|
Clause:
|
Tabled by/Date:
|
Status/Comment
|
|
General Staff reclassification
|
NTEU on 9 June 2009
CPSU tabled their clause on 23 June 2009
Management response on 13/10
Management response on 2/3/10
NTEU tables 2nd draft on 4/3/10
|
Management not supportive of committee structures and seek to retain control over the reclassification process
Both unions able to agree a joint position on reclassification claim. CPSU arguing against any reclassification which results in a downgrading of position. Management opposed to this position. Management will formally respond with their own clause at meeting of 14 July 09. Suspect we might get movement on principles and appeals process but management will fight to retain control of the classification stage.
Management response provided at meeting of 14/7/09. No movement and only minor adjustments to reclassification provisions. Suspect they may agree to an appeals mechanism if they get to hang on to evaluation process.
Agreed to park this issue and return to it later –sticking point
Management formal response on 13/10. Now agreeable to an appeals process but not agreeable to any change on evaluation process. Issue is currently parked. At the meeting of 3 March 2010, the management’s response along with CPSU response is discussed. NTEU has given a verbal response to both clauses but has since tabled a revised claim. The parties are largely in agreeance on an appeals mechanism but we are awaiting management response to some of the principles we want picked up. A union committee as part of the evaluation process has no traction.
Further discussion at meeting of 31 March 2010. CPSU now in agreement with Management. NTEU still not agreeable to appeal committee not having final say on appeals. Also, pushing for uptake of further principles. Management to respond again at next meeting.
Management tables further clause on 21/4/10 meeting. The one remaining sticking point remains the appeal committee only making a recommendation to HR Director and not a final determination.
|
|
Fixed term employment
|
NTEU on 9 June 2009
CPSU tabled their variant on 23 June 09
Management provide their draft clause on 17/11
|
Management seeking to retain flexibility in use of fixed term employment but appear concerned about equity, recruitment and retention implications. CPSU emphasising retention of the severance regime established through the HEWRRS round. NTEU emphasising HECE. Management opposed to severance claim and appear to have some difficulty with the strengthened conversion provisions. Management will be responding with counter claim on 14th July.Management provided a verbal response on 14/7/09. Not supportive of HECE or improved conversion. Say they want “flexibility’ in wash up of Bradley review. Prepared to consolidate various severance regimes.
Sticking point.
Management response indicates some movement on the issue. Not looking to trade HECE with conversion. Are proposing an “other circumstances” fixed term category which is too broad and undermines HECE regulation.
|
|
Unsatisfactory performance
|
NTEU tabled on 23 June 2009
CPSU table their claim at meeting of 14/7/09
Management response on 27/10 and 17/11
|
Claim seeks to strengthen union role and the terms of reference of the UPRC. Management not supportive of union in advocacy role although there does appear to be some “willingness” to strengthen clauses especially at the front end of the process. CPSU will be tabling their variant at meeting of 14th. Unions largely in Agreement although CPSU softer on advocacy and changes to UPRC.
CPSU claim is an abomination and they are forced to back track at the table in face of NTEU opposition (and when management latches on to their HEWRRED claim). CPSU/NTEU agree position with management currently considering their response. Management float some variants on the UPRC which are unacceptable. HR Director also wants to be the final decision-maker on UP matters. Suspect we may get some movement on this clause.
Further discussion at meeting of 4 August with tabling of management response which kills off union role, promotes an unacceptable UPRC structure (replaced by a reviewer) and makes minor concessions at front end of process. Also, gives HR Director final say in preference to DVC.
NTEU/CPSU to develop a further claim for discussion at meeting of 18 August 2009. UPRC is a mandatory settlement point for NTEU –sticking point
Subsequent management responses (8/12/09) fail to pick up the UPRC and continue to give HR Director final decision-making role.
Further management draft on 8/2/10. NTEU opposed to claim but CPSU in agreement with management.
|
|
General Staff Career Development
|
CPSU clause which was tabled for 23 June 09 meeting but held over for discussion to the 14th.
CPSU table a revised claim on 17/11
|
Unions are in Agreement.
Discussed at meeting on 14/7/09. Management generally appear comfortable with this claim. Management to respond at next meeting. Clause is close to being settled.
