C2002/5319, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 4694 (22 November 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N VT721
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT IVES

C2002/5319

MONASH UNIVERSITY and ANOTHER

and

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION INDUSTRY UNION

Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re the alleged refusal of
the NTEU to engage in consultation with the
University

MELBOURNE

10.00 AM, FRIDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2002

PN1

MR N. POPE: I appear on behalf of Monash University with MR A. PICOULEAU.

PN2

MR G. RYAN: I appear with MR C. LAKE and MR P. DEARMAN on behalf of the NTEU.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can't say I am without interest in this matter. It is unusual that we have got a union that is not consulting. So I had better hear from you, Mr Pope, as to what they are not consulting about.

PN4

MR POPE: Thank you, your Honour. Just some background: in recent years the Engineering at Gippsland has been subject to a fair amount of scrutiny as to its viability. In fact, early last year, in 2001, the Faculty of Engineering repeated its request of earlier years to the university to cease undergraduate programs at the school and to refocus on a limited range of graduate programs. The Vice-Chancellor's Group at Monash University instructed the faculty to take no action at that time - this is early 2001 - but to monitor the school's load profile and financial status into 2002.

PN5

It was agreed at the Vice-Chancellor's Group that in the absence of evidence of significant improvement showing signs of sustainability, the university would reconsider the faculty's proposals in mid 2002; that is, the proposals as to whether or not undergraduate programs should continue. A review team was established a few months ago, a review team of various people within the Faculty of Engineering. They recently reported to the Vice-Chancellor's Group with a report with various proposals.

PN6

The essence of those proposals from the review team were to curtail the undergraduate program from 2004, so we are not talking about next year. There will be an intake next year, but talking about a proposal of closing from 2004, and the students who are still at Gippsland doing engineering would be transferred to the Clayton campus and there will be various scholarships and assistance provided in order for them to continue with their degree.

PN7

The reality is, of course, that the university is not talking about any action with respect to staff, academics and general staff, who are working within the Engineering School at Gippsland at the moment, but obviously it will impact upon them post-2003 with respect to the proposed changes. A meeting was scheduled with the staff down at Gippsland. There is around about - I am not sure whether these are totally accurate, your Honour, but I think there are five general staff and I think 12 academics, two of which have got a fixed term which is expiring shortly. So a meeting was scheduled with those staff to go through the proposals within the report by the Dean of Engineering from Clayton campus, Professor Brisk.

PN8

That meeting was scheduled for Wednesday of last week, 30 October, and two days prior to that we received a letter from the NTEU stating that we are in dispute, that they were invoking the disputes procedure because we had not complied with clause 17.2 of the enterprise agreement which reads:

PN9

University undertakes to consult with the union and staff where a proposed significant or substantial change will affect staff.

PN10

The Dean proceeded to go down to Gippsland on Wednesday of last week - - -

PN11

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, can I just interrupt you for one second, Mr Pope. Given the history of this matter, was this the first time the staff had had any idea of what was happening or what could happen?

PN12

MR POPE: The degree to which the staff were aware of what was in the report I am not sure, your Honour. I know that the matter had been discussed between the Head of the School of Engineering at Gippsland with the School Executive which is comprised obviously of academics within that school, and the fact that we received the letter on 28 October, I daresay that there was a fair amount of knowledge of the report; indeed, I am not even sure whether they had a copy of the report at that time.

PN13

It is an issue which has been discussed, debated, over a number of years, but this present report, sir, I am not sure whether they had a copy of it at that time.

PN14

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN15

MR POPE: So the Dean of Engineering, Professor Brisk, went down on Wednesday the 30th to discuss the proposals with all the staff. The staff refused to meet with him and, in fact, there was a walk-out. The meeting did not take place. There was some brief discussion with the Branch President, Mr Dearman, who is with us today, with the professor, a very brief discussion, on the basis of, as I understand it - Mr Dearman can clear it up - but as I understand it, on the basis of why they walked out. There then ensued a protest and Professor Brisk returned to Clayton.

PN16

On Monday of this week, in line with a letter from the NTEU about invoking the disputes procedure, Mr Picouleau and myself met with Mr Ryan and Mr Dearman and the Branch President of the NTEU at Monash University, Dr Williams, to discuss the issue. It was agreed between the five of us that that constituted - or I believe it was agreed, and perhaps it can be clarified by the NTEU representatives here today - that that was the disputes committee, that we had exhausted the issues with respect to discussing it and therefore the next step within the disputes settling procedure for the purposes of trying to get some resolution is going to the Commission.

PN17

It is fair to say that both parties on Monday talked about filing a section 99. It was not just the university saying you weren't consulting, it was also - as I am sure the NTEU representatives would indicate - them believing that it wasn't proper consultation as well. At that meeting on Monday the 4th, Mr Picouleau and I offered a further consultation with Professor Brisk and we said we would do that ASAP, this afternoon if necessary on Monday of this week. The union declined and here we are today in the situation of being in front of you to see whether we can get some progress on this issue.

PN18

Your Honour, we from the university side would like to get into conference on this issue to see whether or not we can get some way from this impasse that we are presently in, but there is one exhibit that I would like to tender if I could, your Honour, which may be of assistance to yourself, sir, and it is letters. Because the meeting didn't take place, your Honour, on 30 October to explain the proposals, the Dean determined that he should write to all staff, this is following the Monday's meeting. These were sent out Tuesday or Wednesday of this week.

PN19

The first one on top - sorry, sir, what I have given you there is a composite of the three letters under the one staple. You have got three lots of composite letters there.

PN20

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So there are three copies of the same thing, is there?

PN21

MR POPE: Yes, under the one staple, sorry, yes.

PN22

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, thank you.

PN23

MR POPE: So the first letter that is on top there which goes for four pages - - -

PN24

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you go forward, Mr Pope, I might just mark the bundle of letters. I will mark it A1.

EXHIBIT #A1 BUNDLE OF LETTERS

PN25

MR POPE: Thank you, sir. The first letter on top there which goes for four pages was a letter Professor Brisk sent to all staff at Gippsland campus, all staff within the School of Engineering. The next letter, which is a one-page letter - - -

PN26

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, the date of that would have been what?

PN27

MR POPE: They were posted out Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, as I understand it, your Honour.

PN28

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN29

MR POPE: It was following the issue of not being able to discuss it on the 30th and also on Monday of making no progress and also the fact that the meeting didn't take place with Professor Brisk on Monday afternoon or since then. So the first letter of four pages is a letter to staff. There follows then a one-page letter which is to postgraduate students saying nothing changes for you, we don't contemplate any change for yourselves, and then the last three pages was a letter to students who are presently undertaking the Bachelor of Engineering at Gippsland campus to explain to them what is the proposals.

PN30

So it does give some background as to the reasons, and the issue before us today is probably not the reason so much as the consultative issue, but the reasons are outlined there quite clearly of the low student demand to the point where they are getting students with a VCE enter score of 42 to comply with their quota. That is bringing about a high student failure rate, much higher than where Bachelor of Engineering is being conducted elsewhere within Monash. The financial viability and the accreditation issues that are coming into place next year. So they were outlined in those letters as part of the proposals and consultation issues that were going to be raised by Professor Brisk of which he didn't have the opportunity of doing so with either the union or indeed with the staff at Gippsland last Wednesday.

PN31

So the position we are at at the moment, your Honour, is that we do wish to engage in consultation with the union and we would ask your good offices to assist us with that and we would like to go into conference at the earliest opportunity. Thank you, your Honour.

PN32

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Pope. Beyond that, beyond assistance in conference, is there anything specific that the university seeks from the Commission at this stage?

PN33

MR POPE: No, no, your Honour.

PN34

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Yes, Mr Ryan.

PN35

MR RYAN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, we are still somewhat at a loss to understand why Monash actually notified a section 99 dispute in the Commission. My recollection of the dispute hearing or committee meeting on Monday was we discussed a range of things. We suggested some resolutions to the problem which weren't accepted, and at the end of that meeting we had not made a decision to list this dispute in the Commission, and in fact Andrew Picouleau made the suggestion to myself that if we would like to put our suggested resolutions in writing, the university would accept them. I said to him I would do so on the proviso that the university did not list this case in the Commission, and the next thing that we knew about it, they had.

PN36

We are surprised, once again, that Monash is alleging that we failed to consult when we invoked the dispute procedures under the EBA because of the university's failure to consult staff and the NTEU pursuant to clause 17.2 of the enterprise bargaining agreement. Now, the university is maintaining that its consultation with staff about the review was going to happen at the meeting with Professor Brisk on 30 October. We maintain that decisions that already been made, that the review process had already been conducted, and recommendations had already been formed, and what Professor Brisk was going to do with staff was just disseminate information about the review.

PN37

We would like to point out that this differs markedly from the university's normal process for reviewing academic programs, and we can give you a copy of the normal review process which is part of the staff handbook and is also on the web. Review processes are normally very comprehensive, they take input in from staff, from stakeholders and students and a range of people interested in the review of those academic programs.

PN38

It is our understanding that did not occur. Staff of the particular area affected were not consulted about the review, students weren't consulted about the review, and we only learned about the review in late October. We subsequently invoked the dispute procedures to seek appropriate consultation with the university before decisions had been made.

PN39

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Ryan, when you say you only learnt about the review in early October - - -

PN40

MR RYAN: Late October, sorry.

PN41

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - is it also the fact that you only learned about the potential curtailment of undergraduate programs at Gippsland at that point in time or were you aware of that beforehand?

PN42

MR RYAN: No, we weren't aware of that beforehand, not - the branch officially was not aware of the review of the programs. We just heard a rumour and the rumour was that the Engineering - that someone had conducted a secret review of the School of Engineering at Gippsland campus and that a recommendation was that the course close and there be zero intake from 2004.

PN43

Once we learnt of that, we immediately invoked the dispute procedures under the EBA to try and get the university to agree to conduct an appropriate review in accordance with its published policies and procedures and normal practice. We, in fact, spoke about these on the meeting of 4 October. What we are seeking has changed very little from that meeting on 4 October and I will give you a copy of this, if we can tender this please - sorry, 4 November the meeting was, the disputes meeting. The resolutions we are seeking are thus, and what we sought on 4 November.

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Ryan, I will mark the document. The document is a document outlining what the NTEU seeks as a resolution to the dispute, and I will mark it R1.

EXHIBIT #R1 DOCUMENT OUTLINING WHAT NTEU SEEKS AS A RESOLUTION TO DISPUTE

PN45

MR RYAN: Thank you, your Honour. What we are seeking, point 1, is:

PN46

An agreement between the parties on the timing and nature of consultation as outlined in clause 17.2 of the relevant Monash EBA.

PN47

Our understanding is that the university has committed to consulting with staff and the NTEU over proposals for change. Consultation, we assert, is providing staff and the NTEU with a bona fide opportunity to influence the decision makers, and we take this definition from a case heard before the Commission, held in front of Commissioner Smith on 14 November 2001, between the CPSU - the CEPU - sorry - that is a mistake there, a typo - and Vodafone.

PN48

Two, we seek agreement that:

PN49

The current review be set aside and the university conduct a proper review consistent with its own academic review guidelines. This would allow for a full and transparent review with input from staff, the union and stakeholders.

PN50

Thirdly, we believe:

PN51

There should be regular meets of the Implementation Monitoring Committee to conduct the negotiations between the NTEU and the university.

PN52

And that is a prescribed role of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee which is outlined in clause 18 of the enterprise bargaining agreement. And finally, we seek:

PN53

A commitment from the university to make no moves to close the School of Engineering at Gippsland while the aforementioned review is conducted.

PN54

We are seeking your assistance to help us achieve these resolutions.

PN55

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thanks, Mr Ryan.

PN56

MR RYAN: Thank you.

PN57

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Pope, is there anything you wanted to add at this stage on the record?

PN58

MR POPE: No, your Honour, I think what we may add we could easily do in conference, if your Honour so pleases.

PN59

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. I propose to adjourn into conference.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #A1 BUNDLE OF LETTERS PN25
EXHIBIT #R1 DOCUMENT OUTLINING WHAT NTEU SEEKS AS A RESOLUTION TO DISPUTE PN45