In the Griffith Ballot:
Professional staff should vote NO
rejected staff proposals for improvements to Professional Staff workloads,
including protection from workload increases caused by restructures and
protection against excessive overtime. We had proposed a rigorous workload
review mechanism for professional staff but that was rejected by management.
say they are fixing workloads by hiring new staff, but the numbers are minimal
and will only replace a fraction of the staff that were lost under R2S
restructure. They have said 25 additional staff over the life of the agreement
which is two years. A drop in the ocean.
The removal of
workloads restrictions from the academic agreement will lead to burnout of
academics and academic work falling to Professional staff. Griffith staff are
all in this together and should vote no so that management have to come back to
the table to negotiate improvements for both agreements.
Pay cut in real terms
The agreement proposes
a below-inflation wage increase that will see staff at Griffith University fall
further behind colleagues at QUT and UQ. Meanwhile Griffith recorded a $122
million surplus in the last annual report!
We want to retain
the best staff and be able to recruit the best staff. This proposal will make
it harder to compete for staff with UQ and QUT.
On call allowances
We were seeking to
improve on call allowances for professional staff, but management have ignored
that in their draft.
Keeping pace with academic staff
If the Academic
agreement is rejected, which we think it will because it opens the floodgates
on workloads and wage theft, and professional staff vote up their agreement
then we may end up with separate negotiations down the track. We want to keep
negotiating both agreements at the same time to maximise the strength of the
union and keep professional staff entitlements level with academic staff, not
Academic staff should vote NO because:
Instead of agreeing
to staff proposals to fix academic workloads, management is asking you to agree
to removing key academic workload
There will be no regulation in the
Agreement for what is to be included in workload allocation models and removes
the formal consultation process in the previous Agreement which includes staff
in the development of Group workload allocation guidelines.
No protections for staff from
arbitrary changes to work profiles. Staff could be moved from teaching and
research to teaching focused without consent.
Removes the requirement for an 8
week non-coursework teaching period and a maximum of 28 weeks of coursework
teaching per year, which will allow a teaching allocation for academics on a
balanced profile over 3 trimesters per year.
The clause separates research
supervision, course convenorship and program directorship from teaching. These
activities may not be counted as teaching for the purposes of workload
allocation. Course convenorship could be arbitrarily moved from teaching to
service and HDR supervision could be shifted into research.
Removal of explicit workload
protections for early career staff in the previous Agreement.
Reducing the minimum payments for casuals
wage theft is rampant in the university
Current agreement provides for a
minimum payment of three hours per first hour of delivery and two hours per
repeat delivery to cover preparation, course admin and student consultation.
Proposal reduces guaranteed
payment to just the hour of delivery. Everything above that requires ‘agreement’
of the staff member’s supervisor.
Currently a tutor teaching 3 x 1
hour tutes would get paid for 7 hours work (3 hours for the first hour and 2
hours per repeat). Under the proposal the tutor would only be guaranteed the 3
hours of delivery an everything above that would be subject to agreement.
To quote management’s own
propaganda: “All work will be agreed and paid based on the duration of the work
We know what ‘agreement’ looks
like when a casual is being offered a course to teach. It’s take it or leave
Pay cut in real terms
proposes a below-inflation wage increase that will see staff at Griffith
University fall further behind colleagues at QUT and UQ. Meanwhile Griffith
recorded a $123 million surplus in the last annual report!
In response to NTEU
proposals to significantly reduce casualisation, management are proposing to
convert just 20 casuals in total over the next two years, less than what would
probably have happened anyway.
At the same time management
is proposing to reduce minimum payments for casuals, leaving those employees to
try to negotiate proper preparation time with the university and likely a race
to the bottom on pay.
And keep in mind:
Last Agreement pay rise 2% - March
Admin pay rise 2% - March 2022
12% over 3.5 years = 3.4% per
RBA forecasts inflation to be 8%
for 12 months to December 2022
$123 million surplus (from 2021
Current UQ offer 14% | QUT 4.03%
Staff numbers have been cut
drastically since 2019 including 1 in 10 professional staff, 1 in 4 casual
staff and 1 in 14 academic staff.
The annual reports
show that Griffith has been investing surpluses in financial assets like shares
and financial investments. The have gone from having just under $300M (three
hundred million dollars) in cash and financial assets in 2012, to just under $900M
(nine hundred million) in in cash and financial assets in 2021. Some of these
surpluses should be going to the staff who bring the money into the university.
given no indication whether they will proceed with one of the two agreements if
only one gets up. This is potentially divisive and could lead to professional
staff getting a bit of a payrise and academic staff not getting one. Or
management could be forced back to the table and have to negotiate a better pay
deal for one group. We want to see all staff get a good deal, so even if you
think the professional staff agreement isn’t too bad and you need some sort of
pay rise (because management only paid 2% in March) you should vote no to keep
the negotiations together.
No minimum vote
walked away from negotiations with the staff bargaining team to hold a vote on
a detailed new agreement most staff won’t read over a weekend in mid-December.
There’s no minimum turnout to make the vote valid. So a small minority of staff
who vote will determine all staff pay and conditions for the next few years.
Academic Freedom and First Nations Employment
They have rejected
our claim to better protect Academic and Intellectual freedom for all staff
(including professionals) and rejected our claim to include a target for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment in the Agreement.
NTEU consistently requested longer
and more frequent meetings.
Average meetings were fortnightly
for 2-3 hours which hampers progress.
Management failed to engage on our
major claims until recently.
Management rejected key claims
around job security, casual conversion, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Employment and academic freedom.
Then, all of a sudden, they were
in a hurry.
We offered to meet with them to
try to finalise the negotiations before Christmas.
It was their decision to walk away
You will be asked to vote online
between Friday 9 and Monday 12 December
The link will be sent to you when
The vote is secret and management
won't know how you voted
If staff vote No, management will
be forced to come back to the bargaining table and negotiate a better deal for
EVERY VOTE COUNTS - the vote will
be close. There’s a good chance that the only a handful of votes will decide