|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Fair Work Commission Transcripts |
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009 1054998
COMMISSIONER JOHNS
C2016/6323
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
National Tertiary Education Industry Union-NSW Division
and
University of New South Wales T/A UNSW
(C2016/6323)
UNSW Australia (Academic Staff) Enterprise Agreement 2015
Sydney
10.28 AM, WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2017
PN1
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I'll take the appearances, please.
PN2
MS J WELLS: Good morning, Commissioner, Jeane Wells for the National Tertiary Education Union. With me is Karash(?) Janicki, the University of New South Wales Branch organiser.
PN3
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Wells.
PN4
MS R CHRISTMANN: Christmann, initial R, for the respondent.
PN5
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Christmann.
PN6
MS CHRISTMANN: And with me at the Bar table is Ms Chan from the university, and sitting in the gallery is Mr Dearden from Owen Wilcox.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. So can I first apologise to the parties for the delay in starting my 8.30 matter around much later than we had anticipated. What I would like to do is first just go through and make sure I have all the materials which have been filed in relation to the matter. And then we can have the discussion about how the matter is then further programmed. So I obviously have the form F10. I have a chronology which I understand has been jointly filed by the parties yesterday afternoon and I propose to mark that as exhibit 1.
EXHIBIT #1 CHRONOLOGY FILED JOINTLY BY BOTH PARTIES
PN8
MS WELLS: Excuse me, Commissioner.
PN9
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN10
MS WELLS: I was surprised to learn yesterday that the chronology had been filed without my being able to see the final version of it. My learned friend had taken the liberty of sending it to your office before I could see the final version of it. I don't mean to be too pedantic but I - - -
PN11
THE COMMISSIONER: But you'll try to be.
PN12
MS WELLS: I may well be. In terms of the reference to 10 April, I had sent a copy back marked with track changes, strike throughs and yellow highlighting. There is a reference to – I might just shut the door because I don't want anyone – could I shut the door so that nobody - - -
PN13
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, of course.
PN14
MS WELLS: Nobody is concerned about anyone being infected about anything other than art(?). Thank you. So on 10 April the staff school meeting is held. We agreed to change the words to, "advised the faculty quality committee were reviewing option 2." I have simply asked – put a strike through the Williamson statement. In paragraph 6 it is certainly the case that Associate Professor Williamson states that she was at the meeting but she makes no reference to Dr Simon McIntyre in her statement. She may well do so in examination but I had sought that Williamson's statement was not referred to, to support the notion that Dr Simon McIntyre spoke without that evidence being presented at this time. It may well come out today but I wanted to make that change.
PN15
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, what I might do is just put a little bit of an asterisk there and we'll see how the evidence falls.
PN16
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So that deals with the chronology which is exhibit 1. I then have the applicant's submissions dated 29 June which I'll mark as exhibit 2.
EXHIBIT #2 APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
PN18
We then have a witness statement of Lindsay Kelley, which I'll mark as exhibit 3. Ms Christmann, is Lindsay Kelley required for cross-examination?
PN19
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner, she is.
PN20
THE COMMISSIONER: About what aspects? Which paragraph are you going to be cross-examining her on?
PN21
MS CHRISTMANN: Just bear with me. Apologies, Commissioner.
PN22
MS WELLS: Commissioner, could I just alert you to the fact that this morning we have created an (indistinct) timeline but I do share probably all parties' frustrations about the number of witnesses still involved in the matter and I have put to my colleagues that we were happy to not call Dr Kelley and Dr Faulkner as in further examination – in combination with the timeline, in further examination of the evidence last night I considered that we would be able to efficiently proceed without those two witnesses. Further, Commissioner, I've clearly also been influenced by the fact that Dr Faulkner is here this morning. She does now have a replacement for her class but that's not the best arrangement.
PN23
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you proposing to call Lindsay Kelley, or not?
PN24
MS WELLS: No.
PN25
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, so I'll just take that out and it's no longer exhibit 3.
PN26
MS WELLS: Thank you.
PN27
THE COMMISSIONER: Then we come to Anna Munster. Are you calling Anna Munster?
PN28
MS WELLS: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Then I'll mark that as exhibit 3.
EXHIBIT #3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANNA MUNSTER
PN30
Ms Christmann, is Ms Munster required for cross-examination?
PN31
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner, she is.
PN32
THE COMMISSIONER: In respect of which paragraph?
PN33
MS CHRISTMANN: A number of paragraphs in her first statement, paragraph 11 in her second statements, a number of paragraphs.
PN34
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you going to put it to her that she didn't read the attachment or are you going to put it to her that it wasn't unclear to her?
PN35
MS CHRISTMANN: I'll put it to her that it wasn't unclear to her.
PN36
THE COMMISSIONER: How are you going to establish to a witness that she was not unclear?
PN37
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, we will ask her about what she did to try and clarify that situation.
PN38
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you accept that on 1 May she was unclear?
PN39
MS CHRISTMANN: She says that in her statement, yes.
PN40
THE COMMISSIONER: So what's the point in cross-examining her about it?
PN41
MS CHRISTMANN: To establish her level of concern about the lack of clarity.
PN42
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. Look, the next witness statement is Liz Morrison, as well, so you're calling her?
PN43
MS WELLS: Excuse me, Commissioner, it's Liz Williamson. We are calling her.
THE COMMISSIONER: Great. That's exhibit 4.
EXHIBIT #4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF LIZ WILLIAMSON
PN45
Is she required for cross-examination, Ms Christmann?
PN46
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner, she is.
PN47
THE COMMISSIONER: In respect of what regard?
PN48
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 4 and her role as a member of the
PN49
workloads working party; paragraph 6, about her attendance at the staff meeting; paragraph 9 - - -
PN50
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you say that she was invited to attend the meeting of the faculty quality committee?
PN51
MS CHRISTMANN: We don't say that she was invited and I wanted to ask her about why she thought she might be.
PN52
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry?
PN53
MS CHRISTMANN: I wanted to ask - - -
PN54
THE COMMISSIONER: So if you could speak up a little bit, I'm finding it very difficult to hear.
PN55
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, we would ask why she thought she might be.
PN56
THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
PN57
MS CHRISTMANN: Some general propositions that we would put to her, and in paragraph 11 to ask what she might have done to identify the changes.
PN58
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Next we have the witness statement of Brad Miller. Is he being called?
PN59
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's exhibit 5.
EXHIBIT #5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRAD MILLER
PN61
Is he required for cross-examination?
PN62
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner, he is.
PN63
THE COMMISSIONER: In respect of?
PN64
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 4, 7 - - -
PN65
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you deny that he was chair of the faculty and art(?) design workloads working committee?
PN66
MS CHRISTMANN: No, we don't deny that. We wanted to ask him about his roles of member of the workloads working party.
PN67
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, so 4, what else?
PN68
MS CHRISTMANN: Seven.
PN69
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN70
MS CHRISTMANN: Eight.
PN71
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN72
MS CHRISTMANN: Fourteen.
PN73
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN74
MS CHRISTMANN: Sixteen, 20, 22 - - -
PN75
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN76
MS CHRISTMANN: Some general propositions, 31 and 32.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Then that's all I have as part of the initial filing, and then I've got the reply filing. That's right? So then I've got the applicant's submissions in reply which will be exhibit 6.
EXHIBIT #6 APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY
We have the further witness statement of Anne Munster which will be exhibit 7. And is Ms Faulkner being called?
EXHIBIT #7 FURTHER WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANNE MUNSTER
PN79
MS WELLS: Commissioner, we have suggested that we do not rely upon the witness statement of Dr Faulkner.
PN80
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN81
MS WELLS: And do not propose to call her.
PN82
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And Victoria Sentas?
PN83
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 8. Is the witness required for cross-examination?
EXHIBIT #8 WITNESS STATEMENT OF VICTORIA SENTAS
PN85
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, Dr Sentas is required for cross-examination.
PN86
THE COMMISSIONER: In respect of?
PN87
MS CHRISTMANN: Some propositions about the effect of her evidence – sorry, not the effect of her evidence, about the limits of her evidence, because it applies only to one particular academic unit.
PN88
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And as I understand it, that's all of the applicant's material?
PN89
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN90
THE COMMISSIONER: So when the application was first filed there were some submissions put in by the university and also by the NTU. I don't propose to have regard to any of that material, is that right?
PN91
MS WELLS: That's fine with me, Commissioner.
PN92
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Christmann, are you content with that course?
PN93
MS CHRISTMANN: Apologies, Commissioner.
PN94
THE COMMISSIONER: I was saying that when the application was first filed and there were some submissions filed by the university, as well as by the NTU, I don't propose to have regard to any of that material, and Ms Wells has agreed that that is the appropriate course.
PN95
MS CHRISTMANN: So as I understand you, Commissioner, you'll be having regard to only the submissions made on the 29th?
PN96
THE COMMISSIONER: Only the material that's been filed in answer to the directions issued on 8 June.
PN97
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, I understand you, Commissioner, thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right, so then we have the respondent's outline of submissions, which I'll mark as exhibit 9.
EXHIBIT #9 RESPONDENT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS
PN99
We have a statement of Professor Sierra. Is Professor Sierra being called?
PN100
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner.
PN101
THE COMMISSIONER: And is Professor Sierra required for cross-examination?
PN102
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN103
THE COMMISSIONER: In respect of which matters?
PN104
MS WELLS: We would like to reduce the matters by making submissions about opinion or relevance. Can we do that now?
PN105
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we can do that.
PN106
MS WELLS: Thank you. I will not attempt to make submissions about all opinions but the NTEU seeks the removal of paragraphs 30.
PN107
THE COMMISSIONER: Let me go to that.
PN108
MS WELLS: Which commences, "At no time did I consider or say that a staff vote – rather I considered the vote to be a mechanism to her opinion about the process."
PN109
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, so you would say we should strike out in the beginning of 30, the words, "Consider or", because you could say, "At no time did I say" - - -
PN110
MS WELLS: That's right.
PN111
THE COMMISSIONER: And then delete the second paragraph in its entirety.
PN112
MS WELLS: Yes.
PN113
THE COMMISSIONER: On the basis of relevance?
PN114
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN115
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What do you say about that, Ms Christmann, do you agree to that?
PN116
MS CHRISTMANN: Professor Sierra can give evidence about her understanding of what was required at the time.
PN117
THE COMMISSIONER: That's not what she's saying. She's saying, "At no time did I consider or say to the WWP that a staff vote on which workload model staff preferred would equate to a binding agreement."
PN118
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, as I said, which reflects her understanding of what was required.
PN119
THE COMMISSIONER: That's not what she says.
PN120
MS CHRISTMANN: If she thought something else was required she would – that would not enter her consideration and - - -
PN121
THE COMMISSIONER: What does it matter? What does it matter what she thought was required?
PN122
MS CHRISTMANN: She's reflecting her understanding of what was required at the time.
PN123
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes but why is that relevant to the question before me?
PN124
MS CHRISTMANN: Because it's evidence of the steps that she undertook in compliance.
PN125
THE COMMISSIONER: No, it's evidence of why she undertook them. It's not evidence of the steps that she undertook. The evidence of the steps she undertook is the actual things she did. Why she considered that was the steps she needed to take, why is that relevant to the question before me?
PN126
MS CHRISTMANN: No, I understand your point, Commissioner, and we'll concede that on the basis of the mark that you've suggested.
PN127
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN128
MS WELLS: At paragraph 35, Commissioner, in the second sentence, "I considered the NTEU's email as wrong in its assertion that option 1 did not comply with the enterprise agreement and was disappointed that the NTEU had made this suggestion", and it goes on opinion and emotional state, I believe.
PN129
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Ms Christmann, what do you say about that? Why is what she considered at that time and her sense of disappointment relevant to the questions before me?
PN130
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, the emails sent by Mr Miller and the NTEU have been put into evidence in suggestion of the truth of what they say. Professor Sierra should be permitted to make a comment about what she understood of the weight of those emails. There's no harm in her expressing her reaction to them as one of disappointment, the same as one might be surprised.
PN131
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, even is she was surprised, how could that be relevant to the question before me?
PN132
MS CHRISTMANN: Ms Sierra's reactions to those emails also goes to the following steps that were taken in the process.
PN133
THE COMMISSIONER: But why isn't it just, I got these emails, I did this in response? Why does it matter whether she did it because she was disappointed or surprised, or upset, or – why does that matter?
PN134
MS CHRISTMANN: I'm in the Commissioner's hands.
PN135
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I'd seek to actually delete the whole paragraph in respect of her considerations.
PN136
THE COMMISSIONER: She could give the evidence at the end of that paragraph that the staff participants, all of her NTEU members, had not raised this, expand on that, concern during the WWP's review. She could give that evidence. So I'll give Ms Christmann some leeway to ask some questions about that but otherwise strike out everything up to "the staff participants."
PN137
MS CHRISTMANN: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN138
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further, Ms Wells?
PN139
MR WELLS: I'll limit it to paragraph 76, on opinion.
PN140
Again, Professor Sierra's emotional state, she was disappointed.
PN141
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Christmann?
PN142
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, the second part of that paragraph indicates Professor Sierra's understanding of the academic staff's complaint.
PN143
THE COMMISSIONER: So why don't we just strike out through until the second "I" in the first line? So, "I understood the NTEU complaint was" - - -
PN144
MS CHRISTMANN: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN145
MR WELLS: And lastly, I understand that Professor Sierra is not presented as an expert witness, so in respect of paragraph 27, I don't know why her experience as the head of school is considered evidence.
PN146
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells, it's not being put forward as expert evidence but just as the NTEU witnesses indicate who they are and their experience and their level of understanding of these issues, I'm not prepared to strike out that.
PN147
MR WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN148
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further?
PN149
MR WELLS: No, but I imagine you might want me to run through - - -
PN150
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, so that's all of your material?
PN151
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, would now be the right time for the respondent to address you on objections to the applicant's evidence?
PN152
THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe you should have done that whilst we were marking them, but let's go back there. So exhibit 3 is Anna Munster.
PN153
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, we object to paragraph 10, so this is the first statement, the 29 June statement. We object to the words, "advising that the faculty management were changing elements of option 2." That's an opinion about the email and to the extent the email is evidence then it should be left to speak for itself.
PN154
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells, that seems fair?
PN155
MR WELLS: Yes, I agree the email speaks for itself, Commissioner.
PN156
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll put a full stop after "Professor Sierra", and strike out the rest of that sentence. Anything else in relation to Ms Munster?
PN157
MS CHRISTMANN: Not in relation to Professor Munster.
PN158
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 4, Liz Williamson? The same objection to paragraph 10?
PN159
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner.
PN160
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further in exhibit 4?
PN161
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 15. "There's not an allocation which matches the time required to perform the work", on the basis that that's opinion.
PN162
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me put it this way. Ms Wells just objected to paragraph 27 in Ms Sierra's statement and I said I was going to reject that based on the fact that she's entitled to talk about her experience and the like. Now in paragraph 14, which is the precursor to paragraph 15, Ms Williamson talks about her experience. If you're happy to make the concessions I'll strike it out from Professor Sierra's statement, I'll strike it out from this one. I'm going to deal with both of them in the same way. Do you maintain the objection?
PN163
MS CHRISTMANN: No, Commissioner.
PN164
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Anything further in Williamson?
PN165
MS CHRISTMANN: No, Commissioner.
PN166
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything in Brad Miller, exhibit 5?
PN167
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner. Paragraph 19, I object to the first sentence. This is hearsay. It doesn't identify who he spoke with.
PN168
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells?
PN169
MR WELLS: I'm sorry, what number, Commissioner?
PN170
THE COMMISSIONER: Paragraph 19, the first sentence.
PN171
MR WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN172
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll delete that?
PN173
MR WELLS: Yes.
PN174
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further in Brad Miller?
PN175
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 27, it's a combination of hearsay and submission, it doesn't identify who Mr Miller spoke with and makes submissions as to the appropriateness of the faculty quality committee.
PN176
THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I just think that's a question of weight, and I'll just indicate to Ms Wells it's going to be attributed very little weight.
PN177
MS CHRISTMANN: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN178
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything else in Miller?
PN179
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 33, Commissioner, objection to the second sentence, starting, "However", on the basis of hearsay and opinion. It doesn't identify the feedback he's referring to.
PN180
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells, that seems fair?
PN181
MR WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN182
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll strike out that sentence. Anything further in Miller?
PN183
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 35, Commissioner. This is an opinion - - -
PN184
THE COMMISSIONER: I think it's in the same class as paragraph 15 of Ms Williamson's witness statement.
PN185
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner.
PN186
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further in Miller?
PN187
MS CHRISTMANN: No, Commissioner.
PN188
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, then coming to the second statement of Ms Munster, anything there?
PN189
MS CHRISTMANN: No, Commissioner.
PN190
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything in Sentas?
PN191
MS CHRISTMANN: I beg your pardon, Commissioner, the further statement of Munster - - -
PN192
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN193
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, apologies. Paragraph 3, Commissioner, is opinion and responds to submissions.
PN194
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells, they're matters for me to decide, aren't they?
PN195
MR WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN196
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll strike out paragraph 3. Anything further in the further witness statement of Anna Munster, exhibit 7?
PN197
MS CHRISTMANN: Paragraph 16, we object to the words, "Along with others", at the start of that paragraph on the basis that it's hearsay.
PN198
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we'll strike out those. No objection, Ms Wells?
PN199
MR WELLS: No, Commissioner.
PN200
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further in exhibit 7?
PN201
MS CHRISTMANN: No, Commissioner.
PN202
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 8, which is Victoria Sentas?
PN203
MS CHRISTMANN: No objections, Commissioner.
PN204
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, very good. That's dealt with all of the objections.
PN205
MR WELLS: Excuse me, Commissioner.
PN206
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
PN207
MR WELLS: Could my colleague let Dr Faulkner know that she's not required?
PN208
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course.
PN209
MR WELLS: Thank you.
PN210
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Ms Wells, there's just one other thing I wanted to raise as a preliminary issue and that was the determinations which are sought by the applicant. I have some concerns about proposed termination 1. In a sense, it just says the respondent must comply with the agreement. It uses a lot more words to say that but I guess it really – in terms of the orders that you would have me make, I just think they need a degree of specificity such that we know exactly what the university is required to do. And I will need some convincing that I have the power to make proposed order 3 in terms of enforcing option 2 on the university. But I think what I'm going to do at the end of the hearing is to provide you with an opportunity to submit some further draft orders that deals with those issues.
PN211
MR WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN212
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Who are we hearing from first, Professor Munster?
PN213
MR WELLS: Commissioner, in terms of teaching commitments, I wonder if you'd be okay with proceeding first with Dr Sentas?
PN214
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm in your hands. You just call whoever you want first.
PN215
MR WELLS: Thank you, I'll call Dr Sentas. Thank you. Commissioner, I've been ill the last couple of days - - -
PN216
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry to hear that.
PN217
MR WELLS: So I am not infectious now, I promise you, but I'm actually going to be reading off my tablet if that's okay.
PN218
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course.
PN219
MR WELLS: I've never done that before. Great, thank you.
PN220
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MS SENTAS: Victoria Sentas, (address supplied).
<VICTORIA SENTAS, AFFIRMED [11.01 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS WELLS [11.01 AM]
PN222
MR WELLS: Dr Sentas, thank you for your time. Could you explain to the Commission your experience of the development of workload models?‑‑‑So in the faculty of law where I work, our workload formula is called the teaching credit guideline and it outlines numerically the workload that's attached to particular types of work. And my experience is that the head of school routinely when there's a change in the workload, consults all staff to alert them to the existence of the guideline, to ask for feedback formally and once that feedback is incorporated and a decision, a draft document is created, then that draft workload will be voted on by all academics in the faculty board.
PN223
How would you be able to tell what was part of the workload formula in your school or faculty?‑‑‑it's a written document that's provided to all staff, so every possible type of work allocation is covered by the document.
PN224
And how would you have a say in the formula's development?‑‑‑Well, I've personally had a say when the head of school emails all staff, asks for submissions, for example. I teach clinical subjects and there wasn't an express provision in the workload formula for how workload would be allocated in relation to clinical teaching because it's quite different to other teaching. I was, alongside other clinical teachers, invited to a working group to make submissions on what that should look like. That went to the entire faculty for further consultation and discussion and then when the document was incorporated there was opportunity for final discussion and then that was tabled to the faculty board. And in that particular instance there was a vote on whether to accept those particular amendments.
Maybe if we could just have the witness leave the witness box for a moment.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.04 AM]
*** VICTORIA SENTAS XN MS WELLS
PN226
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells, I'm starting to understand the relevance of this witness' experience in the law faculty. It seems to me that the question I have to answer is, did the UNSW correctly apply clause 24 to academic workloads of the UNSW Australia Academic Staff Enterprise Agreement 2005 in the Art & Design faculty in the relevant period.
PN227
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I understand your question. I did confer with my colleagues about the necessity of having anyone external to the art and design workplace appear today. I asked them to consider that we would simply say that the plain text of the agreement applies and we would be happy to then not rely upon this evidence. The reply that I received was that the respondent agreed that the plain meaning of the text applied but that Professor Sierra was giving evidence as to its plain meaning, therefore - - -
PN228
THE COMMISSIONER: But was Professor Sierra involved in the negotiation of the agreement?
PN229
MS WELLS: No.
PN230
THE COMMISSIONER: Then how could she give that evidence?
PN231
MS WELLS: That's a good question, Commissioner. So my response to the respondent was, if we agree that nothing but the plain text applies then those elements of Professor Sierra's evidence will not stand and I will not present material in response to Professor Sierra's assertions about what the plain text of the agreement means.
PN232
THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, if I look at the principles in Golden Cockerel the first thing I have to decide is whether or not there's any ambiguity.
PN233
MS WELLS: That's right.
PN234
THE COMMISSIONER: And as I hear you, you're saying there's no ambiguity, the words speak for themselves.
PN235
MS WELLS: That's right, Commissioner.
PN236
THE COMMISSIONER: And Ms Christmann, as I understand it, you're saying there's no ambiguity, the words speak for themselves but you just think they have a different meaning?
PN237
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, that's right, and that was the point that we made to the applicant on Friday afternoon after the hearing on representation. And we put to the applicant the basis on which then that the statements of Dr Sentas and Dr Faulkner might be admitted with out the need for them to attend. And our proposal was that this was on the basis that the evidence that they give is simply that their respective academic units, and by implication, other academic units, have different processes regarding the establishment and approval of their respective workload formula. There's been an exchange between the parties. I'm not sure if it's useful to share that with you but certainly the respondent has made it clear that as you say, we all agree that it's the plain meaning of the words that's the relevant principle of interpretation but we have a dispute about what that plain meaning is, in the context of all the things that have happened in developing this particular academic unit's particular workload allocation.
PN238
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So, Ms Wells, what parts of Professor Sierra's statement do you cavil with in terms of – I mean, I would have thought that what Professor Sierra says the words means is irrelevant.
PN239
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN240
THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, the university can make submissions to the effect of what Professor Sierra says but really, all I'm to receive is the evidence, aren't I?
PN241
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner. So I am happy to not proceed with external evidence if the agreement of the parties is that any reference from Professor Sierra as to - - -
PN242
THE COMMISSIONER: Where's an example of what you say is an offending paragraph in that regard?
PN243
MS WELLS: I did not mark that part up, sorry, Commissioner, but one example would be in paragraph 72, "I do not accept that it was necessary to take the 2017 workload guidelines back to the wider academic staff members for a vote."
PN244
THE COMMISSIONER: It is best just to proceed on this basis. To the extent that Professor Sierra says, this is what I did, that is evidence of what she did. That's received, but to the extent she says, "I did that because that's what's required by the enterprise agreement", I just don't receive that, or I give it really no weight because her opinion that she was complying with the agreement isn't relevant. What's relevant is whether she did.
PN245
MS WELLS: I agree, Commissioner, so I am happy to proceed in that manner.
PN246
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Christmann?
PN247
MS CHRISTMANN: Thank you, Commissioner. We were a bit surprised by the further evidence-in-chief that was being given by Dr Sentas. She put on no original statement and this is her statement in reply. We did have a small number of questions for cross-examination.
PN248
THE COMMISSIONER: But what I'm trying to get to is, I'm struggling to understand the relevance of this witness at all, or the utility of her being called in circumstances where both parties are saying you're applying the Golden Cockerel principles, the plain meaning of the clause applies and there's no ambiguity and I don't have to have regard to extraneous circumstances – that's what you're saying, isn't it?
PN249
MS CHRISTMANN: It is, Commissioner - - -
PN250
THE COMMISSIONER: Then why does it matter that Professor Sierra says at paragraph 72, "I do not accept that it was necessary to take the 2017 workload guidelines back to the wider academic staff members for a vote"? It doesn't matter what she thought, does it? She just did it.
PN251
MS CHRISTMANN: That's right, Commissioner. I still think it's helpful to have Dr Sentas' evidence that different academic units do it differently.
PN252
THE COMMISSIONER: Why?
PN253
MS CHRISTMANN: There is no prescribed model, Commissioner.
PN254
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I object to that. I continuously asked the respondent if we could agree that the plain text applies then neither Professor Sierra's assertion about how the agreement applies nor the other witnesses would be relevant. The response was, if we would agree to the notion that all the other witnesses go to is that there are separate processes then we could accept them not appearing and their evidence would go in. I couldn't agree to that because it's not that they're talking about – I do agree that each faculty and academic unit may choose their collegial development and process in consultation with all academic staff in the unit. It is true that there are different ways of reaching collegially developed workload formula and demonstrating its general support. Some people do votes by hand and some people do electronic votes, for example. But the question I kept asking was if we agreed to actually simply state the plain text applies then we don't have to actually run evidence about what "transparent" means or what "collegial development" means. But I am, as I said, happy to proceed on the basis that we agree that the plain meaning of – or the text speaks to what "transparent" and what "collegial development" and other key terms of clause 24 mean, and that we proceed efficiently on that basis. Thank you, Commissioner.
PN255
THE COMMISSIONER: I guess what I'm (indistinct) particularly say to you, Ms Christmann, is that if I look at paragraph 72 of Professor Sierra, that opening sentence, I don't see how I can give that any weight. I don't see how that helps me decide whether or not the university correctly applied clause 24. Do you accept that?
PN256
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, I do accept that and I have to say it's been very helpful to hear Ms Wells provide one example of what seemed to be her objection to our agreed fact on Friday. I do now have a better understanding of what she was getting at, Commissioner.
PN257
THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, can we just proceed on the basis that to the extent that Professor Sierra has in her witness statement expressed views about how she thinks it works, there is evidence of how she thinks it works, it's not evidence of how it works. Do you accept that?
PN258
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner.
PN259
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN260
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Do we need to hear further from Ms Sentas, at all?
PN261
MS WELLS: No, Commissioner.
PN262
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And we withdraw her witness statement?
PN263
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN264
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Who is next?
PN265
MS WELLS: Dr Miller, please, Commissioner.
PN266
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Janicki, can you please express my gratitude to Ms Sentas for her attendance and excuse her, thank you.
PN267
MS JANICKI: Yes, Commissioner.
PN268
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name.
MR MILLER: Brad Miller, (address supplied).
<BRAD MILLER, AFFIRMED [11.16 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS WELLS [11.16 AM]
PN270
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells.
PN271
MS WELLS: Good morning, Mr Miller, and thank you for your time. Do you agree that the written statement that you have with you is the statement that you submitted to the Commission?‑‑‑I do.
PN272
Can I take you to point 18 in your statement, Mr Miller.
PN273
MS CHRISTMANN: Excuse me, Commissioner. I'm not sure whether Ms Wells is intending to lead further evidence-in-chief from Mr Miller.
PN274
THE COMMISSIONER: Leave hasn't been given.
PN275
MS WELLS: I'm sorry, Commissioner. I was simply going to ask him a couple of comfortable(?) questions but I'm happy not to, about his statement. I'm happy to re-examine.
PN276
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you. Mr Miller, do you have a copy of your statement in front of you, dated 29 June 2017?‑‑‑Yes.
PN277
Are its contents true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN278
And would you have me receive it as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.
*** BRAD MILLER XN MS WELLS
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
Thank you. It has previously been marked exhibit 5. Ms Christmann?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN [11.17 AM]
PN280
MS CHRISTMANN: It's Mr Miller? It's Mr Miller, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN281
So you've made your statement on 29 June, 2017?‑‑‑Yes.
PN282
Have you seen any of the other witness statements?‑‑‑No.
PN283
Have you spoken to any of the other witnesses about your evidence?‑‑‑No.
PN284
If I could take you to paragraph 4 of your statement, can you see paragraph 4?‑‑‑Item 4?
PN285
Paragraph 4 of your statement?‑‑‑Sorry.
PN286
It's number 4?‑‑‑Yes. Thank you.
PN287
You say you a member of and chair of, the faculty of art and design workloads working committee?‑‑‑Yes.
PN288
And Professor Sierra sent out an email, didn't she, in November 2016, inviting interested academic staff to participate in the workloads working party, do you remember that?‑‑‑Yes, I – I don't have it here with me but - - -
PN289
I can take you to a copy of the email, if that would help?‑‑‑Yes.
PN290
So this is a statement of Professor Sierra, and if I can take you to MS4, which is tabbed MS4 on the side?‑‑‑Yes.
PN291
So does that look like the email?‑‑‑18 November from Professor Sierra, subject (indistinct), workload guidelines and workload working party.
PN292
Invitation to join working party, that's right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN293
But in response you volunteered to join the workloads working party for the faculty, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN294
You took that role seriously?‑‑‑Yes.
