A GOVERNMENT attempt to conclude the long-running dispute with teachers over pay has drawn fierce criticism from a union whose members voted against the latest offer.
All teachers received a letter from the States Employment Board yesterday afternoon stating that the latest 8% offer would be imposed next month, unless any teacher responded in writing by 1 February to confirm they did not wish to accept it.
Any teacher opting out of the pay offer would remain in dispute with their employer, with their pay remaining at 2023 levels, according to the letter.
Teachers accepting the offer would receive an 8% pay increase for 2024, a one-off payment of £1,000 and the promise of pay rises matching inflation for 2025 and 2026, but would also have to agree not to participate in any industrial action over the next three years.
Both the main teaching unions balloted their members on the latest offer in December. Members of the NEU, who staged several days of strikes over the autumn term, voted to reject it, but at the end of term it was confirmed that NASUWT members had voted narrowly in favour.
NEU officials learned of the government’s move minutes before letters started to be sent out to teachers at 2.30pm yesterday.
The union’s joint district and branch secretary Adrian Moss said: “We are exceptionally disappointed with this development and the attempt to pressurise teachers into accepting the pay deal.
“The implications are that teachers would be identified as to which union they were members of, and we would question the legality of that, and also of the blanket moratorium on industrial action, whatever the reason for the action.”
A statement issued by the NEU’s senior regional officer, Nick Childs, said: “The NEU remains in dispute with the government, regardless of whether they decide to pay the rejected offer and to whom.
“We will be consulting with our members and national executive shortly over next steps in our campaign including consideration of further industrial action.”
Mr Moss also criticised the lack of consultation prior to the letter being sent to teachers, and the “opt out” requirement that he was concerned might indicate that some teachers had accepted the pay offer when they had not seen the letter.
“We are seeking further advice, and would also like the opportunity to discuss this with government,” he said. “Our advice to members would be not to respond to the letter straightaway.”
