C2005/4342, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 1811 (2 September 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 12541-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DUNCAN

C2005/4342

CPSU, THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION
AND
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY
s.170LW - Application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement)
(C2005/4342)

SYDNEY

2.05PM, THURSDAY, 18 AUGUST 2005

PN1

MS M CIRILLO: I appear on behalf of the Community and Public Sector Union with MS E REYNOLDS, MS P GIBSON-LANE, MR A BARNES and MR M CHRISTOPHER.

PN2

MR D WEDGWOOD: I appear on behalf of the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association with MR P FOX and MR C CAHILL. May I note just for the record, Commissioner, I think the listing formally notifies this as a section 99 but I understand it's 170LW.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, it certainly is, thank you, Mr Wedgwood. Ms Cirillo.

PN4

MS CIRILLO: Thank you, your Honour. If I may I have here a folder which contains all the relevant documents that I will refer to, including copies of the relevant clauses, if I may hand that up.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN6

MS CIRILLO: If it also pleases the Commission, just to make it easier, I could also hand up a doctor's letter on behalf of one of our members, Ms Philippa Gibson-Lane, that I'll also be referring to, and copies of a shuttle bus timetable.

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What we'll do with all of those is, by all means hand them up. I'll in effect put them beside me on the bench and as you refer to them we'll deal with them as individual items.

PN8

MS CIRILLO: Thank you, yes. I don't have copies of the shuttle bus timetable for the university, I'm sorry, I just have the one copy.

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN10

MS CIRILLO: Thank you, your Honour. Today the CPSU seeks resolution of this dispute through either the consent of the parties or, if necessary, through an order of the Commission. This dispute relates to the contended failure of the university to properly apply clause 34, Managing Change in the Workplace, of the University of Technology Enterprise Agreement for Support Staff 2004, in relation to the proposed relocation of print services staff from the Ku-ring-gai campus of UTS to their city campus.

PN11

In May of this year the UTS announced it would relocate the print services staff from Ku-ring-gai campus to the city campus. Soon after this announcement the CPSU wrote to the university requesting that, as required by clause 34.2 of their agreement, they comply with that clause.

PN12

On 6 July the CPSU notified a dispute under the terms of clause 11 of the agreement as a result of the university's intention to implement the change without properly complying with clause 34. At the CPSU's request, the first dispute meeting was held on 14 July. The CPSU requested that the university comply with the enterprise agreement by providing relevant financial information to the CPSU as required by clause 34.3(b) by providing expected effects of the change on staff, both workload implications on staff left behind at Ku-ring-gai campus, for example with the signing of stores receivables, as well as the effects on the relocating of staff, as required under clause 34.3(c), also by undertaking an assessment of the potential impacts on the EEO target groups that exist within the affected area as required by clause 34.4.(b) and by conferring with the unions and affected staff with a view to reaching agreement about the implementation of the change, particularly measures to mitigate any negative consequences arising to staff from the change. That's 34.4(d).

PN13

Furthermore, the CPSU also expected that the university would comply with clause 34.4(e) which requires that the university confers with the union with a view to reaching agreement about a process for monitoring the effects of the change after the implementation.

PN14

Since notifying the dispute under clause 11 of the agreement, the CPSU has raised these matters with the university both in writing and in a number of face-to-face meetings with the expectation that we were working toward reaching written agreement on the resolution of the dispute as required by clause 11.1 of the agreement.

PN15

However, we are here today as a result of a direction from the manager of user services, Mr Chris Cahill, to our affected members, Ms Elaine Reynolds and Ms Philippa Gibson-Lane, to commence work at the city campus on 15 July, which was last Monday. This direction was communicated to the CPSU via a letter from Peter Fox following a second disputes meeting held on 26 July. This second meeting was held as a result of the CPSU writing to the university after the university attempted once before to direct our members to relocate to the city campus without resolving the outstanding matters of the dispute.

PN16

The email correspondence from the CPSU dated 21 July and the subsequent 26 July meeting focused primarily on the nature and scope of the negative impact which the relocation would have on our members and we requested that the university comply with clause 34.4 by considering ways to mitigate the negative impact. We provided different options for the university to consider and have invited the university to put forward their own proposals for mitigating the negative impact of the change. We also requested that the university undertake an assessment of the impact the change would have on EEO target groups within the affected area, giving particular consideration to the fact that our members are both over 60 years of age.

