What the Branch President got wrong in his newsletter of 2 June
New Protections for Education Focused Academics: What the Branch President got wrong in his newsletter of 2 June.
A matter of concern to all members of the Bargaining Team has been provisions concerning Education Focused Academics. Extensive attention has been devoted to pursuing new protections and rights for this group of members. Indeed, the last phase of bargaining dealt almost exclusively with this issue.
The newsletter circulated by the Branch President on 2 June included exceptionally misleading information about the matter, effectively misrepresenting what happened, what was agreed to and why.
Below there is an extract from the President’s newsletter – supplemented with annotations that point out the most serious misrepresentations – misrepresentations arising from omission of relevant facts.
In the interests of providing a more balanced picture of what happened in the bargaining over Education Focused Academics and the positions finally arrived at, the following information is provided.
Context: the rise of education focused roles and the transformation of academic work over two decades
The challenges concerning Education Focused academics (EFAs) have been decades in the making. They are part of the wider transformation of academic work reported on by the Union in the Bargaining Team Briefing Paper on the topic release in March last year.
In a nutshell, since 2000 the proportion of academics with a ‘balanced’ workload of 40/40/20 has dropped from constituting just under 70% of the academic workforce to around 45% today.
This decline has arisen from two sources: the rise of teaching-only academics and research-only academics. Both now make up about 25% of our academic workforce.
Approximately 80% of our teaching-only academics are casuals. Along with addressing work intensification, decasualisation was one of the top priorities pursued through this round of enterprise bargaining, and we made major gains in this area.
Decasualisation, work intensification and the attack on 40/40/20 in the current bargaining round
While the NTEU pursued issues of job quality, University management pursued an aggressive agenda to strip teaching and research academics of their right to effectively veto to any unwanted change in the balance of their activities.
To be blunt: management wanted the right to increase teaching workloads for 40/40/20 unilaterally.
While resisting this the Bargaining Team expended considerable resources on simultaneously pursuing decasualisation based on reducing the reliance on casual teaching labour and creating 330 new continuing academic jobs. Management eventually agreed to this growth and two-thirds of these positions were agreed to be Education Focused and one third Teaching and Research (ie balanced roles).
This marked a significant increase in continuing Education Focused roles. The union also pursued initiatives designed to better control workloads for all staff, most of which were successful.
In November last year management introduced into negotiations its desire to have the capacity to have up to 30% of continuing and contract academic teaching workforce engaged on as Education Focused roles.
The conduct of the most recent phase of campaigning and bargaining
Management persisted with the attacks on 40/40/20 into the early months of 2023. Combined with a provocatively low-ball pay offer in February, large numbers of members (more than 700) resolved to take strike action in March and April.
The initial one-day strike marked an escalation in the campaign. After this upsurge management backed off on 40/40/20 and raised their pay offer. From that point on membership support for continued action declined. It is generally recognised the two-day strike in April did not represent a much hoped for escalation in the campaign – at best it matched the earlier one-day stoppage. Many thought it marked a reduced level of action.
Unsurprisingly the large mass meeting on 18 April registered this reality and resolved to end the industrial campaign and reach agreement with management, subject to improvements in two areas: population parity of employment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff at the University by the end of the next agreement and new protections for Education Focused academics.
On 19 April (ie the day after the mass meeting), management agreed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment parity target. Bargaining over the Education Focused academic roles was more protracted.
Throughout these negotiations the Bargaining Team has had a united position. On all matters the outcomes achieved have met or exceed what was noted in the motion of 18 April. The situation is now as follows:
(a) New joint union-management mechanism to oversee the growth and development of EFAs
The committee to oversee the growth in Education Focused Academics will be constituted of equal numbers of union and management representatives. It will be linked to the existing Joint Consultative Committee and supported by new powers granted to the Central Workload Committee.
The motion of 18 April referred to annual data and a report at the end of the next EBA. The entire bargaining team believed it was better to: (a) get quarterly data on the situation of EFAs and on that basis (b) have the Union produce its own reports.
