Enterprise Bargaining Meeting 10 Monday 19 th June 2017 10am 4.00pm Building EB, Boardroom (EB.2.23), Parramatta South campus In Attendance: Professor Denise Kirkpatrick, DVC & VP (Academic) (Chair) Professor Kevin Dunn, School of Social Sciences & Psychology Professor Gregory Kolt, Dean, School of Science & Health Susan Hudson, Executive Director, HR Dr David Burchell, NTEU Branch President Tamara Talmacs, NTEU Industrial Officer Dr Terri Mylett, NTEU Academic Staff Representative Rohan Giles, NTEU Professional Staff Representative Jen Mitchell, CPSU Industrial Officer Scott Pendlebury, CPSU Branch President Lorraine Fordham, CPSU Staff Representative Michael Reolan, CPSU Staff Representative Sonya O Shanna, Executive Officer, Major Projects (notes) MEETING NOTES 1. Welcome: Professor Kirkpatrick welcomed all the parties to the bargaining meeting and thanked them for attending, noting apologies from Clare Bockmann, Natasha Maiolo, Carmel Votano and Leslie Cowles. 2. Clauses for discussion: a. Application of the Agreement The University forwarded an extract of a senior staff contract to the unions in relation to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct. The redundancy clause has been changed in new senior agreements as they have specific separation provisions in relation to termination with specific provisions in relation to years of service. Old contracts currently have redundancy provisions in them. All professional staff above HEW 10 and all academic staff above level E - T, U, V (PSA) and L, M, N (ASA) wish to retain in the clause as their exceptions are covered in the individual contracts. University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 1
The Unions did not agree with the proposed changes to the clause and put forward their position to retain the redundancy provisions for HEW 10 and above which the University did not agree to. All parties agreed to not discuss sub-clause 4.3 at this stage of bargaining. All parties discussed the terminology around Senior Staff or Senior Employee and agreed a determination was needed as to which terminology was used. The University agreed to review the terminology and draft a definition in legal terms. b. Individual Flexibility Arrangements - AGREED The University s preference is to remove the list of reasons staff can apply for an IFA. The Unions want to maintain relevant and current reasons. After discussion, the bargaining parties agreed to the following changes: Maintain items B, C, E, F, G; Delete items H, I J as they no longer apply to current work practices; and Reinstatement of the lead sentence. All parties agreed in principle to this clause. c. Implementation Committee - AGREED The University proposes to roll over this clause without change. CPSU agree to roll over the clause. NTEU agree to roll over the clause. d. Dispute Settlement On 10 May the unions agreed to provide a joint clause. To date the University have not received a clause from the Unions. The University sent a revised clause to the unions 29 th May and have yet to receive a response. The revised clause included: Rewording current clause 11.5 new 1(d) in relation to normal work continuing during the dispute; and Reinstating current clause 11.11- new 1(j)- in relation to meeting at any time during the dispute to attempt to resolve the dispute. University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 2
The NTEU request that the status-quo mutual obligation sub-clause be retained which the University agreed too. The NTEU advised they would send their clause to WSU for review upon agreement with CPSU with revised wording in sub-clause 11.5 and 11.11. The University agreed to review the clause with a view to moving the right to a meeting with the supervisor sub-clause earlier in the process. e. Probation -Professional staff: The University has proposed the following: At 1.2 (b), the University has agreed to the inclusion where an employee who has already served a probationary period at the University will not be required to serve any further periods of probation which the unions agreed to in principle; At the end of 1.3 wording has been added specifying a maximum probationary period including any extension will be limited to a total of nine months; At 1.4(a) the University does not agree to the NTEU inclusion in regards to a specific probation plan as the University believe that is covered in 1.4(b); At 1.4(b)(i) the University agrees to include the reference to progress in accordance with the position description for their role; At 1.4(b)(ii) The University agrees to the inclusion of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); At 1.4(c) the Agrees to the inclusion of providing all reasonable training and support; At 1.5(a), the University has reworded the clause to reflect the delegation to terminate sits with the ED HR and will provide two weeks payment in lieu of notice; At 1.5(b) the University has agreed to CPSU s insertion in relation to the Employee being required to show cause response and the reasons on which the decision to issue a show cause letter has been made; University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 3
At 1.5(d) the University has agreed to two weeks notice or payment in lieu of notice, if the Employee is terminated in probation; and At 1.5(g) the University agrees to delete the clause stating actions are final. The NTEU propose a process where the objectives are very clear to pass probation with a set framework and used a point of review. There is a concern with the move towards generic position descriptions and the need to draft specific wording in the document that is clear for all parties. The NTEU believe mid-point reviews are important to give the employee a time frame to improve to pass probation. The University reiterated its proposal to introduce a one month review after commence to review progress with regular monthly meetings. The Unions raised concerns about the determination of termination during probation sitting with the Executive Director, HR (EDHR). The University clarified that the benefit of delegating the determination to the EDHR instead of the Employment Executive is that the responsibility sits with the head of the portfolio that reviews the documentation to make a final determination. The CPSU believes monthly meetings will not be structured enough for staff to identify if there are any issues and proposes at the mid-point of the probation period that the meeting held is a formal meeting to fully assess performance during probation. The University disagreed and believes monthly meetings puts more onus on the supervisor to follow the correct process. The Unions agreed to review the wording to specify the purpose of the monthly meetings being mini reviews to remove the perceived ambiguity in the wording of the proposed clause. f. Probation Academic Staff The University has proposed the following: 1.3(a) the word initial has been added to specify that an initial probationary period may be extended; Also in 1.3(a) specifies that a probationary period cannot be extended beyond three years; At 1.4(a) the University does not agree to the NTEU inclusion in regards to a specific probation plan as the University believe that is covered in 1.4(b); University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 4