PN295
And you were the chair of the workloads working party?‑‑‑I – I was.
PN296
And you took that role seriously, as chair?‑‑‑Yes.
PN297
The workloads working party consisted of 12 members, that's right?‑‑‑Yes, there were – there were a number of attendees to the first meeting and it was happening late in the year and so they were the original - - -
PN298
Twelve - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN299
Twelve members?‑‑‑Yes.
PN300
And they were all eligible academic staff, weren't they?‑‑‑Yes.
PN301
Even Professor Sierra?‑‑‑Yes.
PN302
Yes?‑‑‑She's part of that academic unit.
PN303
Sorry, is that troubling you, that (indistinct)?‑‑‑No, no, it's okay.
PN304
You can just put it aside?‑‑‑Sure.
PN305
Okay, thank you. Now in paragraph 7 of your statement when you talk about staff representatives on the workload working party, can you see that - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN306
Do you mean, and I'm just going to use their last names, Tellow(?), Biddal(?), Stevens(?), Longbottom, Coote, Garbutt, McIntyre, Williamson, Kelley and Weymouth, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN307
In paragraph 8 of your statement – so in paragraph 8 of your statement you sought feedback by sending emails to eligible staff, is that right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN308
You received feedback from staff?‑‑‑Yes.
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN309
How many emails did you get, roughly?‑‑‑Over – over 20, perhaps.
PN310
Over 20?‑‑‑I can – look, I – I - - -
PN311
Less than 30, less than 25?‑‑‑I actually don't know. I'd have to go and look it up.
PN312
An estimate?‑‑‑Between ten and 20.
PN313
Okay, so you didn't get emails from all eligible academic staff?‑‑‑No.
PN314
Is it right that some staff gave lots of feedback and others, not so much?‑‑‑Yes, I think that's would be fair to say.
PN315
And right that people raised different issues, or emphasised concerns that were particular to them?‑‑‑Yes, I think that could be fair to say.
PN316
Did you give all that feedback to the workloads working party?‑‑‑There was a process that was developed by the faculty of that information would be sent to the executive officer of the management's office, that's Krista Mott's(?).
PN317
So the question was, the feedback that you received - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN318
Did you give that to the workloads working party, and whatever process had been arranged?‑‑‑No, I don't – I don't think I – it wasn't – I didn't formally send that material on to the working party. Staff sent submissions onto Krista, the executive assistant, and they were the documents which were then compiled by the working party.
PN319
Thank you. And the workloads working party considered all of the feedback?‑‑‑Yes, they were - - -
PN320
Yes?‑‑‑Compiled, yes, sorry.
PN321
And did the workloads working party implement all of the feedback into a proposed model, could you capture everything?‑‑‑It – yes, I would say - - -
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN322
Most? Some?‑‑‑I would say most of the material of – as you mentioned, there was a range of ways of putting – there was no straight way - - -
PN323
Thank you?‑‑‑Yes, sorry.
PN324
Paragraph 14 - - -?‑‑‑Sorry, can I just grab some water?
PN325
Of course?‑‑‑Yes.
PN326
On paragraph 14 of your statement you say that staff were informed on 16 February 2017 that voting was open for two options. Can you see that there?‑‑‑Yes.
PN327
And, sorry, I'm paraphrasing, I'm not saying exactly what you said?‑‑‑Sure.
PN328
But please let me know if you think I'm misrepresenting it?‑‑‑I think that it was around about that time that you're talking about.
PN329
But isn't it right though that staff were informed, first informed on 14 February, that voting was open for two models, so the voting had to be started again, didn't it?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, that's true. And it was – well, I don't know exactly the dates but yes, there was a double process of opening and then closing it then - - -
PN330
And this was after you'd send an email to academic staff and also after the NTEU sent an email to academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.
PN331
Is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.
PN332
Can I take you to tab MS9. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing that's – so MS9, an email from you to a list of people, that was – is that all academic staff selection of academic staff?‑‑‑It's as many academic staff as I – I had access to.
PN333
And then MS10, an email sent by the NTEU, it's not quite clear to who, but I guess some academic staff, is that right?‑‑‑It appears.
PN334
All right, thank you. In paragraph 16 of your statement - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN335
You say you received an email with the graph, which is your attachment 3?‑‑‑Yes.
PN336
Commissioner, I'd like to ask a question about an email that's not currently in evidence. We seek to tender that document. It was provided to the NTEU yesterday and I think it's fair to say that no objection was made. So this email is an email sent by Marie Sierra to the academic staff list about the outcome of the vote, the first vote. Do you agree?‑‑‑Yes.
PN337
Yes, and do you agree that the email says in the final line, "The next step is for the result to be considered by a faculty board"?‑‑‑I do see that, yes.
PN338
Thank you. So I'll tender that email, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: The email dated 21 February 2017 will be the new exhibit 8.
EXHIBIT #8 EMAIL DATED 21/02/2017 FROM MARIE SIERRA TO ACADEMIC STAFF LIST RE VOTE OUTCOME
PN340
MS CHRISTMANN: So in paragraph 20 of your statement, Mr Miller - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN341
So just put that email to one side?‑‑‑Sure.
PN342
If you'd just put it out of the way somewhere. Sorry, you've got a lot of paper there?‑‑‑Yes.
PN343
So you said earlier that you accepted the invitation to volunteer for the workloads working party?‑‑‑Paragraph 20 - - -
PN344
In paragraph – no, I'm taking you to paragraph 20 but I'm asking you a question?‑‑‑Sorry.
PN345
So earlier, you said you accepted the invitation to volunteer for the workloads working party?‑‑‑Yes.
PN346
So if I could take you now to Professor Sierra's email which is MS4, it's page 28 of the bundle?‑‑‑MS4?
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN347
Yes, so you looked at it briefly before?‑‑‑Yes, indeed.
PN348
So under the heading, "invitation to join working party", about mid-way in that first paragraph it says, "The working party will co-ordinate the review of the academic work code guidelines"?‑‑‑Yes.
PN349
Can you see that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN350
Then if you turn over the page, page 29 it is, on the bottom right-hand corner - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN351
There's a table on that page that sets out the dates of the key activities that were proposed, is that right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN352
Do you see that table?‑‑‑Yes, I do see that table.
PN353
Now we need to ignore the dates because all the dates (indistinct) are some time after this?‑‑‑Yes.
PN354
But you agree that the last activity there for the workloads working party is prior to the vote, can you see that?‑‑‑Sorry, what – could you rephrase that again, sorry? I missed that.
PN355
Okay, so we've got, "Consultation period, working party to meet to consider feedback, working party to circulate feedback, working party to circulate any revised workload guidelines"?‑‑‑Yes.
PN356
"Voting period on proposed academic workload guidelines"?‑‑‑Yes.
PN357
Yes? So there was no suggestion there that there was any formal role for the workloads working party after this point in the process?‑‑‑Not in this paper.
PN358
Okay, thank you. Paragraph 22 of your statement, so if you put – you can put Marie's statement, perhaps - - -?‑‑‑Yes, yes, all right.
PN359
Yes, statement aside?‑‑‑Yes, I have.
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN360
Okay, get that out of the way. You attended the faculty board meeting on 15 March, that's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN361
At that meeting did you raise any objection to what the faculty board was doing?‑‑‑No.
PN362
Did you raise any concern about the decision to refer option 2 to the faculty quality committee?‑‑‑No.
PN363
No? So you didn't raise any other concerns at that board meeting?‑‑‑Not at that time.
PN364
Did any of the other members of the workloads working party who were at the board meeting raise any concerns about the decision to refer option 2 to the faculty quality committee?‑‑‑There were – there were comments from other - - -
PN365
Sorry, did any of the workloads working party – so you know who they are?‑‑‑Yes.
PN366
So who made a comment?‑‑‑I remember Liz Williamson making some comments and I think I also remember Grant Stevens making some comments.
PN367
Okay?‑‑‑But - - -
PN368
Thank you?‑‑‑Okay, sure. Sorry.
PN369
Do you accept that the faculty is required to operate within budget and organisational restraints, as a general proposition?‑‑‑Could you rephrase that again?
PN370
So do you accept that the faculty is allocate a budget?‑‑‑I accept that.
PN371
And it's expected to operate within it?‑‑‑I – I concede that that could be a standard kind of - - -
PN372
So that's a yes? Is that a yes?‑‑‑Yes, I guess so.
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN373
And that the university has plans and objectives and that the faculty might also be expected to operate within those parameters?‑‑‑Yes, I – I would.
PN374
And I would like to put another general proposition to you. Do you agree that certain committees at the university might be asked to consider information that is confidential and can't be circulated more widely, as a general proposition?‑‑‑Well, yes, I - - -
PN375
I can give you an example?‑‑‑I do, as a general proposition but there would be specifics that would go to - - -
PN376
Okay, so an example might be a committee who's asked to look at issues of staff performance in a particular unit or consider applications for a promotion?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN377
Or disciplinary matters, things like that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN378
I wanted to ask you a question about the staff meeting on 10 April, the school staff meeting, and you went to that meeting on 10 April?‑‑‑I don't think I attended that stuff - - -
PN379
You didn't attend it?‑‑‑On 10 April.
PN380
Okay, why is that?‑‑‑I think I had some other prior commitment. I'd have to go back and have a look at my diary.
PN381
So you didn't have anything that was so pressing that you needed to go back to that school staff meeting and raise?‑‑‑I don't recall.
PN382
Okay, thank you?‑‑‑There are other members of the working party that attended.
PN383
Thank you. But you weren't there?‑‑‑No, I wasn't there.
PN384
No, okay. At paragraph 31 of your statement you say that the email from Professor Sierra didn't advise staff what changes were made to option 2, is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.
*** BRAD MILLER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN385
At 32 you say that you received an email from the dean, Professor Harley, about the changes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN386
And you were able to work out what the changes were, weren't you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN387
No further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS [11.33 AM]
PN389
MS WELLS: Thank you, Mr Miller. Ms Christmann took you to MS4, do you still have that with you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN390
And you can see the dates there?‑‑‑Yes.
PN391
Were all elements of workload regulation resolved by option 2?
PN392
MS CHRISTMANN: Excuse me, Commissioner, I'm not sure how that's connected with the question that was put to him in cross.
PN393
MS WELLS: Well, Ms Christmann, you asked our witness about presumably why there would be an expectation of further workload working party discussion after the vote. If you have read option 2, and indeed the exchange between Mr Miller and Professor Sierra, which Professor Sierra's evidence points to, you would see that there was further work to be conducted so I'm just wanting to ask Mr Miller about that.
PN394
THE COMMISSIONER: I think it - - -
*** BRAD MILLER RXN MS WELLS
PN395
MS WELLS: So Mr Miller, what outstanding activities did you consider the working party to have to do?‑‑‑I guess the key one was the teaching credits proposal. In the options that were described in option 2 the proposal was to create a teaching credit mechanism to try and capture parts of the working workload that perhaps moved plus or minus and that there was a way of banking or crediting these – the extra smaller components to try and find a way not to turn the workload into a minutiae but rather some sort of mechanism that would be understood by everyone that there was a process of storing extra work, perhaps, that was part of the teaching and teaching related kind of area. And we were – we only developed what was a principle of what that teaching credit system would be about and it sets out that it can only be used for research and that, you know, some basic fundamentals and it had a fundamental arithmetic description to try and – to start the conversation. It was the most bare minimum, but knowing that if we put the full – a very detailed, you have the time to work out a detailed approach. I had discussed it with numerous members of the working party and I'd brought various documents to the table in January, describing it in more detail but I think with the time available it was very difficult to get across the detail, so there was perhaps the idea in that option 2 that this was something that could be further developed and worked on.
PN396
Are you suggesting it was included in option 2?‑‑‑I think I actually put in consultation with other members of the working party, a description that it alluded to that it could be worked on after – or up to June or something with that matter.
PN397
And Ms Christmann has asked you about the email that you and other staff would have received on 21 February. Professor Sierra says the next step is for the result to be considered by the faculty board?‑‑‑Mm.
PN398
Can you tell the Commission what you considered would be the next steps?
PN399
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, excuse me, Commissioner? Can I object to that?
PN400
THE COMMISSIONER: Why does that matter?
PN401
MS WELLS: I think the suggestion, Commissioner, is that Professor Sierra's opinion about whether it needed to be considered by the faculty board has some weight but I agree with you, Commissioner, it does not - - -
PN402
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know that – you agree that her view that it needs to be considered by the faculty board doesn't have any weight, does it?
PN403
MS CHRISTMANN: We rely on the statement as what the next step would be.
PN404
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's just a statement of what step was taken, it's not a – it can't be taken as proof of what was required.
PN405
MS CHRISTMANN: That's right, Commissioner.
*** BRAD MILLER RXN MS WELLS
PN406
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN407
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner. Can I take you to point 21 of your statement, Mr Miller?‑‑‑Yes.
PN408
And you were asked about the faculty board meeting, but were you not a member of the faculty board?‑‑‑No, I'm not a member of the faculty board.
PN409
Were you invited to the faculty board meeting, Mr Miller?‑‑‑I – I - - -
PN410
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner – I beg your pardon, Commissioner, this is not a matter that we dealt with in cross-examination.
PN411
THE COMMISSIONER: Cross-examination.
PN412
MS CHRISTMANN: He had an opportunity to put on evidence in reply.
PN413
MS WELLS: Ms Christmann has asked you about whether you made objections to the faculty board meeting?‑‑‑Right.
PN414
Did you have a speaking role at the faculty board?‑‑‑Did I have a speaking role? No, I don't think that I had a speaking role. I mean, I – sorry, okay, let's just calm down – so I asked whether I could attend the – you know, with respect to the – the chair. That was granted. I appeared with other members of the working party to – to discuss and listen to the discussion of the proposal option 2 that had been voted on. And I only – only when I was asked for my opinion or clarification to particular issues did I think I – I spoke to – I don't think I – I led or was asked to lead a comment or a position statement, sorry.
PN415
In fact, I understood you had observer status at the faculty board?‑‑‑Yes. I guess that's what it'd be called.
*** BRAD MILLER RXN MS WELLS
PN416
Right. Can I take you to point 37 of your statement. Ms Christmann asked you about if Professor Harley had explained the changes that were made to option 2 in his email of 15 May. Could I ask you to explain to the Commission in terms of your statement, what was not included?‑‑‑Yes, well – well, there was a number of things that – that weren't in option 2 that are in the summary by Professor Harley. One was that we – I think even in the previous workload document there was a minimum description and it was in the January, early January tables of – in both options, both option 1 and option 2 that were being developed, so there was a minimum teaching allocation of three hours. There were other elements that - we tried to describe international teaching as a part of a mobility program that we're involved with at the faculty. There was, you know, recruitment and outreach workshops, engagements, say, for instance, with annual progress reviews but that's for supervision around post graduate students, which are beyond your – your own students so you (indistinct) as part of panel with expertise perhaps in a particular area. I think they're the ones that I can remember that are in my statement.
