Church School employees, warned to be aware of ‘membership trap’
In response to the recent article published by the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) regarding the new Collective Agreement for Church Schools, it’s important to clarify some key points that may be overlooked.
Firstly, it is essential to highlight that the financial terms of the Collective Agreement covering Church Schools are identical to those outlined in the State Collective Agreement. The remuneration of teaching and non-teaching staff, as per the established norms, is directly comparable, including social security contributions and legally mandated bonuses. This means that Church School employees are, in practice, already benefiting from the same financial provisions as their counterparts in State Schools.
Furthermore, the Secretariat of Catholic Education has taken significant steps towards enhancing the operational framework for Church Schools. In September 2023, they issued the “Church Schools Sector Human Resources Manual of Procedures,” which introduces additional regulatory clauses that were not part of the previous agreement.
Moreover, the foundational agreement between the Holy See and the Republic of Malta on Church Schools, CONVENTIO* INTER APOSTOLICAM SEDEM ET REM PUBLICAM MELITENSEM DE SCHOLIS CATHOLICIS; particularly Article 6, affirms that both the Church and the State share responsibility for the remuneration of school staff.
“2. a) There shall be to the charge of the Church and the State: the remuneration of the teaching and non-teaching staff, inclusive of the social security contributions and the bonuses prescribed by law; …”
It also stipulates that Church School teachers are guaranteed the same facilities and opportunities as State School teachers, such as in-service training and scholarships, as noted in Article 9 of the agreement. This ensures that educators in Church Schools are not at a disadvantage compared to their peers in State Schools.
“The State guarantees to the teachers of Church Schools the same facilities envisaged for those in State Schools: in-service training courses, scholarships, etc.”
In light of these facts, one must question the necessity of MUT’s membership drive attached to the voting exercise for the agreement. It appears that this initiative may serve more as a means of increasing membership for the union rather than addressing any substantial issue, given that Church School employees enjoy equivalent benefits and protections under the existing arrangements, the urgency of the proposed vote seems questionable.
In conclusion, the UPE urges members in church schools to be cautious. The dialogue surrounding the Collective Agreement should reflect the reality of the situation and not merely focus on elements that could potentially mislead or confuse educators involved.