DkIT staff vote for industrial action
STAFF at DkIT have voted overwhelmingly to engage in industrial action in a dispute over a range of issues at the college.
In a statement issued after the result of the ballot, the TUI Branch at DkIT said the action would be taken as a result of what they saw as ‘ the failure of DKIT’s President’s Office and Institute Administration to adhere to national collective agreements, respect industrial relations mechanisms and engage in transparent and meaningful consultation on a range of issues.’
Dundalk IT TUI Branch Chair Kenneth Sloane said DkIT was ‘effectively the only Institute of Technology not moving towards University status.’
‘Recent requests from the TUI for consultation on the Institute’s strategic future have received no response from senior management,’ said Mr. Sloane. ‘However it was the emergence of a new plan to establish a 5th school within DkIT that prompted the recent ballot.’
The TUI spokesman said the plans were developed without consultation with staff, and introduce what the union described as ‘a high cost / low quality model of education provision, which is totally at odds with the traditional mission of the IoT sector to provide high quality and affordable education accessible to all.’
He added: ‘IoTs have established and agreed practices for allowing innovation and development to occur so that Institutions like DkIT can continue to serve the changing educational, economic and social needs of people and enterprises.
The TUI chair explained that these practices are ‘embodied in a range of local and national agreements and forums usually characterised by a cooperative approach between management and staff where progress is achieved through discussion, consensus and agreement.’
He said that the union had ‘ no option’ but to ballot for industrial action.
‘A 99.1% ballot in favour of industrial action based on a 81% turnout of members illustrates the determination of DkIT’s staff to not only demand a return by management to industrial relations norms and adherence to agreements, but also reveals the levels of concern regarding the Institute’s strategic future.’