PN417
Did the explanation from Professor Harley discuss the inclusion of shared teaching?‑‑‑Shared teaching? No.
PN418
MS CHRISTMANN: I beg your pardon, Commissioner. Paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 are Mr Miller's evidence about what he thought was missing from the email. It seems to me, Commissioner, that Ms Wells is trying to lead evidence-in-chief and we'll need an opportunity to put evidence in reply if we thought there was anything to be covered.
PN419
MS WELLS: In point 33 of your statement, Mr Miller, please ignore the second sentence but you state, "This email summary characterised the feedback of the academic unit's view of shared teaching as being highly regarded. Was - - -
PN420
MS CHRISTMANN: Excuse me, Commissioner, I make the same objection.
PN421
THE COMMISSIONER: How does this arise out of cross-examination?
PN422
MS WELLS: Commissioner, Ms Christmann has discussed with Mr Miller what was advised to employees in the academic unit by way of Professor Harley's email on 15 May. Ms Christmann has introduced this matter.
PN423
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, the question was simply, was he able to work out what the changes were.
PN424
THE COMMISSIONER: And what's your question?
PN425
MS WELLS: Were you able to work out if shared teaching was included in Professor Harley's email or not, Mr Miller?‑‑‑Could I work out what the shared teaching was from Professor Harley's email?
*** BRAD MILLER RXN MS WELLS
PN426
That's right?‑‑‑I couldn't tell whether it was option 2 or the previous circumstance, or actually option 1.
PN427
Was that because shared teaching was a feature of option 1?‑‑‑Shared teaching was in option 1.
PN428
Could you explain to the Commission what shared teaching is?‑‑‑Yes. Well, in our context, you know, within the art and design faculty shared teaching is mostly – from my experience, happens within the honours program but we haven't run it as shared teaching previously. This is a new – a change in the new model and shared teaching in my typical experience was when you were back in the room together in the same studio, at the same time.
PN429
And did Professor Ross Harley's email explain the inclusion of shared teaching in his email of 15 May into option 2(a)?
PN430
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, I object on the basis that Ms Wells is leading the witness, and relevance.
PN431
THE COMMISSIONER: They do sound like leading questions.
PN432
MS WELLS: I beg your pardon, Commissioner?
PN433
THE COMMISSIONER: They do sound like leading questions.
PN434
MS WELLS: I apologise.
PN435
THE COMMISSIONER: They've very suggestive of the answer.
PN436
MS WELLS: I apologise. Ignore that last question.
PN437
THE COMMISSIONER: Why does it matter anyway?
*** BRAD MILLER RXN MS WELLS
PN438
MS WELLS: The introduction of shared teaching, Commissioner, is an introduction made by Professor Sierra on 1 May. It featured in option 1 which went down by six votes to 57. Shared teaching as a concept is not a problem. But the problem unfortunately is that in Professor Sierra's proposed model of 1 May, which has failed to be explained in – comprehensively even by Professor Harley's email of 15 May, the unilateral inclusion of shared teaching in this formula means that when people teach together in the same studio or any other physical location they are given less time in their teaching allocation for that. So not only is it an arbitrary change to option 2, Commissioner, but it also means that people aren't given recognition for the teaching work they perform. It's akin to suggesting that because Ms Christmann and Ms Chan are sitting here today, Ms Chan should not be paid because they've both sat in the same space. This proposal was - - -
PN439
THE COMMISSIONER: So this goes to whether or not option 2(a) is an equitable workload, is that right?
PN440
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner, and also that the measures in option 2(a) reflect the work performed, that the measures correspond to the hours of work performed. Professor Sierra made an arbitrary change, or let's pretend the faculty board made an arbitrary change to option 2, many of those changes have direct impact upon employees' workloads, in particular, the insertion of her formula for shared teaching. And she make clear, Commissioner, it's her formula because in her own statement she explains to the faculty quality committee why they should have to pick it up, otherwise Armageddon would ensue. Now I appreciate I will not be able to cross-examine - - -
PN441
MS CHRISTMANN: Excuse me, Commissioner - - -
PN442
MS WELLS: Or examine Mr Miller about any of these issues.
PN443
MS CHRISTMANN: Well, I would say, Commissioner, that Ms Wells had an opportunity to have those matters addressed in Mr Miller's witness statement and chose not to.
PN444
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN445
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I will simply examine Professor Sierra on this basis.
PN446
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Is there any further re-examination?
PN447
MS WELLS: No, Commissioner. Thank you.
PN448
THE COMMISSIONER: On that basis, Mr Miller, thank you for your attendance here today. You've been of great assistance to me and you are now excused?‑‑‑Thank you.
*** BRAD MILLER RXN MS WELLS
MS WELLS: Thank you, Mr Miller.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.50 AM]
PN450
MS WELLS: Commissioner, we would like to examine Associate Professor Liz Williamson, please.
PN451
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN452
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MS WILLIAMSON: Elizabeth Williamson, (address supplied).
<ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON, SWORN [11.52 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WELLS [11.52 AM]
MS WELLS: Thank you, Associate Professor Williamson, thank you for you time. Do you have a copy of your statement with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do. I actually have to get my other glasses, I'm sorry. I can't read. Yes, I do.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN [11.53 AM]
PN455
MS CHRISTMANN: Associate Professor Williamson, you made a statement on 29 June 2017, if I can take you to paragraph 4 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN456
In 4 you say you were a member of the faculty of art and design workloads working party, is that right?‑‑‑Yes, I was.
PN457
Do you recall that Professor Sierra sent out an email in November 2016, inviting interested academic staff to participate in the workloads working party? She did that, didn't she?‑‑‑Excuse me, that's – is that – that's not in my statement.
PN458
No but do you recall that she sent an invitation to academic staff asking for volunteers?‑‑‑Yes, she did, yes.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XN MR WELLS
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN459
And in response to that you volunteered to join the workloads working party?‑‑‑Yes, I did.
PN460
You took that role seriously?‑‑‑Yes, I did.
PN461
And it's right that the workloads working party consisted of 12 members?‑‑‑There was a core of members. I – as I – as you'll read in my statement 4, I was on leave in January and February 2017 and I was unable – I was out of the country. I was unable to attend all of those meetings so I don't know how many people were at the meetings when I was overseas.
PN462
So do you know that there were 12 members of the party? And I might name them, if that helps? So there was Miller, and I'll just use their last names for convenience – Miller, Tallow, Biddal, Stevens, Longbottom, Coote, Garbutt, McIntyre, Kelley, Weymouth, and Professor Sierra and you?‑‑‑Yes, all of those people were at the meetings that I attended - - -
PN463
Okay?‑‑‑Not – actually, George Coote wasn't at any of those meetings although I know he was at the later meetings so they were not necessarily all of the meetings that I attended.
PN464
Okay, so the question was - - -?‑‑‑And there was a - - -
PN465
The question was just, were they members of the workloads working party?‑‑‑Yes.
PN466
Yes, okay. And they were all eligible academic staff?‑‑‑As far as I know, yes.
PN467
So they were academic staff but they weren't casuals, perhaps is a better way of putting it?‑‑‑They were academic staff.
PN468
And Professor Sierra, as well, is academic staff?‑‑‑Professor Sierra is academic staff.
PN469
You say you were overseas in January and February of 2017. Does that mean that you didn't seek any feedback from staff on the workload model, or you did still seek feedback from staff?‑‑‑So can you just elaborate on what kind of feedback?
PN470
Well, first I'm asking you whether you did in fact seek any feedback from academic staff about the workload model?‑‑‑It was general that staff - - -
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN471
did you, yourself - - -?‑‑‑I didn't send out an email, if that's what your question - - -
PN472
Okay, thank you?‑‑‑But I did have discussions with staff because staff were interested in what was going on about the workload model and there was a lot of interest in it.
PN473
How many discussions? Sorry to interrupt you. How many discussions would have had, do you think? Just an estimate is fine?‑‑‑In December – in November and December, from the time we came to here to the Fair Work Commission, I could have easily spoken to 50 staff members about the workload situation.
PN474
So 50 - - - ?‑‑‑There was a lot of interest in it.
PN475
Okay, so that's your estimate. None of that's in your statement though, is it, the feedback you received?‑‑‑No, because I wasn't – no, I didn't think it was important.
PN476
I just asked you whether it was, I wasn't - - -?‑‑‑And my understanding is that you can ask me questions about things in this statement. Does that give clarification on that?
PN477
THE COMMISSIONER: She can ask you questions about the matters that are in dispute and before me, and there might be things that aren't in your statement and should be there so she's entitled to put them to you?‑‑‑Okay, thank you.
PN478
MS CHRISTMANN: Is it right that – sorry, Commissioner, if I may continue?
PN479
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN480
MS CHRISTMANN: Is it right that some people raised maybe a lot of issues, or more than one, and others raised less, is that a fair - - -?‑‑‑In the meetings that I attended in November - - -
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN481
I'm talking about feedback generally. So in the discussions you had is it fair to say that some academics raised a lot of concerns, or a longer list than others? Is that a fair comment?‑‑‑There were a variety of concerns in the discussion that I had. Most of my discussions that I had in November/December was to make sure people were – well, people were interested in what the situation was with the workload and my discussions were about – because at that time we were calling for academics to comment on what should be considered in a new workload model, following on from being here.
PN482
So we've covered that, Associate Professor Williamson. If I might just bring you back to the question which is, is it true that some people raised a lot of issues in their feedback, others raised less than that? Some people might have, for example, emphasised their concerns or shared concerns, so there was a variety, is what I'm putting to you?‑‑‑Yes, there was a variety in – in discussions about the feedback - - -
PN483
Thank you?‑‑‑And variety in the written submissions on what the workload models would cover.
PN484
And did you give all that feedback to the workloads working party? Did you make sure that all fed through?‑‑‑The workloads committee looked mainly at the documents that were submitted by staff.
PN485
So not all of the discussions that you had were fed back to the workloads working party?‑‑‑No, because that wasn't what was expected of the workload committee.
PN486
I see?‑‑‑Other than a general – we discussed the issues arising and how to – once we received all of the feedback from academic staff - - -
PN487
So the things - - -?‑‑‑We discussed how we would move forward with that. So it was about assembling that information that we received in the feedback and – because that was what was requested. It wasn't feedback from general conversations - - -
PN488
I see?‑‑‑That was being brought into that discussion.
PN489
I see. I understand, so formal feedback that was received, that's what you considered. And did you implement all of the feedback into a proposed model?‑‑‑Yes, all of the – in my – my recollection all of the feedback that staff submitted – well, except there was an issue in that staff were – the feedback was called from all staff - - -
PN490
Right?‑‑‑And it arrived in various forms. There was no template. And that was seen as an issue because staff had a variety of comments and to assemble that in a logical way was extremely difficult and there was a view that it needed to be in a much clearer format.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN491
So there's a process of filtering, would it be fair to say that?‑‑‑My understanding is that the majority of feedback was incorporated into the workload and - - -
PN492
So the majority, okay. Thank you. I'd like to show you an email – Commissioner, may I show exhibit 8 to the witness please?
PN493
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN494
MS CHRISTMANN: So this is an email that Professor Sierra sent to academic staff, notifying them of the outcome of the vote, is that right?‑‑‑Yes, it is. It's dated on 21 February.
PN495
And you agree that the email also says, "The next step is for the result to be considered by the faculty board?‑‑‑This is – that's what's written here.
PN496
Okay, thank you?‑‑‑Can I comment on that? Can I - - -
PN497
THE COMMISSIONER: Your representative, Ms Wells, will have an opportunity to re-examine you?‑‑‑Right.
PN498
MS CHRISTMANN: So you attended the faculty board meeting on 15 March?‑‑‑Yes, I did.
PN499
At that meeting the faculty board decided to refer the option 2 model to the faculty quality committee, didn't it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN500
At that meeting did you object to what the faculty board was doing?‑‑‑I'm not part of the faculty board and I was there as an observer.
PN501
Okay, so at the meeting did you make any objection to what the faculty board was doing?‑‑‑No, because I was there as an observer and that wasn't my role. I did ask some questions.
PN502
So you asked some questions?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN503
I see. They're not in your evidence. Did you raise a concern about the decision to refer option 2 to the faculty quality committee?‑‑‑The whole workload policy was referred to the faculty quality committee. No, I didn't specifically raise a concern about that.
PN504
Did any of the other members of the workloads working party who were at the board meeting, so that was Mr Miller, Dr Kelley, and I think it's Mr Weymouth, raise any concern at the meeting about the decision to refer option 2 to the faculty quality committee?‑‑‑I'll just say again, we were there as observers and we - - -
PN505
But did they raise any objection, was the question?‑‑‑No.
PN506
No? Okay?‑‑‑No, because that's not the role of an observer.
PN507
Okay, so looking at paragraph 6 of your statement, you say you went to the staff meeting on 10 April?‑‑‑Yes.
PN508
Did you get up there and say that the university couldn't do what it was doing in sending the workload model to the board?‑‑‑Excuse me? Could you repeat that?
PN509
Did you, at that staff meeting, did you get up and say, "I disagree with what you're proposing to do", which is sending the workload model to the board?
PN510
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Christmann, why is it relevant to a question before me, whether or not this witness objected to that? If she had, what would it have mattered? If she didn't, what does it matter?
PN511
MS CHRISTMANN: Because our submission is that academic staff had an opportunity to provide feedback. They were given many opportunities to raise concerns, to be consulted.
PN512
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Proceed.
PN513
MS CHRISTMANN: So Commissioner, may I - - -
PN514
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN515
MS CHRISTMANN: So is it right to say that you didn't raise any concerns at the staff meeting on 10 April, Associate Professor Williamson?‑‑‑I asked a question about whether the option 2 would be, when it was implemented – because at that stage option 1 had been implemented for semester 1, and then they were talking about option 2 would be implemented for semester 2. That's clear in my statement. I asked a question of the dean, whether option 2 would be implemented for all of 2017, and he said yes.
PN516
I see. That's not actually in your statement?‑‑‑No, because my comment in the - - -
PN517
But thank you?‑‑‑In here is to say that Professor Harley did not indicate that it would be some parts of option 2 only, and that was not discussed at that faculty – at the school meeting.
PN518
I see?‑‑‑It was discussed that they were looking at the workloads model. Our understanding was that the workloads model would be tabled at the faculty meeting. That was the understanding from the beginning of the workload policy.
PN519
So Associate Professor Williamson, I'm sorry to interrupt, it is a difficult thing to do but I'd like to bring you back to the questions that I'd like to ask you, please. In paragraph 9 you say that you have not been invited to attend a meeting of the faculty quality committee in 2017, is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.
PN520
But there was no requirement for the faculty quality committee to invite you, was there?‑‑‑I don't – I've never been involved in the faculty quality committee. I don't know how it's – what their expectations are. I understand that it meets to discuss issues.
