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

On Tuesday 19 January 2010 NTEU representatives had a full day EB meeting with University representatives, which was conducted in a generally positive and constructive manner.

While progress was made in resolving some outstanding clauses there are still a significant number of matters that are not close to resolution. A brief summary of the topics discussed follows: 

Senior Staff Contracts

The management proposal to extend Senior Staff Contracts down to Heads of Schools and Branch Heads was extensively discussed and remains an area of significant disagreement, though the discussion did clarify the respective points of difference between each side, notably the philosophical and industrial issues as to whether Heads of School are simply line managers.

Disputes/Reviews and Staff Complaints

There was a useful combined discussion on Disputes/Reviews and Staff Complaints and there is now agreement in principle (subject to drafting) to retain Review Committees separately for matters such as promotion/reclassification, unsatisfactory performance/misconduct, staff complaints, redundancy and redeployment.  The disputes clause requires further negotiation.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Employment

After considerable discussion we appear to be closer to agreement on a strategy for increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment and on the establishment of a representative monitoring committee.

PDR

A considerable amount of time was spent on this topic as the NTEU is strongly opposed to linking PDR with unsatisfactory performance. Considerable progress was made and our respective positions were clarified. We believe we are close to agreement about removing management’s proposed link between PDR and unsatisfactory performance.  The NTEU is to propose a definition of what constitutes unsatisfactory performance.

The drafting group will continue to work on detailed clauses and we have proposed a further full day bargaining meeting near the end of February 2010.