PN17

The CPSU is not asking that the university discriminate on the basis of age, however, given that age is a factor against which it is possible to either directly or indirectly discriminate, the CPSU requested that it be included in the assessment. We requested that this take place as soon as possible so that the university could consider the assessment when considering ways to mitigate the negative impact of the change.

PN18

Following 26 July meeting, the CPSU was expecting that the university would provide a written proposal on how they proposed to mitigate those negative consequences of the relocation on our members. Instead, on 2 August we received a fax dated 28 July which advised us of the university's direction to our members to report for duty at the city campus on Monday of this week. The correspondence does not address how the university intends to mitigate the negative consequences of the relocation on our members, nor does the university's correspondence indicate that they are willing to discuss with us a process for monitoring the change prior to the implementation of the dispute.

PN19

Whilst the letter invites further discussion it promises nothing in the way of complying with the agreement. It clearly expresses their intention to implement the change regardless of whether measures to mitigate the negative impact and a process to monitor the change is developed.

PN20

The CPSU views this direction as an exacerbation of our dispute as described in clause 11.7(b) of the agreement and clause 11.7(c) requires the university to not change work, staffing or the organisation of work if such is the subject of a dispute.

PN21

In their correspondence received to us on 2 August the university states:

PN22

The proposed relocation does not present a potential impact on the EEO target groups.

PN23

However, it is unclear to us how the university reached this conclusion or whether an assessment did indeed take place. We do know that at no stage were our members approached about the impact on their career, their job satisfaction or the impact which the relocation may have on their health and their quality of life, given their age.

PN24

Your Honour, I understand that under section 111 the Commission has wide powers to settle disputes and as this dispute has not been resolved locally we seek, if necessary, today an order of the Commission that the university takes no further steps to implement the relocation of our members, Ms Philippa Gibson-Lane and Ms Elaine Reynolds, until all the steps outlined in clause 34.4 of the Managing Change in Workplace clause have been applied and the dispute settled.

PN25

For the university to move our members from Ku-ring-gai campus to city campus would render the dispute meaningless as the relocation is the subject of the dispute. To resolve the dispute the CPSU seeks again, either through the consent of the parties or through an order of the Commission that the university provides the CPSU with information and documentation upon which it has relied in formulating the advice of the director of the equity and diversity unit, Ms Ann Maree Payne as described in their latest correspondence from the university dated 28 July and that it details the steps it has taken in determining that the proposed relocation does not present a potential impact on EEO target groups and also in determining that the proposed relocation ensures continued job satisfaction and career development opportunities. On this point I refer your Honour to clause 34.4 of the agreement.

PN26

We also request that the university, prior to implementing the proposed relocation of our members, confer with the CPSU with a view to reaching agreement about ways to mitigate the negative impact the relocation will have on our members as required by clause 34.4(d). Also, that the university confer with a view to reaching agreement with the CPSU about a process for monitoring the effects of the change as required by clause 34.4(e).

PN27

If it pleases, your Honour, I could give a little bit of background on the members affected and their roles within printing services unit.

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Probably not at this stage. As you know, Ms Cirillo, I'm always keen to get into conference and conciliation and what you've taken us to so far seems to be a very comprehensive outline of the course of the dispute. Matters of the kind that you have just indicated you've come to can probably be better handled initially in conference.

PN29

MS CIRILLO: Thank you.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Wedgwood.

PN31

MR WEDGWOOD: Perhaps, your Honour, I might only speak briefly to say that the university's contention obviously is that it has complied with its obligations under the certified agreement. On 6 May the initial proposal for the rearrangement of the printing services of UTS involving Ku-ring-gai campus was circulated to both the CPSU and the NTU and to the affected staff.

PN32

The first meeting between the CPSU and the university took place on 26 May, the second meeting took place on 9 June. As Ms Cirillo has indicated there was, as a consequence of the CPSU proposal that there was a dispute, on 14 July a dispute meeting took place and there was a further meeting with Ms Cirillo on 26 July.

PN33

During that period a variety of correspondence interactions took place, including a letter and a petition from the CPSU and staff to the vice chancellor, responded to formally by the vice chancellor. As has been indicated the CPSU sought information about financial effects and arrangements. Those were provided in and in fact some of them are included in the documentation provided by the CPSU representative.

