Grant Wheeler
7 August 2013
Dr Michael Spence
Vice Chancellor and Principal
University of Sydney
Dear Dr. Spence,
This response to your letter dated 26 June 2013, and to the current University position on enterprise bargaining as the CPSU understands it, is based upon the notion of trust and the obvious role trust plays in building a co-operative approach to the universitiy’s future.
On May 8 2012, in preparation for the enterprise bargaining process, the University conducted a staff consultation session at the Sydney Law School which I attended. In the context of the 2012 Budget Strategy Change Proposal, the concept of trust became an overwhelming theme within this session.
After some discussion it was acknowledged by the University that it was currently a “time of low trust” at the University.
Flowing from this, the rhetorical question was then asked of the session attendees – “How might the University rebuild trust?”
Since this time the CPSU has not recognised any significant attempt by University of Sydney Administration to rebuild trust with its staff – indeed the behaviour we have subsequently seen appears to have further undermined this trust, and this must have consequences regarding the ability of the University community to move forward on a co-operative and constructive basis.
To the CPSU the University’s commitment to rebuilding trust with its staff was called into question almost immediately in terms of the unwillingness of the University to open the Bargaining process after the nominal expiration of the current Agreement in May 2012.
When the University eventually came to the bargaining table in September both the CPSU and the NTEU made a genuine attempt to progress bargaining. However over this period the University refused to enter into specific and constructive dialogue regarding Union claims, and tabled only a single clause, a change management clause which was very clearly at odds with staff expectations. This behaviour severely restricted opportunities to make progress.
Only in December, after the Unions threatened a walk-out, did the University bring something solid to the bargaining table, and the draft Agreement that was delivered represented an unprecedented – and to many staff, unnecessary attack on staff conditions.
In short, in a period of acknowledged low trust, the consequences of this document should have been obvious to University Management.
This of course has recently been emphasised by the initial findings of the Voice Project survey in which senior management of the University have not been seen as good role models, in which staff have overwhelmingly concluded that University Management does not listen to them, and in which staff have strongly noted that University Management does not learn from its errors.
In your correspondence with the CPSU dated 26 June 2013, you write “our offer provides many new benefits for staff.”
It is entirely clear to our members – and to most staff of the University – that without a lengthy, disruptive and unwanted campaign of industrial action over close to 6 months, and involving much personal staff sacrifice, the University “offer” in terms of staff conditions would be vastly different to its current state.
Again, the consequences of this should be very clear to the University in terms of its effect on the chances of a co-operative trust-based approach to the University’s future.
Recently requests from the Unions for further clarifying information regarding the financial position of the University have been met with refusals, largely on the basis that this information is publically available. However this public information is often quite general in nature.
For instance, there is deep concern amongst our members that some budget related statements may involve double counting. Both research and philanthropic funds are used in part for the employment of staff involved in the respective projects the monies are tied to. Members are concerned that the staffing proportion of this quarantined funding is also being counted against staff benefits costs to the University, and so is, effectively, being double counted.
In short, where there is uncertainty regarding publically available financial information and its relationship to University claims, University Management is asking its staff to trust their claims. However the actions of University Management in recent years have rendered this very difficult.
With regard to the University’s salary offer, our members have recognised that the 4 increments of 2.9% are offered over 5 years, as the final instalment comes after the nominal expiration date of the proposed Agreement, and can be taken as intended to cover a 12 month period, consistent with the other increments within the proposal, and consistent with the length of time the current negotiating process has taken.
This would lock us into what many staff see as a fundamentally sub-standard pay offer beyond the active life of the proposed Agreement and irrespective of any improvement in the University position over the life of the Agreement (due for instance to the potential effects of the falling Australian dollar on international student enrolments, very relevant to one of the University’s main public claims regarding its financial situation).
CPSU members recognise that the 4 increments of 2.9% across five years equates to 2.32% per annum over the life of the Agreement, and this is in fact the University’s real pay offer – below the Sydney CPI, as reported by the University, by 0.5%.
CPSU members have made it extremely clear to us that the period of 13 months of real term wage losses between May 2012 and the first pay rise in the proposed Agreement is unacceptable, and particularly so given the role the University is seen to have played in retarding bargaining progress.
It is now very clear that unless the University reviews its position on both the backdating of the salary offer and the nature of the final 2.9% increment, or otherwise improves its offer in a manner felt reasonable by members, it will be very difficult to make any further progress despite the genuine desire of CPSU members to contribute to such progress. Members have told us this fully cognisant of the idea that further sacrifices, including industrial action, are likely to be necessary in support of our position.
The CPSU contends that Management at the University of Sydney has a lot of work to do to win back the trust and good will of its staff after an extremely damaging period. Listening to what the overwhelming majority of staff are reporting is the first logical step in this process.
The CPSU hopes and trusts the University will consider this over the remainder of enterprise bargaining process for the benefit of all parties.
Yours sincerely,
Grant Wheeler
