Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Education and Training Board

Representatives

  Self - Represented

Paul Twomey BL, instructed by Kate McMahon & Associates Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004217

01/05/2025

The Worker is an Adult Educator (AE) employed by the Education and Training Board delivering English classes (ESOL) to foreign nationals since 2007. The Worker asserts that until end March 2023, her post was called Adult Education Tutor and after that period, Adult Educator. She states that both the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and the Teachers’ Union of Ireland have agreed that a new contract would be put in place. The purpose of the revised contract was to unify the employment terms and conditions for all AEs across all the ETBs throughout the country.

The Worker states that currently numerous ETBs have not yet implemented the contract and the ones that have implemented it often apply it locally along with their local interpretation of the documents.  The Worker states that unfortunately this causes differences and discrepancies from ETB to ETB cancelling the uniformization of the AE profession. She states that in September and October 2024, herself and many of the AEs were sent on lay-offs.

The Worker asserts that on 8 January 2025, the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) co-ordinator informed her that researchers from a Named College would be meeting with all ETBs to explore the experiences of learners and practitioners. The co-ordinator mentioned that the Worker and her classes together with another tutor, would be asked to participate in focus group sessions. However, the Worker states that she raised concerns about the lack of prior consent for both herself and her students.

The Worker states that on 9 January 2025, the AEO (Adult Education Organiser) responded stating that participation was voluntary and that consent forms would be provided. Despite this assurance, the Worker highlighted several ethical issues as follows:

Consent and Information: It is paramount to offer a consent form with all relevant information regarding the research topic before participation. This was not initially provided.

Language Barriers: Many ESOL students have limited English proficiency. Requesting their participation in focus groups without ensuring they understand the discussions is unethical.

Peer Review Concerns: The research bears the stamp of peer review, which is disallowed by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland.

On 10 January 2025, the Worker was informed that consent forms would only be available on the day of the focus groups, which she contends is insufficient for informed consent. It was suggested that she involve another tutor instead, but the Worker maintains that this did not address the underlying ethical concerns. The Worker states that ultimately, due to these concerns, another tutor was asked to participate in the focus groups instead.

The Worker states that on 22 January 2025, PM of the ETB informed her that one of her courses (2x2.5hrs a week), would finish on the 30 January 2025. The Worker expressed concern, noting that the course had only recently started, with only a couple of Learning Outcomes (LOs) covered. The Worker believed the end date would fall at the end of March as she planned to submit the students' portfolios in April. The Worker states that she did not approve of same but since she was reassured her timetable would not be smaller by the number of those hours and the fact that PM also arranged for the learners to join another progression class she did not raise any further concerns.

The Worker states that on 7 February, there was an online meeting with the AEO (Adult Education Officer) and coordinators informing AEs in the ETB that 60% of AH (associated hours) can be used on teaching duties (preparation/assessment/planning/ designing materials etc) and 40% should fall on training, compulsory CPD, and administrative duties. The Worker states that as a consequence, an AE who has 20 teaching hours a week must declare 6 hours every week to do the other duties – all of that not paid for nor pensionable.

The Worker states that on 6 March, in the resource room with two other AEs, colleagues exchanged remarks about associated hours (AH) and the fact they were not being followed up by management. In the documentation on the AE contract, those hours are mentioned as 45 minutes to every 60 minute teaching hour that should be mostly devoted to regular teaching duties: preparation/assessment/planning/designing materials etc. The Worker maintains that this is a very controversial matter as those associated hours under no circumstances are supposed to be time tabled. The Worker states that there is a list of other duties that are mentioned in the documentation on the AE contract but no specific details are given as to how to implement them.

The Worker states that PM came into her classroom while she was delivering a lesson and stated that she wanted to speak to her and another co-ordinator after class to discuss the associated hours. The Worker states that her first thought was that the resource room must have been bugged as it was too much of a coincidence. The Worker states that she was advised that going forward, she would need to collect all her students email addresses and she would have to inform them in advance before her absences. The Worker states that she questioned PM on such an approach and stated that the data had already been completed in the registration forms and were stored on the system and perhaps PM could give the Worker the data. The Worker states that she was refused and it was reiterated to her that she needed to collect that information again and it would be taken into consideration as fulfilling the associated hours.

The Worker states that she received an email to meet PM and another co-ordinator on Tuesday 11 March. The Worker replied that she had contacted the TUI concerning the 11 March meeting regarding associated hours and also requested an agenda for the meeting. The Worker states that the same day, she received an email from PM cancelling her Monday/Thursday course (2x2 hrs a week) on Thursday 13 March due to low attendance.   

The Worker states that the meeting subsequently took place on 27 March. While the Worker was of the view that the meeting was arranged in order to address her concerns, she states that she found the meeting to be disciplinary in nature.  

The Worker asserts that at a meeting of TUI union on 13 May, 2025, it was announced that an Adult Educator has no requirement to report on the work they are doing other than to confirm that it has been completed. The Worker states that it was recommended that a record be kept by the Adult Educator for audit purposes only which completely runs contrary to DB’s methods of micromanaging Adult Educators.