PN34

The university has indicated that it sought advice and obtained advice and that has been conveyed in accordance with 34.4 as to whether or not there was a potential impact on EEO target groups and has formed the view that it has complied with all of its obligations. It has met with staff, it has met with the union, it has taken into account their views, it has provided the information sought and at this stage, despite two dates on which it had planned to make the change in arrangements, has still not implemented them on the basis that initially there was some discussion and ultimately, although a date was proposed, the lodgement of this dispute led to the university postponing that in the hope that perhaps this process might bring an end to the interregnum and allow the university to proceed with implementing a decision which is in the financial interests of the institution and providing a better service to those members who use both the Ku-ring-gai and city campus print service.

PN35

Perhaps, as your Honour has indicated, I won't go into more detail than that. It may be that a conference may clarify some matters or perhaps enable us to move forward.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Wedgwood. I'll go into conference.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [2.19PM]
<RESUMED [4.19PM]

PN37

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Wedgwood.

PN38

MR WEDGWOOD: Your Honour, if I may say, following discussion and conciliation with the assistance of the Commission, the parties have come to an arrangement which I believe will settle the matter. That is on the basis that a joint committee of two representatives of each of the parties will meet monthly over the next 4 months to consider the effect of the arrangements of the transfer on the people concerned and if they agreed upon any matter to implement whatever that matter might be.

PN39

That, if there are specific propositions in terms of positions that might be available for redeployment or transfer of the individuals concerned, that the university would propose options to that committee for the committee to consider. To the extent that it may be useful in that, the university would provide some information about staff at Ku-ring-gai campus for the committee's consideration.

PN40

That on the basis that the move of the two employees concerned would take place on Monday week, an arrangement for transition for the 2 months following that date would be, if the individuals so choose, to enable them to work a fortnightly arrangement which would either be a nine day fortnight or a five day fortnight for the person who currently works six days.

PN41

That also as a transitional arrangement, for the first two months of that period, 1 hour of their travelling time would be regarded as being on duty and for a further two months one half hour of their travelling time would be regarded as being on duty.

PN42

The issue was raised about the question of retraining for one of the staff members concerned. That would, in terms of any level of detail, be a matter for the committee to consider but also the arrangements of the working arrangements in the new location may enable the on-the-job working arrangements to enhance the skill level of particularly that individual, perhaps potentially both of them.

PN43

In relation to the question of consideration for any relocation back to a position at Ku-ring-gai campus, that for 12 months after the move to the city campus, for the purposes of consideration for any position for which they might be suitable at the Ku-ring-gai campus, the two employees concerned would be regarded as if they had redeployee status which gives them some level of preferential treatment for consideration for any such vacancy.

PN44

The understanding between the parties would be that this arrangement is in settlement of this particular dispute and would not be regarded as a precedent for any other matter that might be at issue between the parties and clearly, in that context, the general arrangement would be confidential to those involved in it and not one that would be broadcast more generally. Although that wasn't specifically agreed, I thought that would be understood in the context of it being not regarded as a precedent for the parties.

PN45

Other than that, your Honour, I think I have detailed the arrangements as understood between the parties. I'm happy to let my colleague confirm it.

PN46

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Wedgwood. Yes.

PN47

MS CIRILLO: Your Honour, I only have two other things to add to that which was that it was agreed that the transitional arrangements would be extended or take into account any annual leave that the members will be taking within the next 2 months. It was also agreed tat the university would provide a snapshot of the number of general staff positions and casual positions at Ku-ring-gai to help facilitate the union in putting proposals to the committee.

PN48

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that was just casual positions, wasn't it?

PN49

MS CIRILLO: Just casual positions. We're happy for it to be just casual positions. Thank you.

PN50

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Wedgwood.

PN51

MR WEDGWOOD: Your Honour, if I may make a formal request to the Commission. As this agreed settlement has now been read onto the transcript, the parties would appreciate it if a copy of the transcript might be able to be made available.

PN52

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That will be done. I congratulate the parties on reaching the agreement they have. I note that it is without prejudice and confidential. Other than that I adjourn the matter indefinitely.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [4.24PM]