At 1.4(b)(ii) The University agrees to the inclusion of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); At 1.4(c) the Agrees to the inclusion of providing all reasonable training and support; 1.5(a) has been amended to acknowledge that at least six months service must be completed before termination can be recommended; At 1.5(c) WSU wishes to retain 12 weeks notice on termination, as termination will not occur before six months completed service; and At 1.6 - In relation to the Probation review committee - The University agrees to reinstate a probation review committee, but believes the membership of the Committee as detailed in the revised clause should be comprised at the time a review is required. NTEU do not agree with the introduction of a minimum six months service in relation to new appointments. They believe the clause does not talk about the reasons whereby someone might be found unsatisfactory during a probation process and feel the most likely reason to recommend termination for unsatisfactory performance would be due to poor teaching which is not enough time to adequately review performance. The University disagreed as six months is at least one teaching session and the probation would apply to all levels of the academic scale, not just lower level academics. The NTEU and Western agreed to review the grounds that would constitute termination after six months of service in a new appointment. The NTEU want a mid-point review during probation to determine if academic is on par with passing probation. The NTEU sought clarification on the wording at 1.6(a) panel of chairs and suggested the University generate a list of approved chairs that can be used during a probation review committee. The University disagreed; rather they would re-instate the Probation Review Committee which would then allow the union and university to appoint an appropriate person to be on the panel. The NTEU raised concerns but agreed to review the proposal put forward by the University. The University removed reference to trained as there is no formal training offered to panel nominees. NTEU think this training is invaluable and wording should be included in the University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 5
agreement. The University agreed to review training and advise the unions its preference to constitute a panel on the needs basis. The University also agreed to review the wording in relation to how the chair was appointed based on the NTEU s feedback that there should be provisions in the clause to that affect. g. Car kilometre allowance and journeys requiring temporary residence The University maintains its position in relation to this clause. The NTEU have a claim in their log in relation to casual academic staff having to travel across numerous campuses for work. The University maintained its position that the clause only applies to ongoing and fixed-term staff and does not apply to casual staff but agreed to investigate whether the ATO has provisions that allow casual staff to claim car kilometre allowance through their tax returns. h. Hours of work - AGREED The University agrees to roll this clause over with one amendment at 1.19(b) as requested by the NTEU; the inclusion of a period of minimum engagement of three hours for Saturday work. NTEU agree in principle CPSU agree in principle i. Flexible Work Provisions The University proposes to retain clause without change (roll-over) The Unions will provide a response. j. Professional staff workloads As per advice at the 24 May meeting, changes have been made to reflect that a work team can request a workload review and a determination must be made to the ED HR if one is requested. The University maintains its position that it will not agree to a team workload review panel. The University maintains its preference to not articular twice yearly team meetings; these meetings should be held as issues arise. The CPSU outlined their draft clause which captured WHS principles which they believe should be included in the clause. The University did not agree with the inclusion of risk assessments in the clause as this clause is more about operational practices. University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 6
There was no agreement in relation to sub-clause 2.1 which NTEU raised was an important issue for its members. The unions agreed to send a revised joint draft clause. The university agreed to review 1.6 and 1.9 (c) of the individual draft clauses put forward by the unions. k. Career planning and development (Professional) The University maintains its position on the removal of the $4.2 million spending figure, and HEW 6 as a point of reference for internal recruitment in the first instance. The Unions disagreed with removing the target as it shows a commitment from the university to dedicate funds to professional staff development especially in the current climate of funding cuts and savings measures across the university. The CPSU raised issue that in units with budget stress professional staff are not getting the same training opportunities and believes a central unit allows for equity and training for all staff. The University disagreed as the clause already gives staff the opportunity to raise the issue where training is not provided. The NTEU put forward a suggestion of including a percentage of the university budget rather than a monetary figure which ties in with their claim for a professional development target in the ACDPR clause. The Unions also maintained their position with extending the internal only recruitment to HEW 8 which they see as real career opportunities for lower and mid-level HEW staff. The University disagreed as it unnecessarily extends the recruitment process and puts pressure on existing staff in the work unit where the vacancy exists. The University agreed to review the wording in relation to the commitment to professional development and the EDHR agreed to discuss the breakdown of professional development opportunities available to professional staff with the unions. l. Position classification and broadbanding In line with comments from the 7 June meeting, the Principles have been amended to reflect the descriptors in the schedule as well as recognising the University s job evaluation methodology which will be utilised. The University also confirmed the methodology will not change for the life of the agreement and as such 1.1(d) has been reinserted. The University also removed reference to accredited methodology rather staff are accredited in the use of the methodology. University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 7
