EB Academic Staff EB Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE BARGAINING GROUP 9:00AM - 5:00PM, THURSDAY 5 MAY 2000 CONFERENCE ROOM, TC LAMBLE BUILDING Present: Graeme Dennehy, Executive Director, Business &Administration Mary Notestine, NTEU Representative Alan Cumming, PVC (Academic) Alison Sheridan, NTEU Representative Sue Johnston, Director, TLC Jenny McParlane, NTEU Representative Chris Serow, Manager, IR & WC Steven Thiele, NTEU Representative Chris Burrell, IR Officer and Academic EB Secretary Meeting opened at 9:10 pm Jenny McParlane took the role of chair. ITEM 1: APOLOGIES Rod Gerber, Dean FEHPS Adrian Ryan, NTEU (late arrival of aircraft) Mary Notestine, needs to leave early Graeme Dennehy, needs to leave at 11:30. ITEM 2: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS OF 29 MARCH, 5 APRIL, 27 APRIL A brief discussion between the parties was held on the change in format of the minutes. The parties agreed that all minutes should be recorded to provide an overview of the general discussion and that verbatim minutes would not be taken. The NTEU raised a number of concerns with the content of the minutes of the 29 March and 5 April and also requested that the minutes of the 27 April be redrafted in the appropriate format. The parties agreed that that minutes of the 29 March, 5 and 27 April would be amended on advice from the NTEU and that all three sets of minutes would be forwarded to members of the EB teams for approval at the next scheduled academic EB meeting. ITEM 3: UNE MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION The chair of the University negotiating team advised that the meeting of the 5 May was cancelled because many of the EB team members were away and that the University was still finalising its next proposal, and as agreed in the meeting of the 27 April, no further meeting would take place until the University had the relevant documents ready. On item 3, the University requested that the matters listed on the agenda be dealt with as one item as all the matters relate to finances and the University would like for the parties to look at these matters in the overall perspective of the University's finances. On behalf of the University, the Executive Director tabled a number of documents on the agenda items. The Executive Director spoke to the tabled documents and addressed matters such as the University's capacity to pay, cash flow and tied funding, minor works and legal requirements under OHS and environmental legislation, its budgeting priorities, the impact of the proposed salary increases as shown in the schedules, and the issue of contingency targets. The NTEU sought clarification on whether the Executive Director had received the further response from the NTEU. The University advised that it had received the document and a response would be forthcoming as soon as possible. The NTEU raised a number of questions relating to the energy program and the payment of the energy program loan and the University's budgeting priorities and its focus on physical assets over its intellectual assets. The University responded to the questions raised by the NTEU and also advised that any salary increases higher that those proposed would require the University to cut deep into the fabric of the University and if major cuts in programmes are to occur then such proposals will have to go to the UNE Council Finance Committee and Council itself. The University also advised that many matters had already been placed before the Finance Committee to consider and that the Finance Committee rejected many of the proposals. In relation to the salary impact schedules, the NTEU questioned over the redundancy figures and how they were calculated and whether they were based on the current profile. The NTEU requested information on the level of voluntary retirements or redundancy, how many academic and general staff have agreed to voluntarily go and when. The University advised that a standardised formula was used to calculate the redundancies figures. The University also agree to provide the information on voluntary redundancies to the NTEU at the next meeting. In relation to the contingency targets and the additional 3% increase, the University stressed how important it was for the University to create opportunities for the increase in non-government revenue (such as funds from international students, full-paying students etc) as the University can not afford to continue to cut into its operations. NTEU expressed concern over the basis on which the targets where being set and raised the concern that members did not believe the targets could be achieved and that members did not feel they had any real input into helping the University achieve those targets. The University questioned the NTEU on what sort of additional goals or targets may be appropriate and whether the University should look at items such as research income, consultancy, graduate satisfaction, etc. The NTEU advised that looking at such a document may be helpful. The NTEU advised that their members are suggesting that the way things are presented they do not feel they have control. The University commented that it may be appropriate to look at combining all the faculty and university plans to help with this proposal. The NTEU advised that members will only accept contingency components if the base is acceptable. ITEM 4: NTEU MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION 4.1 Review of matters previously discussed in EB The NTEU reported on a motion from the members at the mall during the recent industrial action. The NTEU advised that members where not prepared to revisit any of the matters substantially negotiated before the meeting of the April 27, however, this view may change depending on what comes back from the University. The NTEU also advised that the members passed a motion endorsing the members of current bargaining team to represent the NTEU and membership. ITEM 5: OTHER BUSINESS The University advised that a new proposal would be forthcoming and that discussions between the VC, Deans and Directors was occurring. The NTEU sought a point of clarification in which it was noted on UNE official that the University will be modelling where a 2% administrative increase from 1 July would come from. University advised that no instructions on this matter had been given so unable to comment. The University pointed out to the NTEU their concern that an email had been circulated by the NTEU directing members to a press article relating to how managers might be taught how to lie during bargaining. The University pointed out that such direction by the NTEU did little to increase trust during the bargaining period. The University also pointed out to the NTEU that the University felt that it was incorrect to allege that the University of New England paid staff less than other institutions and that as a result of that the quality of programs was suffering. Further, the University pointed out that it had evidence that these claims were being made by members of the NTEU. The NTEU agreed that this was an unfortunate development and advised that they will try to ensure that matters are not being misrepresented. The parties agreed to the following dates for future Academic EB meetings: · June 1, 9am - 12pm. · 5 June, 2:00pm - 5:00pm ITEM 6: SUMMARY OF MEETING 1. University provided an overview and clarification of the financial information provided to the NTEU from the University. Issues discussed included the University's response to NTEU discussion paper, schedules which showed the impact on the University of salary increases, and the contingent targets. 2. NTEU advised the University of two motions passed by the members at a meeting in town. The first motion stated that the NTEU did not wish to review any of the matters already discussed prior to the meeting of 27 April unless another package is provided to the NTEU which will then be placed before the membership for consideration. The second motion reaffirmed and authorised those current members of the NTEU EB team as the NTEU bargaining team. 3. The University will be providing an alternative proposal for consideration of the NTEU membership and future meetings were set for 1 and 5 June for further negotiation.

Maintained by Industrial Relations & Workplace Change. © 1999 University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351. Last revised: 9 October 2000 Email:rwood@metz.une.edu.au