Recommendation not implemented: exclusion from sectoral agreement following administrative assimilation

Recommendation not implemented: exclusion from sectoral agreement following administrative assimilation

Published January 05, 2026

The complaint

A complaint was lodged by the person heading a lifelong learning centre within the public education system. The complainant had occupied a senior administrative role for several years and had long held an indefinite appointment. While her core duties remained substantially unchanged over time, the scope of her responsibilities increased significantly.

In 2022, the complainant was informed that her designation had been administratively assimilated into another grade on a personal basis. This change was presented as a technical adjustment limited to nomenclature. The complainant alleged that this assimilation resulted in her exclusion from the latest collective agreement applicable to the education sector, placing her at a disadvantage when compared to other officials performing comparable functions who benefitted from improved grades and financial conditions.

Facts and findings

The investigation confirmed that when equivalent administrative posts were originally established within lifelong learning and vocational education centres, they were governed by identical calls, duties, salary scales, and conditions of employment. Over time, changes to structures and titles occurred, but these did not materially alter the nature of the roles.

During negotiations for the current sectoral agreement, the complainant’s role was omitted from the grading structure. This was acknowledged by the Ministry responsible for Education, which confirmed that the complainant’s designation did not fall within the scope of the agreement, while comparable roles had been assimilated into higher grades.

The Commissioner found that, through a series of administrative and nomenclature changes, the complainant had effectively been sidelined. Whether this resulted from oversight or from a conscious decision was considered immaterial. In either case, the Ministry failed to exercise due care. The omission resulted in financial loss and personal distress, particularly in light of the complainant’s years of service in lifelong learning.

The investigation noted strong similarities with an earlier case decided by the Office of the Ombudsman, where comparable treatment was found to amount to unjust and improperly discriminatory conduct.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner for Education concluded that the complaint was fully justified and sustained. The treatment complained of was wrong in principle, unjust, and improperly discriminatory, in breach of the Ombudsman Act.

The Commissioner recommended that a further personal basis assimilation be carried out so that the complainant would fall within the appropriate grade under the current sectoral agreement, with effect from the date on which the agreement came into force.

Outcome

Following the issuance of the Final Opinion, the Commissioner for Education sought confirmation from the Ministry responsible for Education on whether the recommendation would be accepted. No reply was received within the stipulated timeframe, despite an extension having been requested.

The matter was subsequently brought to the attention of the Prime Minister in terms of the Ombudsman Act. As no action was taken, the report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to be tabled in Parliament.