The University also proposed further revisions based on feedback from the unions: 1.5 has been revised by reinserting that an application for reclassification will occur at an agreed time, and where possible within four weeks of the duties being undertaken by the Employee; 1.11 remains unchanged additional wording has been added to ensure that an employee is not undertaking additional work for any indefinite period of time; and 1.21 the final decision clause has been removed as per feedback from the unions. The Unions did not provide comment during the meeting but agreed to review the updated clause and provide feedback in due time. The University reiterated it is seeking to articulate in the agreement that the methodology is part of the classification of each position description based on prior agreement from the unions; NTEU advised it does not agree with this proposal or the lack of reference to the Hay Methodology being named in the agreement. The University maintained its position to not name the Hay Methodology; rather enshrining in the agreement that the substance of the methodology will not change for the life of the agreement. CPSU expressed concerns about staff having to undertake duties outside their PD and the need to articulate it in the agreement. CPSU agreed to provide alternate wording for sub-clause 1.5. i. Broadbanding The University proposes to delete the broadbanding sub-clause and all staff currently in broadbanded positions will be grandfathered for the period of time the current occupants remain in the position. Current occupants will continue to be able to make submissions to progress to the higher HEW level as per the current Agreement. A transition clause has been provided for union feedback. Sub-clauses 1.24 1.27 are transition arrangements for current broadbanded positions. The Unions agreed to provide additional working in relation to the proposed broadbandin clause with the CPSU expressing concern about fixed-term broadband positions and the complexities of the conversion process. m. Higher Duties University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 8
The University has provided a revised clause including the amendment to 1.11 removing the word allowance and merging 1.11 and 1.12. CPSU agree in principle NTEU to provide a written response. n. Right to request flexible working provisions -AGREED At 1(b) the University agrees to restore the circumstances on which flexible work arrangement can be made maintains its position of deleting the list of At 1(C) the University maintains its position in relation to leaving the definition of Immediate Family in the clause. Unions agree At 1.1(h) the University agrees to reinsert the examples relating to refusal but agrees to retain the introductory sentence relating to reasonable business grounds. NTEU agree in principle CPSU agree in principle o. Long Service Leave There was detailed discussion between the unions and the University in relation to long service leave. The University wishes to advice there have been no instances of any staff seeking to bring over 90 days or more from a previous employer and wishes to maintain its position to cap porting of accrued long service leave to 90 days as it is seeking to minimise future expenses that don t impact current staff. The Unions did not agree with this proposal. The University has aligned the terminology in relation to being eligible for sick leave whilst on Long Service Leave to align and this proposal was agreed by the unions. The University maintains its position to not recognise accrued long service leave from the public service given it is not reciprocated by the NSW public sector. The University wishes to retain the right to direct employees to take long service leave which is currently in the Agreement which the unions objected to. University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 9
p. Personal Leave The University maintains its position in relation to cultural leave and does not accept the proposed change to community leave. The CPSU committed to consider alternate wording to progress resolution of this clause. q. Parental Leave The University has updated the phased Return to Work from 30 to 40 weeks. r. Domestic/Family violence support leave The University has considered the NTEU draft clause and maintains its position as first proposed. s. WHS and First Aid The University proposes a rollover of this clause and does not agree to include reference to WHS committee structures in the clause as this is covered by WHS legislation and the University adheres to those legislative requirements. At the meeting of 7 June 2017, NTEU advised they would circulate an additional subclause. As yet this has not been received. t. Notice of resignation and termination of employment Notice of Resignation and Termination (45 ASA and 51 PSA) and Fixed Term Employees Termination Notice (clause 47 ASA and 53 PSA) have been merged. As a compromise the University would offer two weeks notice for sessional academic casuals and one weeks notice for all other academic casuals. We note that the CPSU and NTEU have agreed in principle. u. Union Representation The University is open to discussion on this. v. Pay and Career Equity The University awaits union proposal on University committee s specification for reporting on. w. Dignity and Respect at Work University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 10
The definition of bullying included in the Agreement reflects the definition in the Fair Work Act. x. Intellectual Property WSU propose to rollover this clause to which the CPSU agree. NTEU are to provide feedback. y. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander The University is waiting feedback from Unions. 3. The following clause have been flagged as unresolved and require further discussion: a. Conversion Fixed Term and Casuals b. Organisational Change c. Redeployment and Redundancy d. Job security and Outsourcing e. Managing ill health and injury f. Unsatisfactory performance g. Misconduct/Serious Misconduct 4. Next meeting Wednesday 5 th July 2017 EB.2.23 (Boardroom) University notes of bargaining meeting of 19 June 2017 11