The New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association / Te Wehengarua (PPTA) asks the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) to consider the effect their unified pay clause (entrenchment clause) has on secondary teacher collective agreement bargaining and the wider union movement.
NZEI in a privileged position regarding pay increases
For the last 12 years, the primary teachers’ union, the NZEI, has been in the privileged position of never having to fight and win its own pay increases, says PPTA president Robin Duff.
No other union in New Zealand has a clause in any collective agreement that says:
The intention of this clause is to enable changes to the rates in the base salary scale and the value of units and payments made across the board; together with the attached conditions, in any collective agreement applicable to other teachers in the state sector to apply to teachers in the state and state integrated primary school sector.
“This means NZEI can reach settlements after minimal bargaining because, providing the entrenchment clause is renewed, it can sit back and reap the gains from any greater increases that PPTA members have won,” Duff said.
PPTA bargaining seeks to retain secondary teachers with specialist degrees or trade skills and teacher training
Before entrenchment PPTA would fight for settlements which could recruit and retain teachers with specialist degrees or trades skills and teacher training. NZEI would then make a catch up claim and fight for it. Secondary teachers drove the rates up and primary fought a principled campaign to keep relativity.
The result was reasonable increases for all. With entrenchment, primary folds quickly and secondary teachers drag their dead weight through bargaining. The effect is to hold down everyone’s rates and leave secondary schools with ongoing recruitment and retention problems. Only the government and treasury win in that scenario, Duff said.
This happened in 2001-02, 2004 and 2007, and is exactly what happened at the end of last year, when NZEI accepted an amount that was less than PPTA members had rejected a month earlier. NZEI could do that knowing that the entrenchment clause would allow it to bank another cheque when PPTA came through later, he said.
NZEI should set rate for recruitment and retention of primary school teachers
PPTA members have no objection to NZEI settling at a rate that will recruit and retain primary school teachers (in effect 1.35%per annum). They do, however, have a particularly negative view of a union constantly freeloading off another group of workers’ efforts in the way entrenchment allows primary teachers to do.
PPTA members were incensed by the news that NZEI had caved in while retaining the entrenchment clause and were quick to send sharp messages to the NZEI leadership about their unprincipled behaviour, he said.
Working together to deliver resources for public education would have been preferable
As one longtime PPTA member noted: “I am disgusted by the stance taken by the NZEI in recommending settlement of their collective agreement in the way that you have. In a situation where working together with the PPTA could have delivered needed resources to all public education sectors you seem to have focused on narrow interests alone. When are you going to stand up for long held union principles?”
PPTA was also grateful for the messages of support from NZEI members who found it impossible to condone what their union had done, Duff said.
Consistency with good faith bargaining and the ERA
PPTA members remain puzzled as to how the entrenchment clause could be consistent with good faith bargaining requirements − particularly in terms of the ministry’s behaviour in fettering its capacity to bargain with PPTA and the obligation NZEI had to act in good faith towards another union, he said.
While acknowledging the complexity of the issues PPTA’s executive is exploring the potential of legal action, he said.
Charging NZEI a bargaining fee for the cost to PPTA of negotiating the primary school settlements seems appropriate in terms of the ERA legislation.
PPTA looked for greater support from the CTU, Duff said.
Opportunity to share rewards with entire union movement through benchmarking
“The entrenchment clause is profoundly anti-union and its single greatest effect is to keep wages down which is what makes it such a gift to employers. The CTU must see that this issue has implications for the wider trade union movement. The bottom line is all unionists are being hurt by NZEI’s actions,” he said.
“As many unions with smaller numbers and less industrial strength rely on teachers to set a benchmark or break through government imposed wage restrictions, the deadening effect of the entrenchment clause on teacher pay rates flows through to many other workers.”
When the clause was first introduced in 1997, PPTA members were quick to see the analogy with the little red hen story. As was noted at the time “we do all the work – they share all the rewards”
Download the February 2011 issue of the PPTA News
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comment form
