Latest news

Catholic Education employers have written directly to staff claiming that the IEU is preventing the resolution of the agreement by withholding voting and thus delaying salary increases, back pay and a cost-of-living payment.

That version of events leaves out some important facts.

Catholic Employers have applied to the FWC to go to vote

The employers are now asking the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to permit a vote before agreement has been reached with the bargaining representatives.

Employees should have the final say on their enterprise agreement, but only after all possible avenues for reaching the best agreement have been exhausted. We say that one of those important aspects is Protected Industrial Action. We have only just started to ramp up this action and the attempt by the employers to go to a vote is a clear strategy to limit this action.

Going to vote now would lead to the real possibility of some, perhaps many, employees voting down the agreement. This would lead to a radical change which has not happened previously, where some employing authorities are not part of the ‘main’ Catholic agreement and need to bargain separately. That is not likely to be in anyone’s interest, least of all employers, who might find that they need to go into separate negotiations for the first time and ultimately agree to conditions that are superior to others. Those that are left out then have inferior conditions and pay and will likely suffer from further attraction and retention problems.

Staff should not be pressured into voting because the employers have made back pay and a one-off payment conditional on approval of their preferred agreement.

Statements such as ‘this is our best and final offer’ from the employer should be seen for what they are: a tactic to try to get members to fold and members and non-members to think that the employer can’t do more. We know that industrial action often leads to better offers. There have also been statements from senior Catholic Education South Australia (CESA) staff that a ‘No Vote’ would have them reassess the offer – clearly indicating that a better offer is possible.

The current offer, which hasn’t changed since June 2026 still does not address the most important aspects that you have wanted resolved from the start – pay and workload.

The salary offer is not parity with the Department

The employers say they will match the percentage increases paid to South Australian Department for Education (Department) employees in 2025 and 2026.

Matching percentage increases is not salary parity.

Applying the same percentage increase to two different salaries simply maintains the existing relativity. It does not close the gap.

Where Catholic employees start behind comparable Department employees, matching percentage increases leaves them behind and may increase the gap in dollar terms.

The different outcomes are particularly clear for Education Support Officers (ESOs):

• a top-step Catholic teacher would receive approximately $123,234, compared with $123,236 in the Department, a difference of $2; but
• a Catholic ESO at Grade 3 would receive approximately $83,222, compared with $92,870 in the Department, a gap of $9,648.

The proposal does not deliver salary parity across the Catholic education workforce.

The employers also claim Catholic school employees would receive “greater overall salary-related benefits” than their Department counterparts.

They have not published the calculations needed to substantiate that broad claim across all classifications and circumstances.

A one-off payment is not a salary increase

The proposed $2,200 cost-of-living payment is a one-off and conditional payment.

It does not increase:

• an employee’s ongoing salary;
• the base upon which future percentage increases are calculated;
• employer superannuation contributions; or
• payments associated with leave and other salary-based entitlements.

It should not be presented as a substitute for adequate, ongoing salary increases.

The payment and back pay are conditional because the employers have chosen to make them conditional. The employers could pay an unconditional cost-of-living payment or provide salary increases now.

Employees should not have their own back pay held over them as an inducement to accept an agreement.

The proposal does not match Department conditions

The employers’ offer does not provide parity with the Department working conditions.

Instead, the employer highlights selected improvements without clearly identifying that many are lesser than Department conditions, lesser than best practice or delayed for several years.

It is the Enterprise Agreement equivalent of ordering Department conditions from Temu: advertised as comparable, but when the package arrives, it is smaller, cheaper and missing important parts.

“Meaningful” teacher workload improvements: eventually

The employers describe their teacher workload proposals as “meaningful improvements”.

The details tell a different story:

• maximum student contact time would reduce by only 30 minutes per week in 2027;
• a further 30-minute reduction would be delayed until 2028;
• non-contact time would be provided in minimum 30-minute blocks only “where operationally possible”;
• early-career teacher workload support would apply only during the first 12 months of employment, rather than the first two years sought by the IEU;
• the Year 2 class-size benchmark would not reduce to 27 until 2028; and
• the Reception and Year 1 benchmark of 24 would not commence until 2030.

Teachers experiencing excessive workloads now should not have to wait until 2028 or 2030 for limited relief.

Important matters concerning practical classes, class size and complexity, relief lessons, attendance requirements and Curriculum Extension Activities also remain unresolved.

A three-hour minimum with a long list of exceptions

The employers promote an increase in the ESO minimum engagement from two hours to three hours.

They then propose exceptions for:

• Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) employees;
• bus drivers;
• employees attending to animals in agricultural settings;
• playgroup support employees;
• some boarding-house employees; and
• employees supporting homework clubs.

That is not a genuine three-hour minimum engagement.

The IEU’s claim recognises that employees should not be required to travel to work for an insecure two-hour engagement merely because the employer considers it “operationally appropriate”.

Improvements secured through bargaining

The removal of junior rates and Grade 1A, an increased personal-care allowance and improvements to parental, partner and foster-carer leave are positive proposals.

They did not appear out of nowhere. They are the result of employees organising collectively and the IEU pursuing improvements throughout bargaining.

Even these proposals contain significant limitations:

• the IEU proposed changes to Grade 1 A to counter the underpayment of wages.
• the personal-care allowance would be increased to $1,000 but would not be indexed;
• paid parental and adoption leave would increase to 16 weeks, rather than the 21 weeks sought by the IEU;
• foster-carer leave would provide 8 weeks for the long-term placement of a child under five, rather than the IEU claim of 21weeks; and
• special paid leave would be capped, non-cumulative and pro rata for part-time employees.

Employees deserve to know what is being offered, what conditions apply and what the employers have rejected.

Who is responsible for the delay?

Bargaining commenced in October 2024.

The employers now describe further bargaining as unnecessary delay, yet many of the improvements they promote emerged only after extensive negotiations, employee campaigning, limited protected industrial action and Fair Work Commission proceedings.

Employees should ask why it took the employers so long to make these proposals and why important matters remain unresolved nearly two years after bargaining commenced.

The employers can resolve this dispute by returning to genuine bargaining, improving their position on the outstanding issues and demonstrating the leadership needed to secure a fair agreement. Instead, they are attempting to blame the IEU — not look at their own actions and intentions, which stifles getting the deal done.

They should not manufacture urgency and then blame the IEU for refusing to accept an inadequate proposal.

Employees deserve an informed choice

The issue is not whether employees should vote. They should.

The real issue is whether employees should be pressured to vote before bargaining has properly concluded, with back pay and a one-off payment being used as leverage.

The IEU will continue to bargain for:

• fair salary outcomes for teachers and ESOs;
• genuine, not nominal, salary parity;
• workload protections comparable with or better than the Department;
• earlier and stronger class-size protections;
• a genuine three-hour minimum engagement;
• an enterprise agreement that clearly and effectively protects employees’ conditions.

Catholic school employees have waited a long time for a fair enterprise agreement.

They should not now be asked to accept discount salaries and conditions dressed up as parity.

The same percentage increase does not mean the same salary. Selected improvements do not mean equivalent conditions.

Members want this EA to cross the finish line. The finish line is in sight. It’s time for employers to make the improvements needed to get it there.

^{22 September 2026}