The University’s bargaining team attended the scheduled session of enterprise bargaining on Thursday 17 March. For context, the meeting was chaired by the NTEU and agenda items had been agreed several weeks in advance of the meeting.
The first agenda item, not requested by the University, was opened for discussion by the Chair and became a point of disagreement. Despite constructive suggestions on how the matter could be dealt with, none of the proposals made were entertained by the NTEU, and as a threshold matter which could not be resolved within the meeting, material progress on other bargaining matters could not be advanced.
The NTEU have advised their members that the University ‘refused to negotiate’ and did so without providing any context as to what actually occurred in the meeting. It’s important that I communicate the facts – over half the scheduled meeting time was spent trying to reach an acceptable position on the matter in question. At no time did the University act in any way other than in line with good faith bargaining principles and in accordance with our stated position, and at no time did the University refuse to negotiate – any assertion of that is categorically untrue.
The matter remains a point of disagreement, it is still unresolved, and is of significant concern to several of the parties engaged in bargaining with respect to the integrity of the bargaining process. The matter needs to be resolved so that bargaining can continue to progress. The NTEU do not consider there is an issue, with the NTEU bargaining team further clarifying that they take their direction from their national office in Victoria. Hopefully, this national direction accurately and appropriately represents the views of their members here at UniSA.
Factually, we find ourselves, after almost a year of good faith bargaining, without in-principle agreement on any of the 52 points included in the NTEU log of claims. By comparison, our current Agreement, which has served all parties well since 2019, reached in-principle agreement in 9 months.
What is undeniably true is that the bargaining session concluded without making progress. That is both regrettable and disappointing as a lot of work had been done to progress matters in advance of our team sitting down to engage.
Enterprise Bargaining is a formal process which must, by law, be conducted in good faith. There are formally agreed protocols which additionally govern how matters progress, to ensure the professionalism and integrity of the process. Of course, disagreement and different perspectives will arise during bargaining. My expectation is that this can be done constructively and respectfully. I was personally concerned by both the tone of the meeting and some of the behaviour exhibited – it was quite unlike any engagement we have had in bargaining in this past decade, which has hitherto been constructive, collegial and respectful, and in the best interests of all parties.
I do look forward to resolving this matter and to more constructive engagement moving forward.
Professor Joanne Cys
Provost & Chief Academic Officer
Chancellery and Council Services (CHA)
Chancellery (CHY)