Yesterday, we saw the release of the Academic Draft Change Management Paper. The paper, as we expected, includes a significant number of job losses, and as in other change processes, we believe these are unnecessary in the current circumstances. Believe only because we don’t know what work is being done and will be done in future on the basis that the current workload system fails to capture the work and there is no new model. We note that there is no legitimate basis for job cuts on the basis of the management-created financial mess.
Last week we wrote to senior management to express concerns that there is a problem with Draft Education Portfolio Change paper, if you have not read the letter, it is available here. On Thursday, September 7, Anna Phillips, Chief People’s Officer, responded to that letter, you can read it here. We also wrote to senior management in anticipation of the release of the Academic Draft Change Management Paper, and we received a response from senior management on Friday, September 9.
As you will see the letters do not address our concerns. Based on this, at our member meeting on Monday, members overwhelmingly voted to direct your Branch Committee to write to management requesting the following:
- that senior management circulate to all staff their responses to questions from the NTEU, and others in relations to the Proposed Education Portfolio Change;
- that senior management provide clear accounting of the impact of the Professional Service Change, and how this has informed the development of the Proposed Education Portfolio Change;
- Ask senior management, how, given that the current change, as in the Professional Service Change, has been premised on a budgetary crisis, yet the crisis in the budget is not primarily a consequence of spending on staff salaries and entitlements, but a loss of control in other areas of spending – how can the proposed change be expected to address budgetary problems?
With the release of the Academic Draft Change Management Paper, we will also be writing to senior management to seek the following clarification in relation to this paper:
- What is the contract type for all positions that are being disestablished and/or in scope of an EIO process?
- For those areas where teaching positions are in scope for disestablished, the plan says all work currently being performed “will no longer be required”, is the intention that teaching currently performed will cease to be performed?
- Given that ACU does not currently have a workload model which is compliant with the Australian Catholic University Staff Enterprise Agreement 2022-2025, how did ACU senior management come to the conclusion as to its workforce needs to perform teaching post the restructure? NTEU requests this data be provided to it and all staff;
- Clarification on the difference in scope of EIO processes in the each faculty
For staff who express interest in being considered for a voluntary redundancy to able to subsequently consider whether wish to accept a redundancy should their application be accepted. This would be consistent with previous practice by ACU and also enable more staff to consider expressing an interest.
It is important to note that while management is premising the need for job cuts on projected budget deficits not just for this year, but for future years, that these shortfalls are not due to spending on staff entitlements. Current budget projections suggest that staffing costs are 2.5% above the budget, it is unclear the extent to which this is a consequence of earlier redundancies. Instead, the primary driver of the deficit is excessive spending in other areas of the budget, a problem which also occurred last year, has continued this year and reflects a failure of senior management to constrain the university’s spending within the set budget. The key problem areas are as follows: