Open letter to Catholic School Principals from IEU
Dear Principal,
Re: Enterprise Agreement Negotiation Progress
I write to you in your role as the local site employer and as a participant in the consultative (for diocesan schools) or deliberative (for congregational schools) processes which determine the employers’ collective position at the negotiating table.
You would be well aware that negotiations for the new agreement have been under way for more than a year. The IEU commissioned Dr Tony Daly to conduct a survey of members’ workplace issues in 2014. The 2015 report can be accessed at
This report and general member feedback over time have clearly indicated that the intensification of teacher workload is the main industrial issue in our schools. This issue is not new – it has formed part of claims in previous EA negotiations as well. When attempting to codify something as nebulous as “intensification” in an agreement clause, one must look to aspects of workload that are already quantified or otherwise identify and quantify the aspect of workload responsible for the intensification. The IEU claim for Student Contact Time to be reduced by 1.5 hours per week to align with DECD workloads is a proxy for workload. The IEU has put to the employers that reductions in some other combination of codified workload elements may be more acceptable, but a reduction of 3 minutes per day followed by and extra 2 minutes per day (clawed back from any early closure at term end) was readily dismissed as not providing any real relief.
The IEU recognises that workload conditions and workplace cultures differ from school to school and that in some places measures have been introduced to ameliorate some of the impact of workload intensification. The Enterprise Agreement however is to cover all SA Catholic schools and members taking action at any one school are taking action in the quest for better outcomes for the whole sector. Site by site actions should not necessarily be taken personally.
Without detracting from other claims and issues at the table, the teacher workload issue has become a major sticking point and with the current unwillingness of the employer negotiators to think outside the square and entertain combinations of other workload elements, we are doomed to deadlock. IEU members have initiated an escalating campaign of industrial action on a school by school basis to let their employers know that the issues at the table are ones that are widely felt and deeply felt. 34 schools have voted for industrial action and another 13 are about to be balloted. A rally was held at the CEO on 16 June to present a petition with over 1400 signatures calling on employers to meaningfully address workload, continue AST and commit to back pay to October 2015. In the absence of any new approach, we are destined to proceed with escalating site by site actions and a larger rally in September.
On Friday 1 July, the IEU’s application for bargaining orders against the employers was heard. The IEU’s application was not determined either way as the Commissioner put to the parties the possibility of utilising the services of the Commission to facilitate the negotiations if we had reached an impasse. Both parties would need to agree to allow the dispute to be managed by the Fair Work Commission, but no outcomes would be ordered without the agreement of both parties. There are two options available. Either the traditional conciliation model or the “new approaches” interest-based bargaining which is explored at https://www.fwc.gov.au/creating-fair-workplaces/new-approaches
IEU members have recognised this as a sensible way forward and have overwhelmingly approved accepting Commission assistance. They would agree to suspend industrial action for the duration of the facilitated negotiation. In Queensland the IEU and the Catholic employers used the “new approaches” bargaining option and resolved their long running bargaining impasse.
It is extremely disappointing that the employer refuses to use the independent umpire to bring its vast experience in handling intractable disputes into play. We are at a loss to understand why CESA would not be willing to give this a try apart from the fear that they will need to modify their position. With the employers’ refusal of the Commission’s offer of assistance, IEU members are left with no option but to maintain the escalating action and the current negotiations. Should the employers be minded to review their opposition to this approach, the IEU remains receptive to employing a Commission-assisted approach.
If you are an IEU member in the Principals’ and Deputies’ Branch and wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to make contact.
Regards,
Glen