We produced our own report about the problem of casualisation and occupational reconstruction in March/April 2022. It was felt this was a better model than losing time trying to devise some nebulous ‘agreed’ report with management.
(b) New protections against excessive hours in any one week, including a specified maximum weekly hours of work clause
The Bargaining Team spent quite some time trying to figure out what weekly hour figures should be the basis for such a standard. It was agreed by the entire Bargaining Team that devising such a number was difficult and required considerable consultation with members. Setting the figure too low (eg 42 hours per week) could be unpopular with members who, at key stages of the year, want to work longer to bank time to get work done and then use that time for their own purposes later.
A higher cap of 48 hours, for example, ran the risk of this then becoming an accepted upper limit for everyone – which was something no one supported.
To get around the issue the Union inserted a figure of ‘x hours’ as a basis for negotiation. The Bargaining Team also supported a management suggestion that a new provision prohibiting weekly ‘excessive hours’ and obliging work-scheduling to not be ‘unreasonable’ be included to address this issue. These are not weasel words. They come from the Reasonable Hours Test run over 20 years ago in the Industrial Relations Commission. The power of these words is now being established through a growing number of labour law cases on this topic. The way forward here is to use these new rights and work with members to devise a standard in this complex area that is (a) likely to be effective and (b) enjoys widespread member support. It is not up to the Bargaining Team to pluck a number out of the air and assume this is the best way for achieving these objectives.
(c) New protections for new Level A, B and C Education Focused Academics.
We have now reached agreement that newly appointed Level A and B Education Focused Academics will enjoy a 10 percentage point reduction in their workloads for the first two years of their engagement. Level C EFAs who have not worked in such roles will enjoy the same rights. There is a right to apply to extend this on reasonable grounds for a third year for all levels of EFAs – and that such requests cannot be unreasonably refused. This provision was supported by all members of the Bargaining Team.
Conclusion
All members of the Bargaining Team have devoted considerable attention to matters associated with the transformation of academic work, including that concerning Education Focused roles. All want to see better protections for them. The reality is that our campaign of strikes was declining – not escalating. After voting for action many members failed to follow through in March and April. And on 18 April members voted to end the industrial campaign.
As a result of our efforts USyd Education Focused Academics now enjoy the best protections in the country. Most importantly the agreement sets up new industrial rights, rights to information and new monitoring mechanisms to keep pursuing this matter. This provides a strong foundation to make further advances on this issue in the next round of bargaining. No one is ‘selling out’ Education Focused Academics. As a Union we’ve reached a deal with extensive improvements – and done so in circumstance where the opportunities for further advance were limited by our capacity to continue effective industrial action.
Facts omitted in the June 2 newsletter - Download the pdf version of this here.
The Branch President fails completely to note most of the outcomes were in fact often the outcome of suggestions put by an entirely united NTEU bargaining team.
What the Branch President failed to report:
1. The Committee to oversee the growth in Ed Focused Academics will be constituted of equal numbers of union and management representatives.
2. The entire bargaining team believed it was better to: (a) get quarterly data and on that basis (b) have the Union produce its own reports – avoiding the need to lose extensive time trying to reach agreement with management on what should be straightforward, technical matters.
What the Branch President failed to report:
It was agreed by the entire Bargaining Team that devising such a number was difficult and required considerable consultation with members. To address this challenge the Union inserted a figure ‘x’ as a basis for negotiation. The Bargaining Team also supported a management suggestion that a new provision prohibiting weekly ‘excessive hours’ and obliging work-scheduling to not be ‘unreasonable’ be included. These concepts come from the Reasonable Hours Test run over 20 years ago. The way forward here is to use these new rights and work with members to devise a standard in this complex area that is (a) likely to be effective and (b) enjoys widespread member support. It is not up to the Bargaining Team to pluck a number out of the air and assume this is the best way for achieving these objectives.
What the Branch President failed to report:
This was accepted by the entire Bargaining Team.
What the Branch President failed to report:
There is a right to apply to extend this on reasonable grounds for a third year – and that such requests cannot be unreasonably refused.
Why vote yes for this EBA agreement? Find out here.