PN521
Is it your answer that there was no requirement - - -
PN522
THE COMMISSIONER: No, her answer is, I don't know anything about it. Fair enough that you can ask the question but in fairness to the witness you should listen to their answer.
PN523
MS CHRISTMANN: Okay. Earlier you said that you accepted the invitation to volunteer for the workloads working party that was set up by Professor Sierra, is that right?‑‑‑I told you that, yes.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN524
Okay, thank you. I'd like to take you to the invitation. If I can provide the witness a copy of Professor Sierra's statement. So if you would please turn to MS4, the tab MS4, down the right-hand side. Now at page 28, on the numbers down on the bottom right, and you'll see under the heading, "Invitation to join working party", it says, that "the invitation is for interested academic staff to participate in the working party who will co-ordinate the review of the academic workload guidelines", is that right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN525
So could you turn over to the next page, please, page 29, and you'll see there's a table under the heading, "Summary of key dates." There are a number of activities and dates next to them?‑‑‑I can see it, yes.
PN526
So the dates have since changed but you'll see that there is a list of activities for the workloads working party and then after that there is the final row which says, "Voting period will be open", can you see that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN527
So I wanted to suggest to you that there was no formal role for the workloads working party after this preliminary process?‑‑‑Well, these dates are incorrect, as you indicated.
PN528
As I said, yes, so we're just ignoring the dates, but I'm talking about the activities. So would you agree that on this invitation there is no formal role for the workloads working party after that point?‑‑‑Not on this table but in discussions there was, with Professor Marie Sierra.
PN529
I'm asking about the table. Okay, thank you. Now I wanted to put a number of general propositions to you. Do you accept that the faculty is required to operate within a budget and within organisational restraints?‑‑‑Yes, clearly organisation, institution, faculty, school, has a budget.
PN530
Okay, thank you?‑‑‑But the budget is – can be varied according to the expectation, things that need to be applied, but there is a budget, yes.
PN531
And organisational restraints such as an institution's objectives, priorities - - -?‑‑‑My understanding of budgets are they're a list of plans and when demands arise those plans can be shifted and changed according to the will of the institution.
PN532
I see. Right, so that's a bit different to budgets that I've seen, but okay - - -?‑‑‑Well - - -
PN533
As a - - -
PN534
THE COMMISSIONER: No, it's not an opportunity to engage in a debate with the witness, Ms Christmann. We ask questions, she answers them.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN535
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner, I understand, thank you. I apologise. As a general proposition, Associate Professor Williamson, do you agree that there are times when a committee at the university might be asked to consider information that can't be circulated more widely that is sensitive or confidential? So for example, a committee might be asked to look at issues of staff performance, they might be asked to consider applications for promotion or consider, I don't know, a conduct matter, something of that kind. Do you accept that as a general proposition?‑‑‑As a general proposition, yes, and most committees - - -
PN536
Thank you?‑‑‑The basis that the operate should be available for all the people in the institution.
PN537
Okay, but you accept that as a general proposition?‑‑‑It depends how the committee is set up and what their role is.
PN538
Thank you. In paragraph 11 of your statement you say that you needed to check against the original option 2, to work out how the model had been changed, is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's clear, yes.
PN539
And you were able to identify those changes, weren't you?‑‑‑I was able to identify the changes by going through the proposed new workload model - - -
PN540
Thank you?‑‑‑Against option 2 that was voted on by the majority of staff.
PN541
Thank you?‑‑‑But I had to go through it line by line and section by section.
PN542
Thank you. No further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Is there any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS [12.12 PM]
PN544
MS WELLS: Thank you, Associate Professor Williamson. You were asked by Ms Christmann about the meeting on 10 April 2017, and you discussed this meeting in your statement. What is the length of this meeting?‑‑‑It's one hour.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON RXN MS WELLS
PN545
Is general discussion invited?‑‑‑It depends on if there's an opportunity at the end of the presentations that are scheduled, and there was a short opportunity at the end of that meeting, maybe for a few minutes, for questions.
PN546
In your statement you have said about this meeting that Professor Harley did not indicate that it would be some parts of option 2 only, so point 6, if I can take you to point 6 of your statement - - -?‑‑‑Yes, that's right. He didn't – there was discussion that the workload was – that the quality committee was looking at the workload.
PN547
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, if I may, again I think we're going into matters that were not raised in cross.
PN548
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells.
PN549
MS WELLS: You were asked in cross-examination, Associate Professor Williamson, about Professor Sierra's email of 21 February, and you were asked to look at that - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN550
It's called exhibit 8 now?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN551
Is there anything further you'd like to make a point about that?‑‑‑In the – my recollection of the workload policy – the workload committee, it was mentioned a number of times by various people of that committee which included Professor Sierra, that the final workload would be tabled at the faculty meet (indistinct), tabled. It wasn't clear that it would be looked at in the detail that it was earlier this year. But the understanding was that the policy had to be tabled at the faculty board.
PN552
MS CHRISTMANN: Commission, if I may, any details of discussions with Professor Sierra, there was an opportunity to put those on in evidence in reply.
PN553
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms Wells.
PN554
MS WELLS: Thank you, Associate Professor Williamson?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN555
THE COMMISSIONER: You're now excused. Thank you for attending today?‑‑‑Thank you.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON RXN MS WELLS
That greatly assisted?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.16 PM]
PN557
MS WELLS: Commissioner, we next call Professor Munster, please.
PN558
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Just while we're waiting, exhibit MS23 has attached to it the proposed (indistinct) option 2(a). Where do I find option 2?
PN559
MS WELLS: Good question, Commissioner. I'm not sure that it was attached to Mr Miller's statement. We would be happy to provide the Commission with a copy.
PN560
THE COMMISSIONER: What I would like, I would like option 2. I would also like a version produced which is, if it's possible, tracked changes to option 2 so that I could see what changes were actually made in 2(a).
PN561
MS WELLS: Before the next witness comes in, Commissioner, I can say that that can certainly be done because the NTEU representatives did that, trying to work out what the changes were after 1 May.
PN562
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, and if that tracked change version of option 2 that reflects the changes that appeared in 2(a) could be filed as a joint document, agreed document. So if you can provided that track changed document, if you've already done the work - - -
PN563
MS WELLS: Yes.
PN564
THE COMMISSIONER: Provide it to the university and if the parties can agree that that accurately reflects the changes from 2 to 2(a), then jointly file it.
PN565
MS WELLS: Right, thank you, Commissioner. What we'll need to add to it is what's been added to option 2(a).
PN566
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes. Yes. Yes.
PN567
MS WELLS: Thank you.
*** ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON RXN MS WELLS
PN568
THE COMMISSIONER: I want it to be a complete track changed version. It's probably easier for the university to issue. You should be able to just grab option 2, grab option 2(a), and use MS Word to do a track change comparator. Anyway, I would like a jointly submitted document that reflects the changes.
PN569
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner. Apologies, Professor Munster was working on level 10 and she's just on her way up.
PN570
THE COMMISSIONER: Good.
PN571
MS WELLS: Thank you.
PN572
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MS MUNSTER: My name is Anna Marie Munster, (address supplied).
<ANNA MARIE MUNSTER, AFFIRMED [12.19 PM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS WELLS [12.19 PM]
PN574
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Wells?
PN575
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner. Welcome, Professor Munster, thank you for your time. Do you have a copy of your statement with you?‑‑‑I do, yes.
PN576
Thank you, very much. Ms Christmann has kindly pointed out to me there are two statements, do you have both copies with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN577
Thank you.
PN578
THE COMMISSIONER: Are the contents of the statement true and correct?‑‑‑Yes, they are.
PN579
And would you have me receive them as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I will.
Thank you. They've been previously marked. Thank you. Ms Christmann?
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XN MS WELLS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN [12.20 PM]
PN581
MS CHRISTMANN: Professor Munster, you made two statements, one on 29 June 2017, and one on 19 July 2017, that's right?‑‑‑Just let me look at the dates.
PN582
Yes, they're on the last page of your - - -?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.
PN583
In your statement on 29 June 2017, at paragraph 11 you say that you read the email and attachment dated 1 May and you were unclear about what elements of the workload model would change, is that right, that's what you say there?‑‑‑Yes, that's what I say there, yes.
PN584
Did you do anything to clarify what the changes were?‑‑‑I read the email and I was unclear of what the changes were.
PN585
So did you take any further step to try and clarify for yourself what the changes were?‑‑‑Can I ask you what would that step be?‑‑‑I'm just asking you if you took any. For example, you asked someone or you looked at other documents or – for example?‑‑‑I read the email and I was unclear about what the elements of the workload model that were unchanged. That's what I did.
PN586
You received an email from Professor Harley on 15 May 2017. That's not in your statement but if I can take you to the email so that you can see what I'm talking about. Commissioner, if I might show the witness - - -
PN587
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN588
MS CHRISTMANN: The statement of Professor Sierra?‑‑‑So where is that exactly?
PN589
So this is at a tab that's marked MS25?‑‑‑MS25, was it?
PN590
Yes, MS25?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN591
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XN MS WELLS
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
So that's an email from the dean, Professor Harley, to academic staff lists and the email has headings. He describes in his email that he's setting out the details of the amendments to option 2. And I wanted to ask you whether you were then able to identify the changes when receiving that email?‑‑‑May I have a minute to look at this email, please?
PN592
I guess the question is, do you remember - - -
PN593
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you may?‑‑‑Thank you. Yes, I recall this email.
PN594
MS WELLS: Okay. Do you recall when you received the email, were you then able to identify the changes?‑‑‑I wasn't able to identify all the changes - - -
PN595
Okay, so that's - - -?‑‑‑And it was still unclear to me, and this in particular has to do with point 7 on that email.
PN596
So you weren't able to identify all the changes?‑‑‑No.
PN597
Did you do anything else then after that to clarify for yourself what the changes were, do you remember?‑‑‑I don't have a specific recollection about doing anything such as writing officially to anyone but I may have had conversations with my colleagues about the confusions between the different workload options.
PN598
Thank you. Now you can put that folder to one side now, please?‑‑‑Yes, thank you.
PN599
I wanted to ask you about your further statement, so this is the one dated 19 July?‑‑‑Yes.
PN600
So I wanted to ask you a couple of questions that go to paragraph 4 and paragraph 12 of your statement. You say at 4 that it was not made clear to you that the final workload formula required the approval of the faculty board?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct. That's what I say at 4.
PN601
And you say at 12 that you first found out option 2 was going to the faculty board on 22 February?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN602
Now you've read Professor Sierra's statement, haven't you?‑‑‑Yes, I have.
PN603
At paragraph 14 of her statement, and I'll ask you to take her statement again and go to paragraph 14 - - -?‑‑‑Take her statement - - -
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN604
So that's the one in the folder?‑‑‑Yes.
PN605
There's a document in the front which is her statement?‑‑‑Yes, okay, thank you.
PN606
And there's a paragraph numbered 14. It is on page 3 of her statement. Now at paragraph 14 she refers to an email sent by her assistant on her behalf to all academic staff, do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN607
Yes. And if you turn to MS1, the tab marked MS1 on page 16, the email says, and I might be paraphrasing so the email says that the faculty is proceeding with a review and a consultation process on academic workloads and attaches information", do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN608
So if you turn the page there's an attachment headed, "Art and design academic workload, review of teaching allocation", and on page 17, under the heading, "background", the final sentence, can you see that there, says, "Any changes to the guidelines must be circulated for discussion and approved by the faculty board on an annual basis", do you see that?‑‑‑I do see that, yes.
PN609
It says that, okay. If I can take you to paragraph 33 of Professor Sierra's statement which starts at the bottom of page 6 of her statement - - -?‑‑‑Thirty-three, paragraph 33?
PN610
That's right. And it refers to an email dated 14 February?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN611
And that's attached as MS8, if you'd go to MS8, please, and it's on page 48, numbered in that bottom, right-hand corner?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN612
The email starts, "Dear academic staff", and explains how to vote for your preferred workload model, can you see that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN613
And the final sentence in that first paragraph says, "The one with the most staff support will form workload guidelines after approval by the faculty board, is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN614
Okay, thank you. And if you could put that folder aside for one moment, Commissioner, now I show exhibit 8 to the witness, please. Professor Munster, I'm showing you an email from Professor Sierra to academic staff which notifies them of the outcome of the vote. Do you agree that's what that email does?‑‑‑I agree that that's what the email does and I also agree that the last line of the email says for the result to be considered by the faculty board, not approved by faculty board.
PN615
Okay, so my question was exactly that. Do you agree that the email says, "The next step is for the result to be considered by the faculty board", thank you?‑‑‑(No audible reply)
PN616
You can put that email to one side, thank you?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN617
So you agree then that there were communications that made it clear to you that any proposed model would need to be approved by the faculty board?‑‑‑No, because in fact there are different kinds of wordings in the communication. One says, "approved", others say, "considered." And the process of faculty board is that items are often tabled in the agenda and unless they are starred they are simply passed through faculty board.
PN618
I see?‑‑‑So "approved" - - -
PN619
So did you – did you - - -?‑‑‑Means different things.
PN620
Okay, so the question was, do you agree that the emails I took you to, the two that said, "approved", said that the faculty board would need to approve (indistinct)?‑‑‑I agree that those emails have the word "approval" in them.
PN621
Okay, thank you. That's all I'm asking at this point, thank you. In paragraph 12 you say that you first found out on 22 February that option 2 was going to be discussed at the faculty board and that you found this out because you received an email from Professor Sierra?‑‑‑Do you need - - -
PN622
Is that right?‑‑‑Do you need an answer from me?
PN623
Yes, thank you?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct, what I say there, yes.
PN624
Thank you. Were you concerned about that?‑‑‑Could you rephrase that question? Was I concerned about which?
PN625
Were you concerned? Did that raise a concern in your mind to hear that?‑‑‑I don't know what you mean by "concern."
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN626
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I'm not sure what the relevance of her feelings would be.
PN627
MS CHRISTMANN: Did you go to any of the members of the workloads working party and say, "I'm not sure this is what should be happening", for example?
PN628
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I'm not sure this is relevant to the text of clause 24. There is no vigilante requirement for individual employees to chase their employer about the application of the agreement.
PN629
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, if - - -
PN630
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want the witness removed?
PN631
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, if you wouldn't mind.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, if you'd just step outside for a moment, thank you?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.32 PM]
PN633
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, I make the same submission as previously, that part of the respondent's case is that people had multiple opportunities to provide feedback and raise concerns and to be active participants in consultation.
PN634
MS WELLS: Commissioner - - -
PN635
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Well, you don't – surely the NTEU doesn't deny that there was consultation?
PN636
MS WELLS: We, in fact, do deny there was consultation post the - - -
PN637
THE COMMISSIONER: You say there was no consultation in relation to 2(a)?