The Worker states that she was on sick leave from 10 April until 6 June due to work related stress.  She states that she has financial losses of circa €6000 in respect of cancelled/shortened courses and is owed several thousand euros in respect of arrears of pay since the 2023 conversion to the AE position.

The Employer states that the Worker commenced employment as an Adult Education Tutor on 15 February 2007. It states that the background to the Adult Educator contract is outlined in the Department of Education Information Note 01/2024.

The Employer maintains that the Worker chose to move from her pre-existing role to a new role of Adult Educator in June 2024. As a consequence, the Worker moved on to a new contract with revised terms and conditions of employment and commenced working under same in January 2025.The Employer asserts that the terms and conditions contained in the new contract are themselves the subject of a national agreement between the Union and ETBs around the country. The Employer states that several aspects of the contract are still under review and are the subject of ongoing engagement between those parties.

The Employer states that many of the various issues which are the subject of the “trade dispute” alleged have been the subject of detailed engagement between the parties and in particular were discussed in some detail at a meeting held on 27 March 2025.

The Employer states that the Worker has not exhausted internal remedies agreed between the ETB and sectoral Unions and in particular has not brought a formal grievance. It states that she has not brought a complaint under the appropriate internal procedures relating to her allegations of bullying despite the fact that she was given access to information regarding these procedures, including details of support and guidance services.

The Employer denies that the Worker has been the subject of bullying, be that by way of an alleged pattern of mistreatment or otherwise. As to the allegation of a “Mid Lesson Summons” the Employer states that on 6 March 2025, PM called to the Worker’s class and asked if the Worker could informally meet with her and DC after class. The Worker was not summoned out of class to discuss associated hours but was asked to make herself available after class to meet PM and DC. PM advised this was informal and the Worker advised that should be fine and she would pop over.

The Employer contends that circa 30 minutes later PM got a text message advising that the Worker needed to take lunch and prepare for classes later that day and for classes the next day so requested that this be moved to another day. PM advised that this was fine and she would come back with a different day. PM emailed the Worker to suggest Tuesday 11 March at 12.30 in DC’s office.

The Employer maintains that the meetings were called in an effort to sort out the management of the associated hours. Adult Educators had moved to the new contracts in January but associated hours were not being done and/or not being recorded. This issue was raised with the Worker who appears to be of the opinion that the Employer is not entitled to ask her to confirm that she has performed the associated hours required under her contract.

The Employer states that while the mechanism for management of these hours is still subject to discussion with the Union, tasks and duties must be undertaken which cannot be done during class contact hours and these have to be accounted for in some manner. The Employer states that the Worker is also apparently of the view that she is not paid for associated hours but yet she saw a significant increase in her payment on the inception of the new contract which expressly provides for the requirement on the part of Adult Educators (being those persons who have entered the new contract) to perform such additional associated hours.

The Employer states that in relation to the Worker’s allegation that emails were “hostile”, the ETB denies same. It states that decisions around end dates for courses are made by line managers (Adult Literacy Organisers and ESOL Co­ordinators) based on course attendance. It is up to the Adult Educators/Tutors to ensure the learners in their classes are engaged and attending regularly.

The Employer states that the Worker had emailed asking for her timetable from 19 May 2025, so DB assumed that the Worker intended to return to work on that day. However, DB had been informed by HR that the Worker had a MedMark (Occupational Health) appointment on 19 May, therefore, DB asked for clarification from the Worker regarding her return date. As to “false or questionable allegations” and alleged “micromanagement”, the ETB refutes such allegations. It states that context can be given to explain the communications to which the Worker refers.

In relation to the allegation by the Worker relating to “Power imbalance/targeted conduct”, DB considers these particular points to be particularly egregious. The Employer states that at no point in time were meetings recorded (using a recording device). DB considers this an attack on her character and professional reputation. The Employer contends that the record of the meeting of 27 March is not a verbatim minute. It states that DC recorded key points in short-hand form during the course of the meeting to assist her with writing up the record of the meeting afterwards, with DB. The Worker was given the opportunity to amend the minutes which she did through her TUI representative who accompanied her and no further amendments were made.

The Employer states that Schemes of Work are requested from all teachers/adult educators/tutors as a planning tool to ensure all learning outcomes are covered and to enable managers to ascertain what content and assessments have been covered should a staff member need to absent themselves from classes. This allows managers to put substitution in place and allows learners to continue with their programme in their absence.

The Employer states that when the Worker was off sick, the ETB sent other Adult Educators to cover her classes but they did not know what work was covered and what was still to be covered as they had no Schemes of Work to refer to. Under the current Adult Educator contract and the previous contract of employment, teaching materials developed by staff in the course of their employment are the intellectual property of the ETB, not the individual tutor.

The Employer absolutely refutes the serious allegation by the Worker that rooms may be subject to covert monitoring. The Employer states that the ETB does not engage in such practices.