Discussed again on 8/2/10 and very close to agreed.
Agreed on 2/4/10
|
|
General staff workloads
|
NTEU tabled for 23 June 09 meeting but issue held over to next meeting on 14 July 09.
CPSU have also tabled an identical clause.
|
Unions are in agreement and have agreed to deal with the overtime issue dealt with in NTEU claim, in overtime provisions of the Agreement. This will be a joint union claim.
Discussed at the meeting of 14/7/09. Surprisingly little argument from management. Suspect some movement on this claim but some resistance to WRC structure. Management responding at next meeting.
Management response discussed at meeting of 4 August 2009. Management has picked up individual workload issues and has proposed a process reliant on disputes procedures. Not supportive of WRC. NTEU to continue pushing for WRC but we do have some important movement on this issue.
|
|
Academic OSP
|
Tabled by NTEU on 14/7/09
|
Issues of research activity raised by management and the “questionable’ return on $10 million spent on OSP each year. Management responding next meeting. Suspect some movement but resistance to key components of the claim.
Discussed again on 27/10. No movement as yet. Tim Sprague to discuss with DVC (Research)Sticking point
|
|
Academic Workloads
|
Tabled by NTEU on 4 August 2009
Management response on 27/10 & 17/11
Management claim on 21/4/10
|
Major claim which seeks to restore collegiality in workload allocation and development process. Claim also seeks to provide effective regulation of academic workloads and ensure workloads are equitable , fair and transparent.
Claim was presented at the meeting on 4 August, along with the results of academic workload survey. Management clearly shaken by the arguments and data put forward. Claims will be discussed with Deans in the next week and management should be formally responding at our meeting on the 18 August.
Management responses to date have been totally inadequate. However, following their response on 17/11 we have some areas of agreement that we can start to progress, albeit minor at this stage.
NTEU is proposing a full day workshop prior to Xmas to try and progress academic workload issue. No response at yet from management.
Sticking point
Management agreed at meeting on 8/2/10 to set aside some additional meetings to progress academic workload claim.
Working party established and good progress made. NTEU anticipating management response at next bargaining meeting.
Management’s latest response seeks to create teaching only positions and does not reflect discussion of working party. NTEU to develop a further workloads draft based on discussion at bargaining meeting of 21/4/10.
|
|
Academic leave
|
Tabled by Management on 4 August 2009
Further management response tabled on 17/11
|
Clause seeks to restrict academic flexibility in relation to when annual leave is taken and annual leave accumulation. It is essentially a return to deeming. Cashing out of excess annual leave is promoted. Clause is responding to annual leave liabilities which are growing at the University.
NTEU opposed the claim. Management will provide a further response at meeting of 18 August 2009.
NTEU succeeds it appears in knocking off the most offensive parts of management’s annual leave proposal (ie, cashing out). However, management able to direct academics to take up to 350 hours of accumulated leave.
8/12/09 cash out of leave is still in management annual leave clause.
8/2/10 Parties are close to an in principle agreement on this clause which does contain a cash out provision but is limited to once per life of agreement and only where 8 weeks remain.
In –principle agreement reached on this at meeting of 4/2/10 subject to NO review.
|
|
Leaving Employment
|
Tabled by NTEU on 13/10
Tabled by CPSU on 27/10
|
Claim seeks to tighten offers of redundancy and requirements when redeploying staff. Unions unable to agree positions. Management considering.
|
|
Managing Change
|
Tabled by NTEU on 13/10
NTEU table a revised claim on 2/3/10
|
Claim seeks to improve consultation provisions and restore role of unions. Management opposing any more consultation requirements –sticking point
Revised claim which revamps pre-change process consultation is discussed on 2/3/10. Close to Agreement
Clause settled at meeting of 31 March. Union role restored and greater information requirements now necessary.
|
|
Joint consultative committee (MUCC)
|
Tabled by CPSU/NTEU on 13/10
Management response on 27/10
CPSU and NTEU table revised claims on 2/4/10
|
Claim seeks to get rid of SCG and replace it with a union joint consultative committee. We are close to agreement on this.