*** ANNA MARIE MUNSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN638
MS WELLS: In respect of option 2(a) and post the application of the vote. So Mr Miller goes to Professor Sierra straight afterwards acknowledging two things, one, that there's further consultation that's required in respect of teaching credits, and two, that – it's good that there's no witness in the room – that Professor Sierra's accidentally or otherwise, left off a component of option 2 which should be voted on separately which was about research honours. Professor Sierra simply just says people can be over polled and asks him not to commence consultation on that basis. Certainly the employees were advised of the fact that the collegially developed model option 2 would be referred to the faculty board. They were advised that it was going to be discussed. They were then advised that it was going to be mentioned or noted at the school meeting. But there is a definition of "consultation" in the agreement in the definitions clause and being advised of something is not consultation. So we completely dispute that there was consultation about the process. The examination of option 2(a) then was referred to a faculty quality committee of seven people which included Professor Sierra, so everything in that process was marked "confidential" and the discussions, as Professor Sierra attests, were confidential. This is the opposite to transparent, it was the opposite to consultation and it certainly wasn't consultation with all academic - - -
PN639
THE COMMISSIONER: Under no circumstances am I going to allow the question.
PN640
MS WELLS: Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, get the witness back.
<ANNA MARIE MUSTER, RECALLED [12.35 PM]
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN, CONTINUING [12.35 PM]
PN642
MS CHRISTMANN: Professor Munster, my last question was whether upon finding out on 22 February that option 2 was being discussed at the faculty board, you raised your concerns with anyone about that and I think, if I remember correctly, I gave the example, did you raise that with anyone in the workloads working party?‑‑‑I don't have a recollection of speaking directly to anyone in the workloads working party but I spoke to staff representatives on faculty board about it.
PN643
I see. That's not in your statement, anywhere?‑‑‑No but there's nothing in my statement to also say that I needed to raise a matter of concern.
PN644
Were you - - -?‑‑‑This is a question you're asking me which is in addition to anything in my statement, so that's why I'm answering in that form.
*** ANNA MARIE MUSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN645
Were you aware that members of the workloads working party were attending the faculty board meeting?‑‑‑I did find that out later, yes.
PN646
So not beforehand?‑‑‑Sorry, I found that out later from 22 February.
PN647
So you were aware before the meeting that members of the workloads working party were attending the board meeting?‑‑‑Yes.
PN648
Is that right?‑‑‑I knew they would attend the board meeting.
PN649
Okay, than you. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN650
Were you aware that Mr Miller spoke at the board meeting?‑‑‑He informed me about that later, yes, after the board meeting.
PN651
I wanted to ask you whether you attended the school staff meeting on 10 April?‑‑‑No, I was not able to attend because I was teaching at the time that the meeting was on.
PN652
Did you ask anyone to raise anything for you?
PN653
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I'm not sure - - -
PN654
WITNESS: I don't have a recollection of that, of doing that.
PN655
MS CHRISTMANN: Okay, thank you. Now I wanted to put a general proposition to you, Professor Munster. Do you accept with your experience as a professor and a long term academic that the faculty is required to operate within budget and organisational restraints?‑‑‑Can you clarify what you mean by, "organisational restraints"?
PN656
So for example, an institution like a university might have strategic priorities or a plan or things which then flow down to a faculty about what it focuses on, what its priorities are, as an example, as a - - -?‑‑‑As a - - -
PN657
It's a general proposition?‑‑‑As an example, I know that that is what happens in universities, yes.
*** ANNA MARIE MUSTER XXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN658
Thank you. As a general proposition, as well, do you agree there are times when a committee at the university might be asked to consider information that can't be circulated more widely because it's confidential or sensitive, so an example might be that a committee might be asked to look at issues of staff performance of conduct, or the promotions committee might consider things that aren't circulated more widely?‑‑‑I agree in the examples that you've given where particular staff members are named or where a student is named, that a committee – proceedings are confidential.
PN659
Thank you. No further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS [12.39 PM]
PN661
MS WELLS: Thank you, Professor Munster. Can I ask you, you've just been asked general propositions - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN662
About committee structures?‑‑‑Yes.
PN663
So in respect of that general proposition, if a committee has a requirement to be confidential, as a general proposition would you consider the workings of that committee transparent?‑‑‑Not with respect - - -
PN664
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's a nice try, Ms Wells but I don't know whether – or how this witness' opinion about what is or is not transparent assists me in deciding what is or is not transparent.
PN665
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner. Thank you. Professor Munster, you've been asked about the faculty board through Ms Christmann. Are you a member of the faculty board?‑‑‑I'm not a member of the faculty board.
PN666
What did you understand the role of faculty board to be?‑‑‑As a general proposition or with respect to this matter?
PN667
Yes, as a general proposition?‑‑‑The faculty board is the board that tables and brings into - - -
PN668
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, if I may - - -
*** ANNA MARIE MUSTER RXN MS WELLS
PN669
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN670
MS CHRISTMANN: Matters going to the workings of the faculty board are not in either of Professor Munster's statements.
PN671
MS WELLS: But you've challenged Professor Munster about them.
PN672
THE COMMISSIONER: You did. You did ask questions about it.
PN673
MS CHRISTMANN: I asked questions about particular emails that refer to the faculty board, not the inner workings of them.
PN674
THE COMMISSIONER: What's the objection?
PN675
MS CHRISTMANN: That if Professor Munster had direct evidence to give about the workings of the faculty board it would already be in her materials.
PN676
MS WELLS: Well, I think we're in agreement there, Commissioner. Professor Munster has no knowledge of the inner workings of the faculty board, at least in respect of the workload formula, so I'm happy to finish the examination there.
PN677
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN678
MS WELLS: Thank you, very much?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN679
THE COMMISSIONER: Professor Munster, can I thank you for your attendance here today. You've been of great assistance to me and you are now excused?‑‑‑Thank you. Do I leave the room or can I sit at the back?
You can sit at the back if you like.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.42 PM]
PN681
MS WELLS: Commissioner, that is all the witnesses for the applicant.
*** ANNA MARIE MUSTER RXN MS WELLS
PN682
THE COMMISSIONER: Very good. So will we start with Professor Sierra or would you like to have a short break?
PN683
MS WELLS: I'm happy to proceed, Commissioner.
PN684
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, it was not clear from Ms Wells' opening remarks, how long Professor Sierra might be required in cross. Under the circumstances it might be easier on the witness if she had an opportunity to have something to eat before - - -
PN685
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What I think we will do is adjourn until quarter past one. What I have prepared is – actually my Associate will get a copy of the documents that I prepared, which sets out in short format some background and then proposes what might be the agreed questions for me to determine in this dispute. And over the luncheon adjournment it would be useful if the parties could look at that, consider it, confer amongst themselves and see whether or not you can agree that these will be the five questions that I answer to resolve the dispute. Because it seems to me, now having heard and gone through some of the evidence, that what we're really focusing on is 24.2 and 24.1(c) in the agreement, and so in the document which you will see in a moment I have set out extracts from those clauses and then refashioned the wording of the agreement into questions for me to answer and if you agree that this is the way forward then what I'll provide the parties an opportunity to do, we'll provide it to you in MS Word format and I'll get you to provide your answers based on the evidence to each of these five questions. So if you could take some time over the luncheon adjournment to look at this, consider it, and confer between yourselves – I think it's always useful if we can have an agreement about how the matter proceeds and this is my suggestion but I'm open to what you might suggest by way of agreed questions. We're adjourning until quarter past one.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.46 PM]
RESUMED [1.32 PM]
PN686
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, how did you go over the luncheon break with the agreed questions?
PN687
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner. I spoke to the other party. I have suggested an additional question which we need to finalise but which goes along the lines of, "Was option 2A developed in a way that identifies a transparent correlation between the measure applied and the hours of work generated?"
PN688
That comes out of clause 24.2C, Commissioner, and deals with the fact that the measure, whether it's points or minutes, should transparently reflect the time taken to do a task. That's part of the requirement for a workload formula. I also had no concerns about the background but certainly wanted to note the governing principles in general of 24.1 in the background if the Commissioner was okay with that and ‑ ‑ ‑
PN689
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, but I ‑ the thing is, aren't the others really picked up? And I'm not ‑ really what I want to do is break this down to what is essential.
PN690
MS WELLS: Yes, so ‑ ‑ ‑
PN691
THE COMMISSIONER: So I can understand what you're saying now about 24.2C.
PN692
MS WELLS: And my point about whether it's adequately covered or not, I'm trying to think about ‑ so there's a question that goes to transparent allocation of workload in question 4 but in the governing principles not only does it have to be a transparent allocation of work so that people can ultimately see what their workload is in compared to others in the unit, but also that the process itself of developing the workload model is transparent.
PN693
That is one of the governing principles in 24.1 so I'm just trying to deal with whether that's adequately covered just by mentioning that in the background or it should have perhaps a question in and of itself in respect of transparent allocation because the question, "Does option 2A provide for the transparent allocation", ‑ well, once it's implemented it may well do. But was it in 24.1 a transparent process of work allocation which is one of the ‑ ‑ ‑
PN694
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I'm going to leave this document with the parties and I expect that by the close of business on Friday you'll jointly file a document which is agreed.
PN695
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN696
THE COMMISSIONER: But can I just emphasise, I want it really pared back to what is essential for me to determine.
PN697
MS WELLS: Thank you.
PN698
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't want all of clause 24 copy‑pasted into this document.
PN699
MS WELLS: No, I'd rather a question on transparency than any more preamble.
PN700
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's up to you to come to an agreement about the questions I will answer.
PN701
MS WELLS: Thank you.
PN702
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner ‑ ‑ ‑
PN703
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
PN704
MS CHRISTMANN: ‑ ‑ ‑ if I might ask a question about the document you've proposed?
PN705
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
PN706
MS CHRISTMANN: The respondent is just confirmed to clarify that when you say in the background or when you propose in the background on 1 May you (indistinct) sought to implement a workload model, that you're not suggesting that everything that happened in the process from 21 October 2016 is outside of the relevance of the question?
PN707
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no, but what I'm looking at is ‑ the thing that was sought to be imposed on 1 May is the document entitled:
PN708
Workload Guidelines and Procedures 2017, Faculty Board. This version approved on 26 April 2017.
PN709
It is the version that was attached to the email from Professor Sierra on 1 May 2017. That's the document that we are concerned about.
PN710
MS CHRISTMANN: At MS23?
PN711
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN712
MS CHRISTMANN: Thank you, Commissioner. If I may, Commissioner?
PN713
THE COMMISSIONER: Just bear with me, sorry.
PN714
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes.
PN715
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
PN716
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, just a practical question. If the parties are to provide written submissions on the basis of this document, and we are also waiting on a marked up version of the workload guidelines, could we suggest that we propose a timetable or at least consider a timetable of how closing submissions might be managed?
PN717
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I'm happy for the parties to have some discussions about (indistinct) my Chambers. If you've come up with a date that you want to come back and make some short oral submissions or file some written submissions, maybe a problem ‑ so first of all let's have the agreed questions submitted by the partiers by close of business on Friday.
PN718
At the same time it would be good if you could submit a timetable for the filing of closing submissions. If you then want an opportunity to come back and supplement them with short oral submissions then propose three dates that is agreeable to you from which I could choose one.
PN719
MS CHRISTMANN: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN720
MS WELLS: Commissioner, I'm happy to consult the other party as well. I'm actually unavailable, not at work, Friday afternoon. So I'd certainly be able to make a midday deadline but otherwise happy to look at Monday if that suits.
PN721
THE COMMISSIONER: So let's make it close of business on Monday.
PN722
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I think we're up to Professor Sierra.
<MARIE ANN SIERRA, AFFIRMED [1.40 PM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS CHRISTMANN [1.40 PM]
PN724
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XN MS CHRISTMANN
PN725
MS CHRISTMANN: Professor Sierra?‑‑‑Yes?
PN726
Settled?‑‑‑Yes.
PN727
Okay. Can you state your full name for the record?‑‑‑Marie Ann Sierra.
PN728
Do you have a witness statement with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN729
Does that witness statement contain 81 paragraphs?‑‑‑Yes, it does.
PN730
And does the statement contain attachments MS1 on page 16?‑--Yes.
PN731
Through to MS30 on page 137?‑‑‑Yes.
PN732
Do you have any changes you wish to make to your statement?‑‑‑No.
PN733
Do you confirm the statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge?‑‑‑Yes, it is.
PN734
I tender the statement, Commissioner.
PN735
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. It's been previously tendered and marked as exhibit 10 in the proceedings, thank you.
Ms Wells?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS [1.41 PM]
PN737
MS WELLS: Thank you for your time, Professor Sierra. Can I take you to point 5 of your witness statement, please? At point 5 in your statement you note the current number of permanent or fixed term academic staff in faculty is 95 staff. So the view of 28 staff is not a view of the majority of 95 staff, is it?‑‑‑28 is not a majority of 95.
PN738
No, thank you. At point 21 of your statement, if you could turn to that please, here you acknowledge that the working party meetings were open to all staff to attend, don't you?‑‑‑Yes.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN739
Professor Sierra, do you think that the Faculty of Art and Design Faculty Board has the capacity to veto a workload formula?‑‑‑It ‑ ‑ ‑
PN740
THE COMMISSIONER: It doesn't matter if she thinks they do.
PN741
MS WELLS: Commissioner, point taken.
PN742
Could I take you to clause 24 of the Academic Enterprise Agreement? Do you have a copy of that with you, Professor Sierra?‑‑‑Clause 24 of the enterprise agreement?
PN743
Yes?‑‑‑Sorry, there's ‑ no, I only have my witness statement. I don't have a clause.
PN744
I'm happy to pass you a copy. Actually, you have clause 24 in MF2, your second annexure at page 19. And thank you, Ms Christmann?‑‑‑Okay, I've got it now. Thank you.
PN745
Would you like to have a moment to look at it?‑‑‑Okay, I've had a look at it.
PN746
Great. Would you agree that there's no reference to a Faculty Board in clause 24?‑‑‑There is no reference to Faculty Board in clause 24.
PN747
Thank you. Coming back to your statement at paragraph 31, in (a) of paragraph 31 you say that you were not aware of any specific request by Mr Miller for information about resource implications. Would you agree that you did not contribute any financial information to the workloads working party?‑‑‑Financial information could be provided when there is a workload model to do calculations from.
PN748
So simply yes or no?‑‑‑So ‑ ‑ ‑
PN749
Did you actually ever provide financial information?‑‑‑So because that was not the case financial information was not provided because there was nothing for us to model.
PN750
No, I appreciate that. Did you or not, yes or no?‑‑‑We were not able to.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN751
I put to you you did not. I think ‑ we've heard point 35. If I take you to point 46 of your statement and give you a chance to have a look at it. You note here that there was an omission in the papers that went to all academic staff to vote on option 2 in respect of HDR supervision, higher degree research supervision. Mr Miller suggested a vote to rectify this omission, didn't he?‑‑‑He did suggest that, yes.
