NTEU FLINDERS BRANCH E-BULLETIN

13^th April 2010

NTEU REPORT ON 12^th APRIL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MEETING

ADELAIDE UNIVERISTY STAFF RECEIVE A 3% SALARY INCREASE

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE ABOUT TO SETTLE

NTEU report on 12^th April Collective Bargaining Meeting

Due to the length of time these negotiations are taking, external factors have now resulted in further changes to the Agreement being required. For example, the introduction on 1 January 2010 of the National Employment Standards as part of the Fair Work Act has provided for the more flexible use of sick leave for family carer responsibilities. Such a change needs to be reflected in our new Agreement.

Also in January this year, the National Higher Education Awards for both General and Academic Staff came into effect. The NTEU is ensuring that the Agreement provisions at Flinders are no less favourable than the underlying Award provisions.

At the Collective Bargaining meeting on Monday 12 April the NTEU spoke to its previously circulated document, commenting on a draft Agreement prepared by the University and advising the University that amendments needed to be made in the light of the external changes outlined above.

The University advised that it would be responding to our document and a further negotiating meeting would then be scheduled.

The key areas of disagreement with the University remain:

• Reincorporation of key employment policies such as General Staff Classification Descriptors and Academic Promotion Policy into the Agreement
• Improved superannuation eligibility based on total length of service rather than length of individual contracts
• Reinstatement of right of Union to notify a dispute under the Agreement in relation to an interpretation, application or operation of any clause of the Agreement
• Competitive salary increase

Adelaide University staff receive a 3% salary increase

Flinders salaries will fall even further behind other SA Universities with the recent announcement by the University of Adelaide that it will pay staff a further 3% increase from the first pay period on or after 30 June this year.

In our recent Branch Newsletter, we reported that Adelaide was already paying a Senior Lecturer $2,491 more and an HEO6 $1,529 more than their equivalent at Flinders.  The June increase will make this differential even more marked and Flinders even less competitive.

University of Melbourne about to settle

Melbourne University is joining the growing number of Universities who have or are very close to reaching agreement.

As a result of the 16% pay increase by October this year, a Senior Lecturer at Melbourne will be paid $9,195 more and an HEO6 $6,378 than their counterpart at Flinders.

Tenure:

After nearly nine months of not supporting tenure in its current form, the management group agreed to reinstate these provisions in full.

Classification review:

Agreed in principle: An improvement overall in relation to assessment time and the basis for reclassification as codified in the agreement, access to appeal, and full inclusion of the classification standards in the Agreement.

Workloads:

Discussions are continuing on the professional staff clause.

For academic staff, 40/40/20 as a guide and recognition of a 1725 hours per annum cap have been agreed in principle.  Key sticking points are the NTEU claim that academic workload models should be developed at the academic unit (discipline or research centre) level, with ratification by the HoS, and the management proposal to remove the workload review process (currently the staff complaints process).  We have also been confronted with a new management claim proposing “teaching-mostly” appointments (60:20:20).

Casual Employment:

Minimal progress was made in addition to the already agreed (and now announced) 25% loading and 9% superannuation.  The sticking points are the inclusion of a %  cap on casual academic numbers, and the inclusion of comprehensive rates for marking and assessment.

ATSI employment:

Discussion is continuing in relation to a monitoring committee, commitment to a genuine increase in the employment of Aboriginal staff, and the establishment of a community network group.

Dispute resolution/Review Committees:

This has become a major area of disagreement.  Specifically of concern are the issues of nexus between the review committees process and dispute settling procedure, review committee membership and union visibility in both clauses.

Research Contracts:

The move towards a more secure form of employment for many research staff has been impeded by a late management objection based on changes to the way in which research infrastructure is funded. The NTEU will continue to pursue this matter and remains strongly committed to achieving more stable forms of employment for this cohort of staff.

Unsatisfactory performance:

Senior management continues to insist that failure to participate in PDR be defined as “unsatisfactory performance”. The NTEU rejects this notion. Management has indicated a preparedness to drop the claim if the NTEU will agree to a clause enabling termination of fixed term contract staff for unsatisfactory performance. We fail to see the connection and will approach each matter on its own merits and not as part of a horse trading exercise.

Dear Colleagues,

I write on behalf of the NTEU’s Enterprise Bargaining team concerning two key sticking points in negotiations, viz.

 (A) the question of extending exemptions from the Collective Agreement to Heads, and

 (B) the nature of the contracts which would then confront Deans/Heads or their successors in a (re-)appointment process.

The problem for us has been knowing what it is that the Union is being asked to ratify.  For several months, all we were told was that senior management wanted complete “flexibility” in contracts for Deans and Heads, apart from leave provisions. We were denied details of what might be traded off under the proposed new contract regime on the grounds that such matters would be confidential. Since we are not seeking information about individuals, that excuse was not acceptable.  We were left to guess what vulnerability (e.g. to dismissal) was to be traded for increased salary or allowances.

In recent negotiations, there was a hint that Labor’s new laws imply that the term of appointment as Dean/Head would have to coincide with the term of appointment as an academic or professional staff member.  That would mean moving from tenure or continuing employment to a fixed 5-year position as an academic or professional staff person in order to accept a 5-year term as Dean/Head.  We discounted the suggestion that there was any connection with Labor’s new laws:  a clause could be inserted into the Agreement to prevent it happening, if need be.

However, the issue would not go away, so we have concluded that this is a “flexibility” being considered for the new contract regime. In fact, WorkChoices restricted the conditions of the current Agreement to allow this already.  So, while almost all of you have continuing/tenured status as staff but limited terms as Dean/Head (an arrangement which we support), there may already be a few on contracts with no tenure as staff.

The NTEU does not object to staff earning higher salaries on merit or expertise, but it will not countenance the idea that an appointee need not be good enough for tenure/permanency in a relevant discipline/area.

How can someone be better than good enough and not good enough at the same time?

In taking this stance, we have in mind the fact that some of you are our members, and also the appalling prospects that 

 (a) you or your successor, being so vulnerable, would be in an impossible position to argue against proposals which damage your area of responsibility, or

 (b) your successor may have no expertise or interest in that area and act accordingly.

We can see essentially three models:

  #1 [Gold-plated model] Senior management has enough confidence in the appointee’s abilities to assume that the likelihood of disciplinary action or worse is negligible.  The appointee is offered increased salary or allowances while being permitted to retain tenure/permanency and stay on the Collective Agreement to enjoy its protections from unfair dismissal. [Note: salaries and benefits in Collective Agreements are minimum conditions - unless expressly forbidden, bonuses are allowed.]

#2 [Standard model] Senior management wants to attract a potential high flyer by offering enhanced salary/allowances as a permanent staff member but, in case it doesn’t work, the appointee is made contractually vulnerable to termination as Dean/Head.

#3 [WorkChoices model] The appointee can be dismissed from both their staff position and Dean/Head-ship without any protection from the Collective Agreement.  Saying “no” as Head/Dean on any issue will not be an option.  Those refusing to go on contract cannot expect increased salary/benefits or re-appointment.

The NTEU is prepared to consider having a special clause in the Agreement if we have to reach a compromise in this matter (nothing like #3).  We seek your advice on whether such a compromise should be considered, and what its nature and extent may be.

All communications will remain confidential to the NTEU negotiating team (Rod Crewther, Peter Gill, Gloria Sumner, and our industrial officers Cheryl Baldwin and Annie Buchecker), or to whoever you specify.

Yours collegially,

Rod Crewther

President

NTEU Branch, University of Adelaide