Updated: Recommendation not implemented: exclusion from sectoral agreement following administrative assimilation

Updated: Recommendation not implemented: exclusion from sectoral agreement following administrative assimilation

Published January 05, 2026

Updated on 26 th February 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.

Update – subsequent communication from the Principal Permanent Secretary (26.02.26)

Following the tabling of the Final Opinion before the House of Representatives in December 2025, the Principal Permanent Secretary replied on 20 February 2026 stating that the recommendation could not be accepted.

In his reply, the Principal Permanent Secretary argued that the complainant’s duties were administrative rather than educational in nature and therefore did not justify placement in Salary Scale 5. He maintained that the post is not equivalent to that of a Head of School or Education Officer and that assimilating the complainant to that scale would create an unfair precedent. Reference was also made to the various allowances paid to the complainant as evidence that she was fairly treated.

On the same date, the Commissioner for Education replied, stating that the Government’s position effectively confirmed that the complainant’s role had been altered to her detriment by the letter of 5 August 2022, which had been presented to her at the time as a “simplification exercise”. The Commissioner observed that the plans to place Centre Administrators and Centre Coordinators on separate paths had not been made known to the complainant and that no evidence had been produced to show otherwise. He reiterated the concerns already expressed in the Final Opinion regarding the absence of transparency and duty of care, adding that the injustice was aggravated by the fact that the People and Standards Division of the OPM appears to have given its blessing to what had been done.

In light of this exchange, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Education informed the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the latest developments and confirmed that the recommendation made in the Final Opinion remained in force.