PN752
Thank you. Now, point 49 you discuss the Faculty Quality Committee's considerations. Having clause 24 handy again, would you agree that there is no reference to the Faculty Quality Committee in clause 24? And feel free to have another look if you like?‑‑‑There is no reference to Faculty Quality Committee in clause 24.
PN753
Thank you. At point 54 you explain how you advised the Faculty Quality Committee that you could not afford to treat the circumstances of shared teaching as solo teaching. Specifically you say:
PN754
It was my opinion that if shared teaching was to continue at the faculty it needed to be reflected in the manner proposed by option 1, being a weighting of 1.5 hours per face to face taught.
PN755
In the agreement, Professor Sierra, depending if the lecture or tutorial is a repeat or not an academic staff member gets two hours for each associated hour of teaching, don't they?‑‑‑In the schedule of the enterprise agreement there is a clause about that in relation to casual staff.
PN756
Yes, which is used as a regulator of academic teaching workloads in workload formulas, isn't it?‑‑‑A regulator, no. We refer to it in relation to weighted hours.
PN757
I put to you it is. So here you're suggesting to the Faculty Quality Committee to reduce the time allocated to teaching in shared teaching modes?‑‑‑I'm sorry, you were asking me about repeat teaching before.
PN758
Yes, so ‑ well, sorry, at point 54 of your statement you asked the Faculty Quality Committee, this group of seven that's inclusive of you, that they should apply 1.5 hours per face to face taught in that mode of teaching, yes?‑‑‑That's correct.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN759
Thank you. So today you're represented by Ms Chan and Ms Christmann. Do you think Ms Chan should not get paid today because they're both sitting in the room? I'm just wanting to understand the logic behind reducing the allocation for teaching when there are two academics present in a studio class.
PN760
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner.
PN761
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, no ‑ well, what's the objection, first?
PN762
MS CHRISTMANN: There's no suggestion in any of the evidence that the teachers would not be paid their salary for shared teaching.
PN763
MS WELLS: This is true, Commissioner. They would have longer to ‑ they would have less allocated time in their working week to perform the work that they need to do and that means that they would have to work ‑ ‑ ‑
PN764
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in that case that's not a fair question to ask.
PN765
MS WELLS: Accepted, Commissioner. I'll return to the point in another way, in a fair way.
PN766
Do you accept, Professor Sierra, that where the union don't consider that to be a correct application of the agreement?‑‑‑I ‑ ‑ ‑
PN767
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner?
PN768
MS WELLS: Professor Sierra ‑ ‑ ‑
PN769
THE COMMISSIONER: Ask the question again.
PN770
MS WELLS: Sorry?
PN771
THE COMMISSIONER: Ask the question again.
PN772
MS WELLS: Sorry. Does Ms ‑ Professor Sierra accept in the dispute committee meetings that we have held that the union disputes that reducing preparation time is a correct application of the agreement?
PN773
THE COMMISSIONER: Why does that matter? Why is that relevant to a question before me?
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN774
MS WELLS: Well, it does ‑ ‑ ‑
PN775
THE COMMISSIONER: Why does that matter whether or not Professor Sierra accepts that the union disagrees with her?
PN776
MS WELLS: Okay, it doesn't matter what Professor Sierra's view of that is, yes, that's true.
PN777
Professor Sierra, was this mode of shared teaching a part of workload formula option 1?‑‑‑Shared teaching was part of option 1. The enterprise agreement doesn't have any provisional mention of shared teaching.
PN778
I put to you this is why the NTEU considered that option 1 did not comply with the enterprise agreement.
PN779
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner, again that's the same question.
PN780
MS WELLS: Well, in fact, Professor Sierra's evidence deals with option 1 and the views of the NTEU.
PN781
THE COMMISSIONER: Well ‑ ‑ ‑
PN782
MS WELLS: Rightly or wrongly, Commissioner.
PN783
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll probably give that as little weight as it deserves.
PN784
MS WELLS: I understand, Commissioner.
PN785
Professor Sierra, do you supervise professional staff?‑‑‑No, I do not.
PN786
Do you know how professional staff's hours of work are regulated?
PN787
MS CHRISTMANN: Excuse me, Commissioner, I'm not sure of the relevance and I'm not sure where this is dealt with in Professor Sierra's statement.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN788
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it goes to the workload model, does it?
PN789
MS WELLS: No, Commissioner.
PN790
At point 72 of your statement ‑ paragraph 72, in the remaining relevant element of that paragraph you state that management at the school meeting let staff know the Faculty Quality Committee was working on modifying the option 2 model, didn't you?‑‑‑We let staff know that the Faculty Quality Committee was looking at the workload in considering how it could be implemented.
PN791
Thank you. In paragraph 68 just above that paragraph on page 13 of your statement, Professor Sierra, you state in the second sentence:
PN792
I consider Professor Harley's email accurately summarises the main modifications to the option 2 model.
PN793
Would you agree Professor Harley's email is not comprehensive about the changes?‑‑‑In my ‑ in the next sentence I note that it didn't cover mobility teaching.
PN794
And I put to you it didn't cover other elements?‑‑‑(No audible reply)
PN795
Thank you.
PN796
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, how about she be provided an opportunity to respond to the proposition which is put to her?
PN797
MS WELLS: Okay. Do you think that it didn't cover anything else, Professor Sierra?‑‑‑I'm unclear what you mean by "other" because "other" was also a term used in the workload model to describe a number of things including ‑ one of which was mobility. There was also teaching credits in "other" and some other statements. So the things that were in "other", "other" as described in workload model option 2, were not covered in Professor Harley's email, including mobility which was the easy ‑ it's the named thing in "other". So, sorry, two meanings of the word "other". I just want to be clear.
PN798
I understand. Do you consider that the performance of teaching is a main issue of the workload model? Would you agree with that?‑‑‑Yes.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN799
So professor Harley's email further didn't include the removal of the three hour teaching minimum which was agreed in option 2, wasn't it?‑‑‑The three hours that we later agreed to put back in? No, he didn't cover that in his email.
PN800
And in terms of budget allocations would you agree that if all academic staff were required to perform a three hour minimum of teaching, that that would have an impact on the budget of the faculty, on the teaching budget of the faculty?‑‑‑May I clarify? Do you mean if the statement was in there as opposed to the statement not being in there?
PN801
If the minimum requirement for all academic staff to teach three hours was in option 2A as presented on 1 May?‑‑‑It would have ‑ ‑ ‑
PN802
That would have an impact, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Very ‑ ‑ ‑
PN803
Everyone being required to teach ‑ ‑ ‑
PN804
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, sorry, Ms Wells ‑ ‑ ‑
PN805
MS WELLS: Pardon.
PN806
THE COMMISSIONER: Can you just allow the witness to answer your questions?
PN807
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN808
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Just slow it down. We've got plenty of time?‑‑‑It would have a very small impact because most staff teach ‑ even if they're ‑ they don't have classroom teaching but only supervision, for example, they would have three hours.
PN809
MS WELLS: Do you teach ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑So the impact would be very minimal.
PN810
Do you teach, Professor Sierra?‑‑‑I have supervision, yes.
PN811
Do you have any financial evidence to support your assertion it would have a minimal impact?‑‑‑Not on me, no, but ‑ ‑ ‑
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN812
Yes, that's okay?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ because most staff are involved in some sort of teaching, even if that teaching is exclusively supervision, and supervision garners hours then ‑ or gains hours then everyone ‑ I can't think of a staff member who doesn't have at least three hours.
PN813
I think NTEU members have a different impression about that but that's okay.
PN814
THE COMMISSIONER: It's not an opportunity to debate with the witness.
PN815
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner. Apologies, Commissioner.
PN816
At point 65 of your statement, Professor Sierra, you note again that ‑ here and in other areas of your statement that no staff members approached you for further information?‑‑‑Is it with no concerns or further information? Not ‑ ‑ ‑
PN817
At point 65 you say:
PN818
None of these staff members requested further information from me.
PN819
?‑‑‑Regarding the modifications to option 2? No.
PN820
And you, in paragraphs 35, the element that remains relevant, 58, 65 as we've seen here, and paragraph 70 you make the same point repeatedly, no staff approached you individually? I think we can agree that individual staff would probably ‑ ‑ ‑
PN821
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, do you agree?
PN822
MS WELLS: Do you agree, Professor Sierra, that there is no evidence an individual staff member will approach you to discuss the correct application of clause 24? They have their union to do that, don't they?
PN823
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner?
PN824
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN825
MS CHRISTMANN: Objection to that on the basis that the evidence is not about the application of clause 24 of the enterprise agreement. It's about the workload model that was proposed.
PN826
THE COMMISSIONER: All agreements about the proper application of clause 24 of the enterprise agreement. That's what the application is about.
PN827
MS WELLS: Commissioner, repeatedly the respondent assets that ‑ ‑ ‑
PN828
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I mean, I know you're looking quizzical there but, Ms Christmann, I mean, reading your submissions the resolution of this application requires consideration of the meaning of clause 24.
PN829
MS CHRISTMANN: Sorry, Commissioner, I may not have made myself clear.
PN830
THE COMMISSIONER: No.
PN831
MS CHRISTMANN: What I was attempting to address the Commission about was that the question being put to Professor Sierra is not about the interpretation of clause 24. Her evidence is about whether staff came to her to talk to her about the workload model about option 2.
PN832
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and clause 24 provides for consultation and I assume that it will be the university's case that there was consultation. And what Ms Wells is doing is testing whether there was and part of consultation is people asking questions and having them answered and ‑ well, the legal definition of consultation is the opportunity to affect the outcome.
PN833
MS CHRISTMANN: Then if it's ‑ the question is put on the basis, "Did any staff approach her about the model", then I withdraw the objection. But it's ‑ ‑ ‑
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN834
MS WELLS: The question actually goes to not that people would not put questions about a new model they knew nothing about but simply that when employees were repeatedly advised that the Faculty Quality Committee was looking at the mode, the employees did not approach Professor Sierra individually about that?‑‑‑The employees didn't approach me individually about the Faculty Quality Committee in relation to the option 2 model and the work being done on it. In the normal course of business staff will often speak to me about their individual workload to say what they think they might be teaching the following semester or what they may want to do next year. So if I'm understanding your question correctly you're asking me in relation to whether they spoke to me about option 2 and raised concerns about it, no, they ‑ sorry, the work the faculty quality committee was doing on option 2, no, they did not. Did they continue to speak to me about their workloads in a sort of, if you like, minor way or ordinary questions about what they might teach and whether they would be doing convening or assessing? Yes, they did.
PN835
Thank you. And it would be difficult for them to talk to you individually about option 2A or its development because you would agree that the work of the Faculty Quality Committee was confidential?‑‑‑I ‑ ‑ ‑
PN836
Yes?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ don't agree. Staff always talked to me about what's going on in the faculty at a number of levels.
PN837
But they couldn't have known what Faculty Quality Committee was discussing about their workloads because it was confidential, wasn't it?‑‑‑The Leadership Forum ‑ ‑ ‑
PN838
Yes or no, Professor Sierra?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ was informed and the School Meeting was informed so they did know that that was going on. While the Faculty Quality Committee was considering the numbers and working on the numbers the Faculty Quality Committee agreed that if it put that information out while it was being worked on, because there was a number of different numbers being tested and thought about and discussed, that that information wouldn't be reliable. And my ‑ ‑ ‑
PN839
I mean, it makes sense ‑ ‑ ‑
PN840
THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just ‑ sorry to interrupt. Can I just get the chronology right in my mind?‑‑‑Sure.
PN841
So on 21 February 63 academic staff in the Art and Faculty ‑ sorry, Art and Design Faculty vote in favour of option 2?‑‑‑That's correct, Commissioner.
PN842
Right. So 66 per cent support option 2?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN843
On 22 February you refer that to the Faculty Board?‑‑‑That ‑ it was always to go to Faculty Board, yes.
PN844
On 22 February you referred it to the Faculty Board?‑‑‑Yes.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN845
And you're a member of the Faculty Board?‑‑‑Yes, I am.
PN846
And on 15 March the Faculty Board referred option 2 to the Faculty Quality Committee?‑‑‑That's correct, Commissioner.
PN847
And you're a member of the Faculty Quality Committee?‑‑‑Yes, I am.
PN848
And it met on 29 March and 5 April. The Faculty Quality Committee met on those two dates?‑‑‑Yes.
PN849
And on 26 April the Faculty Board accrued recommendations from the Faculty Quality Committee and that resulted in what's now colloquially referred to as option 2A, isn't that's right?‑‑‑That's correct, Commissioner.
PN850
Right. So do you accept that option 2A was not designed by the staff of the Art and Design Faculty? It was a creature, was it not, of the Faculty Board acting on the recommendation of the Faculty Quality Committee?‑‑‑It was developed by the Quality Committee to go back to Faculty Board to be reconsidered, yes.
PN851
But the Faculty Board adopted it on 26 April?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN852
It becomes a creature ‑ or inexistence because of the adoption by the Faculty Board?‑‑‑That's correct, because ‑ ‑ ‑
PN853
And you'd accept that option 2A, as adopted by the Faculty Board, was not designed by the staff of the Art and Design Faculty?‑‑‑The entire staff body, no. A representative group of the staff.
PN854
Well, it wasn't ‑ well, option 2A ‑ just focus on the discrete document. Could you have a look at MS23 in the folder? Do you have that there?‑‑‑I do, thank you.
PN855
And this is the document which we're referring to as option 2A. And you accept that it differs from option 2?‑‑‑I do accept that, Commissioner, yes.
PN856
And you'd accept that this document in this final format was not developed by the staff of the Art and Design Faculty, wouldn't you?‑‑‑That's correct.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN857
Thank you. And you'd accept also that following its adoption by the Faculty Board on 26 April you emailed it to the staff saying, "This is what I'm going to implement", didn't you?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.
PN858
Right, and you accept that between 26 April when it was adopted by the Faculty Board and 1 May when you emailed it to staff there was no discussion with staff about option 2A?‑‑‑Over those few days, no.
PN859
So you'd accept that staff were not consulted about option 2A?‑‑‑The broader staff group, no.
PN860
Well, no staff group other than the people who were on the Faculty Board and the Faculty Quality Committee got to have any say in option 2A, is that right?‑‑‑Correct.
PN861
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner. Could I just ‑ ‑ ‑
PN862
THE COMMISSIONER: Hang on, I don't know that I'm finished.
PN863
MS WELLS: Pardon.
PN864
THE COMMISSIONER: And then you put option 2A out to a vote on 13 July?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN865
And it was supported by 28 out of 95 people?‑‑‑Correct.
PN866
Which is, on my math, 29 per cent of the faculty?‑‑‑Correct.
PN867
And you'd accept that 29 per cent is not general support for a proposition?‑‑‑I accept that it's not a majority, yes.
PN868
Yes, all right. I have nothing further.