Discussed at meeting of 2/3/10. NTEU seeking greater role for MUCC but parties close to settling this. Agreed at meeting of 31 March 2010
|
|
Union rights
|
Tabled by NTEU on 13/10
Management table response on 27/10
CPSU table their response.
Management provides a further draft on 21/4/10 which fails to pick up on a number of NTEU claims and which seeks to impose a commercial lease on union office space
|
Claims seeks to restore a host of union rights lost under HEWRRS. Management response is totally inadequate –sticking point
Union rights again discussed at meeting of 2/3/10. CPSU claim fails to pick up payroll deductions, access to email and sufficient time release for Branch Presidents. NTEU gives verbal response. NTEU will need to develop a further draft to progress the issues.
Management’s latest claim was discussed at meeting of 21 April 2010. Very limited progress made. Sticking point but CPSU prepared to accept
|
|
Contract Research staff
|
Tabled by NTEU on 17/11
|
Claim seeks to improve contract research job security by creating new contract research staff contingency funding category. Management considering.
Management have responded poorly to the claim on 8/12/09 arguing that it is too expensive. After some serious debate management will reconsider position over Xmas break.
Sticking point
Further discussion at 8/2/10 meeting. Management not prepared to move in their opposition to claim citing cost factors as principle reason for opposition. This issue will need to be taken to members as part of a wider campaign if we are to have any hope of progressing.
Further discussion at meeting of 5 May 2010. Management it now appears may be contemplating doing something with the claim and will be coming back with a draft response.
|
|
Parental Leave
|
Tabled by NTEU on 17/11
|
Claim seeks to ensure management do not attempt to offset parental leave payments through federally funded scheme. Also, seeks to enhance payments to 38 weeks if employer receives subsidy. Management non-committal at this stage but not looking to absorb payments.
|
|
Access to flexible working arrangements
|
Tabled by NTEU on 17/11
|
Claim seeks to provide access to flexible working arrangements for staff with unpaid carers responsibility. Management considering
|
|
Exemptions clause
|
Tabled by NTEU on 17/11
|
Claim seeks to lift the bar for excluding staff from coverage of the Agreement. Management non-responsive to claim and will provide data on this issue about numbers of staff currently excluded from Agreement coverage.
8/12/09 Management are not responsive to lifting the bar on exemptions. They are claiming that only 13 senior management would be captured by our claim. Probably a claim that NTEU should look to drop off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental sustainability
|
Tabled by NTEU on 8/12
Tabled by CPSU on 8/12
|
Not much difference between union claims, although NTEU seeks agreement on principles and establishment of a specific union-management sustainability committee. CPSU just want union representation on university committee.
Management opposed to any specific union-management sustainability committee and really don’t want any union involvement in university sustainability agenda. After substantial debate management is going to review their position over the Xmas break.
|
|
Dispute clauses
|
Tabled by NTEU on 8/12
Tabled by CPSU on 8/12
Further management claim provided at meeting of 21/4/10
|
Union claims are similar with unions able to initiate disputes.
Management not opposed to union initiating disputes. Management opposed to status quo prevailing through any FWA process.
Further discussion at meeting of 31/3/10. One remaining sticking point remains management’s resistance to non-escalation provisions not extending beyond the dispute committee stage. We are anticipating further management draft at next meeting.
Management’s latest draft discussed at meeting of 21/4/10. Clause fails to ensure non-escalation provisions cover FWA processes. CPSU are prepared to settle this remains a sticking point for NTEU.
|
|
Student Evaluation of Teaching
|
Tabled by NTEU on 8/12
|
Claim seeks to make student evaluation more relevant/developmental and less onerous and punitive for staff.
Management is taking to the Deans for further review
Management give a verbal response at meeting of 21/4/10. They are not prepared to shift position on this. NTEU considering but sticking point.
|
|
Purchased Leave
|
Tabled by CPSU on 8/12
Management provides a response on 21/4/10
|
Claim seeks to provide a right for all staff to purchase an additional 5-10 annual leave per year.
NTEU doesn’t support claim as it can be manipulated by managements in circumstances where staff exhaust personal leave. Also, our preference is a 48/52 arrangement which provides more leave and which could be situated in the flexibility term of the agreement.
