negotiations?

Through a process of discussion and negotiation, the SNCT agreed to take no action on a significant number of recommendations: for example ‘time and place’ will remain; primary teachers will not be responsible for their classes even when they are not teaching them; the time divisions for teaching, preparation and correction and collegiate activities will remain.

FAQsQ. If we agree to this proposal, when would the changes be implemented?

They would be processed through the SNCT and circulars issued. Some aspects would be immediate e.g. confirmation of CT pay scales and others, such as local flexibility, could not take effect until next session 2014/15.

FAQsQ. If we reject the proposal, what is the next step?

The consequences would need to be explored at the SNCT. If there has been a failure to agree it is difficult to see how the SNCT would be able to make any immediate progress. We would need to await reaction from COSLA and SG, however, and then respond accordingly.