PN869
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN870
Professor Sierra, you talked about ‑ in your discussion then about the Faculty Quality Committee you mentioned the word "representative". I just wanted to ask you about that. The Faculty Quality Committee Members aren't invited from the eligible academic staffing unit, are they?‑‑‑All committees report to Faculty Board and the Dean under the University Rules nominates members of committees.
PN871
Yes, so they're nominated, whereas the Workloads Working Party ‑ anyone that wanted to participate could do so, couldn't they?‑‑‑Yes.
PN872
And that's the price of democracy, that if you wanted to be involved you could?‑‑‑(No audible reply)
PN873
Thank you. Can I take you to paragraph 78 of your statement please, Professor Sierra? You say on page 15 of your statement that:
PN874
The purpose of the workloads guidelines is to provide a reasonable allocation of time for the nature of the tasks.
PN875
Could I take you to clause 24? And does that phrase "reasonable allocation" appear?‑‑‑I'll have to go back to 24 but I don't believe "reasonable allocation" ‑ the wording comes up.
PN876
No. You're right, Professor Sierra. I put to you that it actually says:
PN877
The workload formula will be developed in a way that identifies a transparent correlation between the measure applied and the hours of work generated.
PN878
Some academic units use points. Your faculty uses time, minutes or hours, to measure a task. So I put to you the minutes that the formula provides for marking has to correlate with the minutes taken to conduct the marking, doesn't it?‑‑‑As an average, yes.
PN879
Well, I'll put to you you have to have generally supported agreement to that measurement, don't you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN880
Thank you.
PN881
Just reviewing, Commissioner, because I don't want to cover ground probably more succinctly put by you.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN882
Could I take you to your annexures at page 28 please, Professor Sierra? So would you agree that in the middle paragraph of page 28:
PN883
The invitation to join the working party is put to all employees.
PN884
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN885
Could I take you to page 45, MS7? Do you agree this is an email from you, Professor Sierra, to Mr Miller and Dr Kelly?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN886
Do you agree that the working party discussed the manner by which people would express general support in February 2017, the manner by which they would vote?‑‑‑Yes.
PN887
Thank you. Do you agree that in the middle of this page you say to Mr Miller and Dr Kelley:
PN888
We will use Qualtrics to send every continuing and fixed term academic staff member the email below. The mail will include an individual onetime only link to voting (SurveyMonkey wasn't going to do that so we are using Qualtrics instead because it's much smarter.)
PN889
?‑‑‑That's what it says, yes.
PN890
Thank you?‑‑‑I know SurveyMonkey better now.
PN891
So in the February process the voting was private and assured to represent one vote for each staff member, wasn't it?‑‑‑Yes, it closed after the person voted once.
PN892
Thank you.
PN893
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the same with the 13 July vote?‑‑‑Yes, it was.
PN894
MS WELLS: In the 13 July vote, Professor Sierra, and I'm no technical whiz, had you conveyed to the employees that it was a private vote via SurveyMonkey? Was it a private vote?‑‑‑It was a private vote. I don't remember if I said that in the email, that it was a onetime private vote.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN895
I put to you that you didn't advise the staff of that and I understand that in SurveyMonkey you can make a choice about whether you track the recipients or not, whether you can see how they voted or not? Yes? Yes?‑‑‑Yes, you can switch that on or off. I had no interest in how people voted so I didn't think to mention it in the email.
PN896
Thank you.
PN897
THE COMMISSIONER: Did you switch off the capacity for the university to view how people voted?‑‑‑Yes, I switched it off. It would only show respondent 1, respondent 2, respondent 3, respondent 4. That's ‑ ‑ ‑
PN898
MS WELLS: But you didn't tell employees that, did you?‑‑‑No, I didn't think to tell them.
PN899
At MS13, Professor Sierra, on page 54 you advise all staff in the unit on 22 February about their teaching workloads and four paragraphs down you say:
PN900
Assuming option 2 is supported by Faculty Board.
PN901
I don't want to ask you anything about that because I don't think it's relevant to clause 24 but I do want to ask, you do say at the final paragraph, you conclude the email with:
PN902
I will be in touch as appropriate should this be the case.
PN903
So to be fair you say:
PN904
Faculty Board may have concerns that need to be addressed. I will be in touch as appropriate should this be the case.
PN905
So Professor Sierra, do you accept that employees would have expected to be consulted about any changes?‑‑‑I ‑ ‑ ‑
PN906
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner?
PN907
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN908
MS CHRISTMANN: That's calling for speculation about what academic might staff ‑ academic staff might think.
PN909
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I don't know how this witness can get into the mind of ‑ ‑ ‑
PN910
MS WELLS: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. You're right. Right.
PN911
At MS22 of your annexures, Professor Sierra, at page 109 do you agree that you report to the Faculty Board that:
PN912
Notable queries indicate an ongoing concern around what 80 per cent teaching would look like.
PN913
?‑‑‑Sorry, are we on page 109?
PN914
That's what I've got, MS22. It's about the minutes from the Faculty Board meeting on the 26th?‑‑‑Yes. Can you tell me where on the page it is so I ‑ sorry, I see it now.
PN915
Yes?‑‑‑Report from the Chair.
PN916
These queries could have only arisen from people who might have seen elements of option 2A, I accept that. Would you agree?‑‑‑This is in my capacity as Chair of the Academic Committee, a different committee than the Faculty Quality Committee of which I am Chair. There was a lot of information from the university at this time about education focused roles so that first bullet point under number C10 is in relation to education focused roles. It's not in relation to ‑ ‑ ‑
PN917
I see?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ workload, the ‑ ‑ ‑
PN918
Yes, thank you. No, that's a good explanation. I certainly agree that others in the faculty could not have understood at this date that you were proposing to include an 80 per cent teaching allocation role with no research in ‑ ‑ ‑
PN919
MS CHRISTMANN: Commissioner?
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA XXN MS WELLS
PN920
MS WELLS: ‑ ‑ ‑ option 2A.
PN921
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't ‑ ‑ ‑
PN922
MS CHRISTMANN: Excuse me, Commissioner, I'm not sure that's a question.
PN923
THE COMMISSIONER: No, it's not a question.
PN924
MS WELLS: Okay. Well, I won't ask you the questions again about what people know because they've already been answered. So thank you, Professor Sierra, I have no more questions. Thank you?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN925
THE COMMISSIONER: Any re‑examination?
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, Commissioner, if you'll just bear with me for a moment, please.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN [2.22 PM]
PN927
MS CHRISTMANN: Professor Sierra, you were asked a question about whether the Faculty Quality Committee is in clause 24 and about whether the Faculty Board is in clause 24 of the enterprise agreement. Your answer to that was no. Is there a reference to the Workload Working Party in clause 24?‑‑‑No, there is not.
PN928
You were asked a question about weighted hours. I wanted to take you to a schedule in the enterprise agreement and I just understand that you probably don't have a copy there. That's just ‑ actually not sure if there's an index but there's a copy of the enterprise agreement in the folder?‑‑‑It's at the back. Okay, I'm at the ‑ ‑ ‑
PN929
So if you could turn to schedule 2 which is page 62?‑‑‑I have page 62.
PN930
I just wanted to clarify your understanding of which staff this applies to?‑‑‑This applies to casual academics.
PN931
Okay, thank you. You were asked about deliberations of the Faculty Quality Committee and the Faculty Board. Who ‑ phrase this ‑ were there other members of the Faculty Board other than yourself?
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA RXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN932
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, she gives that evidence in her witness statement.
PN933
Sorry, Professor Sierra. You give that evidence so I think that's already before me.
PN934
MS CHRISTMANN: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.
PN935
THE COMMISSIONER: Paragraph 41. Professor Sierra, who are the three academic staff members? It would probably be in the minutes but maybe you can help me?‑‑‑On the Faculty Board, Commissioner?
PN936
Yes. Are they members of the Art and Design School?‑‑‑That's correct. There is a ‑ Faculty Board is the most senior committee and it is populated by the rules of the university plus election. If no one stands for election the Dean nominates people. No one nominated themselves or sort of came forward when we called for members at the end of 2016 for 2017 membership so the Dean appointed people. But those appointments have to be across the academic level range.
PN937
So who are the three academic staff members?‑‑‑See if I can remember them. Sam Spurr who's level C, Lizzie Muller who's level C, and Scott East ‑ I believe I've got that right, Scott East at level B. It has to be from A and B or C, D and E.
PN938
And at the meeting on 26 April was that open for others to attend?‑‑‑Observers are always welcome, Commissioner, as they were on the 15th.
PN939
And were they provided ‑ so had they been provided ‑ what had they been provided with, observers, in terms of the ‑ because on that meeting on 26 April option 2A was adopted. Had people attending that meeting been provided with a copy of what the Faculty Quality Committee was recommending?‑‑‑The members of the committee would have been, yes. If there were no observers and it is up to the Dean what is ‑ who's the Chair to provide observers with whatever they're there to observe. But there were no observers that day so the regular members of the committee ‑ you get a meeting pack with all the papers in it about a week before the meeting.
PN940
Okay. I just want to have a look at MS22. So, sorry, can you remind me who the academic staff members are, looking at MS22? I think there are meant to be three of them?‑‑‑I'd like to check the minutes of the meeting to make sure I've got that right.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA RXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN941
Yes, MS22?‑‑‑MS2 ‑ ‑ ‑
PN942
Twenty‑two?‑‑‑Twenty‑two, sorry, 22.
PN943
My apologies?‑‑‑Got you, just a minute. 22. So we're ‑ sorry, I did get one of those names wrong earlier. The three members would be Rochelle Haley, Lizzie Muller and Sam Spurr.
PN944
And so they all teach or ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes, yes. Everyone on that committee who's an academic member of staff teaches with the exception of people who only have supervision which is the Dean, myself and the Scientia Professor Del Favero. We just have supervision but that is a form of teaching.
PN945
So Professor Haley doesn't teach or supervise?‑‑‑He supervises.
PN946
But doesn't ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑He has taught in the past but this year he's only supervised which is a form of teaching in our workload.
PN947
Okay. Let me just try and phrase this a different way. All of the people there present, were they people who were eligible to vote on 13 July?‑‑‑Yes, they were, correct.
PN948
Who's Ms L Greenwood?‑‑‑Lynn Greenwood is the general manager of the faculty so she's a professional member of staff, the most senior professional member of staff.
PN949
So I shouldn't include Ms L Greenwood and Ms E Size(?) in?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN950
So then there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 people there who are, if you like, members of the faculty who have an interest in ‑ because this option 2A would apply to them?‑‑‑Yes, it would, Commissioner.
PN951
So 10 out of the 95 in the department had an opportunity to influence the final option?‑‑‑That's correct, Commissioner. I perhaps should point out that five of the 95 are research only staff who do not teach.
PN952
So this model doesn't apply to them?‑‑‑They sometimes teach, they sometimes don't. They usually don't and the ‑ because they're academic members of staff we put them in the vote as well.
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA RXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN953
Right. But in any case, only just over 10 per cent of the faculty were able to influence the design of the option that you proposed to implement?‑‑‑It'd be about 12 per cent I think, yes, Commissioner, yes.
PN954
Ten divided by 95 is 10.5?‑‑‑Okay. Well, yes.
PN955
All right, thank you?‑‑‑I wasn't counting the extra five but that's ‑ ‑ ‑
PN956
That's all right, that's all right. I think they got to vote so that's why I put them back in?‑‑‑Yes.
PN957
Okay, thank you?‑‑‑Thank you, Commissioner.
PN958
Sorry, Ms Christmann.
PN959
MS CHRISTMANN: In relation to the 13 July vote that you were asked about, Professor Sierra, a suggestion has been made that there was low turnout. I wanted to ask you if you have ‑ had any thoughts about why that might be.
PN960
THE COMMISSIONER: Why does it matter why this ‑ now you're inviting the witness to speculate. How could her view about why people might or may not have voted be helpful to me?
PN961
MS CHRISTMANN: Okay, Commissioner, thank you. I have no further questions for the witness, Commissioner.
PN962
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN963
Professor Sierra, can I thank you for your attendance here today? I've been greatly assisted by your refreshingly honest evidence. You're now excused?‑‑‑Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.34 PM]
*** MARIE ANN SIERRA RXN MS CHRISTMANN
PN965
THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I understand that, Ms Christmann, that is all the evidence on behalf of the university?
PN966
MS CHRISTMANN: Yes, it is, Commissioner.
PN967
THE COMMISSIONER: In those circumstances I understand that all that is left is for the parties to come to an agreement on the agreed questions, the timetable for the filing of written submissions, three proposed dates for short oral supplementary submissions and the filing jointly of the amended version of option 2 so I can simply track change differences. Is that a summary of where we're at?
PN968
MS WELLS: Yes, Commissioner. In that final hearing would you like me to address the Commission on the powers of the Commission in the determination?
PN969
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think what would be useful is once there's an agreement on the agreed questions what you should submit with your submissions is your final proposal for the orders that you seek that I make.
PN970
MS WELLS: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN971
THE COMMISSIONER: Does that make sense? Okay. Is there anything further this afternoon, Ms Wells?
PN972
MS WELLS: No, Commissioner.
PN973
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Christmann?
PN974
MS CHRISTMANN: No, Commissioner.
PN975
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The Commission is adjourned.
ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.35 PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
EXHIBIT #1 CHRONOLOGY FILED JOINTLY BY BOTH PARTIES.......... PN7
EXHIBIT #2 APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS.................................................... PN17
EXHIBIT #3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANNA MUNSTER...................... PN29
EXHIBIT #4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF LIZ WILLIAMSON.................... PN44
EXHIBIT #5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRAD MILLER.......................... PN60
EXHIBIT #6 APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY................................ PN77
EXHIBIT #7 FURTHER WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANNE MUNSTER. PN78
EXHIBIT #8 WITNESS STATEMENT OF VICTORIA SENTAS.................. PN84
EXHIBIT #9 RESPONDENT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS...................... PN98
VICTORIA SENTAS, AFFIRMED.................................................................... PN221
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS WELLS.................................................. PN221
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN225
BRAD MILLER, AFFIRMED............................................................................ PN269
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS WELLS.................................................. PN269
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN......................................... PN279
EXHIBIT #8 EMAIL DATED 21/02/2017 FROM MARIE SIERRA TO ACADEMIC STAFF LIST RE VOTE OUTCOME............................................................................... PN339
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS............................................................... PN388
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN449
ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON, SWORN............................................................ PN453
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WELLS................................................. PN453
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN......................................... PN454
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS............................................................... PN543
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN556
ANNA MARIE MUNSTER, AFFIRMED......................................................... PN573
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS WELLS.................................................. PN573
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN......................................... PN580
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN632
ANNA MARIE MUSTER, RECALLED........................................................... PN641
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN, CONTINUING............ PN641
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS............................................................... PN660
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN680
MARIE ANN SIERRA, AFFIRMED................................................................. PN723
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS CHRISTMANN.................................... PN723
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WELLS....................................................... PN736
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CHRISTMANN................................................. PN926
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN964
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/FWCTrans/2017/341.html