As to the Worker’s alleged financial losses and projected losses, the Worker has been paid for every hour she worked, and her CID has been honoured. After CID hours are honoured, Adult Educators may be offered additional hours. Co-ordinators ensured that the Worker was offered 13.5 hours for 34 weeks - so that there was no issue with CID hours being expended early and Adult Educators left without work from October to December. It is evident that co-ordinators were trying to allocate additional hours to bring the Worker up to 20 hours per week, which would be over and above her CID hours. The Employer states that unfortunately, when class attendance falls below a specific number they may need to be discontinued due to the Employer’s duty to ensure value for public money and to ensure an active learning environment and positive learning experience for all.

With respect to the complaint about “unpaid arrears and underpayment” and “pay uncertainty”, the Employer states that Adult Educators moved to salary payments in January 2025. Payroll and the Adult Education Team are using a shared spreadsheet to keep a record of the contracted hours for AEs. The Worker holds a CID for 448 class contact hours annually. These hours are not scheduled evenly each week and may vary, depending on student enrolments, and scheduling of classes, however co-ordinators endeavour to schedule 13.5 hours per week over 35 weeks. For each pay period, HR reviews the tutor hours spreadsheet and makes any necessary adjustments. These updates are entered into the HR/Payroll system (ESBS-Shared Services) and salary is processed by ESBS.

The Employer states that the cut-off date for salary processing by ESBS is the Tuesday of the week prior to the Friday pay date, with salary paid up to and including the pay date. To meet this deadline, HR must finalise adjustments by the preceding Thursday. For example: Pay date: 24 October, pay period being covered: 13-24 October, Adjustments deadline: 12 noon on 14 October, Spreadsheet data reviewed: 09 October. These are strict timelines from ESBS. It is not always possible for the Adult Education staff to confirm classes during this timeframe. As a result, Adult Educators may occasionally be underpaid or overpaid, depending on the information at the time of processing, however, this is rectified in the next pay period. The Employer states that it is also important to note that salary is paid in real time, not in arrears. Under the previous contract, adult education tutors were paid an hourly rate, one month in arrears, so this is an improvement in their terms and conditions.

The Employer states that in respect of arrears for 2023-2024, no arrears in respect of 2023-24 can be paid until the ETB receive the money from Dept. of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science/SOLAS. Arrears have been calculated and communicated to SOLAS as requested. The Employer cites the reference to the TUI minute regarding payment of arrears by 1 September - ETBI (SM) advised that the 1 September deadline was the date ETBs had to finalise the conversion calculations and submit them to SOLAS, not the deadline for payment of the arrears. The Employer refers to an email from ETBI (SM) dated 27 June 2025 which states; “I have also been advised by SOLAS that it must be noted that ETBs should not pay arrears until confirmation of funding is received as per SOLAS guidance.”

The Employer outlines that it should be noted that the ETB’s HR Department and the Adult Education Service have engaged with the Worker extensively over the last year to resolve issues and to answer her many queries and will continue to do so. It states that the Worker has been supported in accessing services including the Employee Assistance Service which provides wellbeing and counselling support services for ETB staff.

The Employer further states that the ESOL co-ordinator and AEO had aimed to try to offer the Worker more hours which would have resulted in better pay but unfortunately, due to numbers declining in classes, the ETB were only able to offer the CID entitlements (13.5 hours per week). All learners who wished to continue, when their course was cancelled due to low attendance, were given the opportunity to transfer to an equivalent course at the same level.

In conclusion, the Employer states that the Worker’s contractual CID hours have been honoured; any hours above those are additional to a contract and are not guaranteed. The Employer states that it has been repeatedly pointed out to the Worker that the ETB has also tried to facilitate her by providing additional hours in excess of her contractual entitlements when operational demands permit. The Employer asserts that with regard to implementation, a delivery planning calendar is devised to include closure periods i.e. Christmas, Easter and other non-delivery periods. The non-delivery / centre closures are to ensure that AE’s can avail of annual leave, pro rata for part-time staff. The Employer states that the Worker was paid her annual leave entitlement due during centre closures and was also paid her entitlement to public holidays. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I find that the Worker’s dispute stems from the new contract entered into with the ETB which commenced in January 2025. Having reviewed the information submitted by both parties, I note that the Complainant voluntarily entered into the new contract, which was arrived at following extensive negotiations with the Union bodies at national level.

Based on the information provided at hearing, I note that there is ongoing interaction and negotiation between the Union and the ETB’s on certain aspects of the new contract which will need to take its course.

In relation to the within dispute lodged by the Worker under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, I find that there is an obligation on the Worker to utilise and exhaust the internal mechanisms for ventilating her grievances prior to referring a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission. This would allow the Employer an opportunity to fully investigate and address the Worker’s concerns. The Worker conceded that she did not engage with the grievance procedure. I note that the Employer has comprehensive procedures and policies in place including a grievance procedure under the Dignity at Work Policy.

In Geoghegan t/a Taps v A Worker INT 1014, the Labour Court held that “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

It is well established by the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 until all internal procedures have been fully exhausted.

In the circumstances, I make no recommendation on the within dispute.

Industrial Relations Act, internal procedures not exhausted