Recommendation not implemented: Supply Teacher paid less than peers despite equivalent duties

Recommendation not implemented: Supply Teacher paid less than peers despite equivalent duties

Published July 22, 2025

The complaint

A graduate with a Bachelors (Hons.) degree in Business Management lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on 26 August 2024. Having joined the public education sector in 2013 as a supply teacher, she was granted indefinite status in 2017. Over the past 12 years, she has been entrusted with teaching Accounts, Business Studies, and VET Retail in secondary schools. Throughout this time, her students consistently achieved high grades in their MATSEC examinations, a clear indication of her competence and commitment.

However, the complainant pointed out that despite carrying out the same duties and having the same responsibilities as regular teachers, she had been consistently paid less due to her designation as a “supply teacher”. Her complaint centred on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education, after a thorough investigation, established that the complainant had the same responsibilities, workload, and commitments as all regular teachers. There was no evidence to suggest that her performance was in any way inferior to that of regular teachers. In fact, her continued employment and the consistent academic performance of her students were a testament to that.

Historically, supply teachers were engaged temporarily to address specific shortfalls in teaching staff. However, systemic changes over decades and a persistent shortage of teachers led to supply teachers being employed on a long-term basis, often indefinitely, without the corresponding salary and benefits of regular teachers.

The investigation found that despite performing identical duties, supply teachers such as the complainant were excluded from certain allowances.. The Ministry itself confirmed that her work and obligations were equivalent to those of regular teachers. The Commissioner referred to Article 27 of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Cap. 452), which affirms that employees in the same class of employment are entitled to the same rate of remuneration for work of equal value.

The Ministry did not offer a credible justification for the discrepancy in pay, and the creation of separate classifications or categories for supply teachers appeared to be a mechanism that circumvented the principles of fairness and equality embedded in the Ombudsman Act. Laws and collective agreements, the Commissioner emphasised, must be interpreted and applied in good faith, and the current system amounted to systemic discrimination and exploitation of supply teachers.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner for Education, in his Final Opinion of 30 May 2025, concluded that the complaint was justified. The continued payment of a lower salary to the complainant was unjust, improperly discriminatory, and wrong in principle in breach of Article 22(1)(b) and (d) of the Ombudsman Act. It was recommended that the complainant be paid the same class allowance and work resources as a teacher in Salary Scale 9 as per the current sectoral agreement. This adjustment should be backdated to 2 September 2024, the date on which the complaint was formally notified to the Ministry.

Outcome

On 10 July 2025, the Commissioner for Education informed the Prime Minister that the Ministry responsible for Education, through its Permanent Secretary, had formally indicated its refusal to implement the recommendations. As no action was taken in response, and in line with Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act, the report is being laid before Parliament for its attention. This publication is also made in accordance with Article 29(2) of the Ombudsman Act in the public interest, to draw attention to a systemic issue affecting supply teachers and to uphold the fundamental principles of fairness, equality, and good governance within the public education system.