Management supportive of CPSU claim at meeting of 21/4/10. NTEU has put a position that 48/52 is superior arrangement, that purchased leave should be in the flexibility term and only considered in lieu of outcomes on access to flexible working arrangements outcomes.
|
|
Academic and General staff probation
|
Tabled by management at meeting of 8/2/10
(tabled as separate clauses –currently one clause in existing Agreement).
|
Clauses seek to extend period of general staff probation from 6-12 months. Clauses also seek to reduce the amount of notice provided to staff whose employment is not confirmed.
Academic promotion periods are also “subject to a reasonable probationary period”
NTEU has raised issues of mid-point review process, the need to restore probationary appeals processes, the possibility of providing probationary extensions at the time of confirmation, if it appears confirmation of employment will not proceed. Management will come back with a further draft taking on board issues raised by unions.
|
|
Casual employment claims
|
Tabled by NTEU on 8/2/10
|
A suite of claims in relation to casual employment, including but not limited to: global caps, separate pay for marking, increase in casual pay formula, establishment of early career fellowships, improvements in casual loading to 25%; increase in associated time related to lectures, improved collegiality provisions and access to University resources, monetary recognition to work towards university publications etc.
A mixed but encouraging Management response. Fellowships were looked on with some support, global cap not supported, separate pay for marking supported.
Management will be more formally responding at the next meeting to this claim.
|
|
Indigenous claim
|
Tabled by NTEU on 31/3/10
|
Claim seeks to pick up the suite of indigenous claims from the model clause. Management arguing that they already have number of provisions in place. Management to respond at next meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher Duties Allowance
|
Management clause tabled on 31/3/10
NTEU tables a response
|
Management seeking to stop abuse of HDAs. NTEU has proposed a number of provisions from UWS Agreement which ensure HDAs beyond 12 months are superannuable, and provide for incremental progression at higher classification. Awaiting management response at next meeting
|
|
Superannuation
|
Tabled by NTEU at meeting of 31/3/10
|
NTEU seeking 17% for all employees (inclusive casuals) This is clearly an ambit claim and we are aiming to lift the two year benchmark for fixed term employees –before full super payment kick sin. CPSU non-committal and wanting to look at whole package. Management to respond at the next meeting.
|
|
General staff scholarships
|
Tabled by CPSU at working party meeting and then discussed further on 31/3/10
|
CPSU seeking scholarships for 2 general staff for MBA or like training. NTEU supportive but seeking to target the scholarships at employees with most to gain from such a program. Also, looking to increase the no of scholarships on offer. Management supportive of idea and largely supportive of NTEU amendments. Agreement should be obtained at next meeting.
Settled at meeting of 21/4/10
|
|
Flexibility Term
|
CPSU table clause which minimises scope of flexibility term.
Management clause on 21/4
|
NTEU supportive of having salary packaging in the flexibility term. Management provide an offensive clause which seeks to promote a range of matters to be covered by the flexibility term, including hours of work, superannuation, allowances, overtime.
Both NTEU and CPSU raise objections to management claim at meeting of 5 May especially where it seeks to undercut 17% Insuper contributions. We could only agree that salary packaging and two other matters be included.Management to consider union position and come back with a further proposal.
|
|
Misconduct and serious misconduct
|
Tabled by NTEU on 5 May 2010
|
Claim seeks to restore role of the union and place more restrictions on VC’s ability to suspend with or without pay. At meeting of 5 May 2010 good progress made with management to provide a response. CPSU appear to be supportive on the basis that we are attempting to nullify the suspension issue –they prefer summary dismissal.
|
|
Person Bound by Agreement and Terms
|
Tabled by NTEU on 5 May 2010
|
Claims seeks a June 2012 nominal expiry date and a single agreement.
CPSU want a June 2013 expiry and so does management. Sticking point
|
|
Hours of work
|
Tabled by Management on 5 May 2010
|
Claim seeks to ensure no excessive overtime consistent with our workloads claim. Management seeking to reduce penalty loadings for part-time workers who are working a particular span of hours –loadings not received by FT equivalent. This largely affects CPSU shelvers in the library and is an issue they are arguing against.
|
