Branch Newsletter, Summer
Members should now have received the branch newsletter for summer.
A downloadable pdf is available in the menu at right, or here.
Thanks, as ever, to national office for hosting it.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
Discuss Annual Conference with your Branch Committee
All AUS members are welcome to attend a meeting at 1pm on Wednesday 23 November in Lecture Theatre A8.
The branch committee would like to discuss the forthcoming Annual Conference with members, including the proposed budget.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Photos of the year's activities
Do you have any good quality photos of any of this year's AUS activities that could be included in a montage of highlights at this year's national conference?
If so, please email them to Megan as soon as possible.
Research into Workplace Bullying in Academia
This message has been approved by AUS Council for distribution to all AUS members across the country. The following information sheet describes the research project and provides access to the anonymous online survey being conducted by one of our members from the Massey University College of Education.
Workplace Bullying in Academia
INFORMATION SHEET
Massey University College of Education
Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North
My name is Juliana Raskauskas and I am a Lecturer at Massey University, College of Education. You are being invited to participate in an anonymous research study I am conducting on bullying in the university workplace. AUS has agreed to send you this message with link to an on-line survey about workplace bullying on my behalf, however this is not research being conducted by AUS. Participation from both those with experiences of workplace bullying and those without are needed to gain a complete picture of workplace bullying in academia.
From this study I hope to learn about the prevalence of workplace bullying in academia and negative affects associated with it. It is hoped that this information might be instrumental in guiding anti-bullying policy development within the university environment as well as larger New Zealand workforce legislation.
Participation is completely voluntary. Your completion of the survey implies consent. If interested in participating, please follow this link.
Participant Recruitment
All members of AUS will be invited to participate in this research. If you have non-member colleagues who are interested in participating please forward this e-mail message to them. It is anticipated that approximately 6,500 staff from New Zealand universities will be approached for participation in this study.
It is possible that you will not benefit directly by participating in this study, however information gained may be used to inform policy and training to address workplace bullying in academia. On-line surveys are being used to protect your identify and no identifying information is included in the survey. There are almost no risks to you for participating in this study; one possible risk is discomfort in answering questions about workplace bullying.
Project Procedures
These data will be used to report on the prevalence and outcomes of workplace bullying within the academic setting. Your name will not be associated with the answers you provide and the dataset is password protected. Scores will be reported as aggregate responses and may be used for conferences or in research articles. A report of aggregate findings will be circulated at the end of the data analyses. At the close of the research the data file will be stored on a password protected CD in a locked filing cabinet.
Participant Involvement
If you elect to participate you will be asked to complete an on-line survey. The on-line survey will be available for 30 days. The survey will take approximately 5-15 minutes for you to complete depending on the extent of your experiences with workplace bullying.
Participant’s Rights
You are under no obligation to accept this invitation. Completion of the questionnaire implies consent. You have the right to decline to answer any particular question.
Support Processes
This survey asks you to recall personal experiences with workplace bullying. If the process of answering these items causes you any discomfort or if you would like to talk about your own experiences with these items, counseling services are available through your university.
Project Contacts
If you have any questions about this research project please contact the primary researcher, Juliana Raskauskas, who will answer them at: Massey University, Department of Health & Human Development, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, telephone 06 356-9099 ext. 8621, or by e-mail.
This project has been reviewed and approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee, Wellington Application 05/52. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research, please contact Professor Sylvia V. Rumball, Chair, Massey University Campus Human Ethics Committee: WGTN, telephone 06 350 5249, or by email.
Staff Morale Survey in the College of Arts
From the College of Arts Campaign Group:
The staff morale survey has been posted to academics in the College. There have been a number of requests from colleagues who are overseas for electronic version of the survey. If you know of a colleague who might wish to complete the survey let the branch office or a member of the College of Arts campaign group know, and we will send them the e-version. If you want further information please contact Matthew.
This survey has been organised as a mechanism for measuring how staff feel about the institution they work for; something we understand has not been measured recently, if at all. Staff have been told that morale at Canterbury is fine. Therefore we would like to get an objective measure of how staff are really feeling. We are surveying continuing academic staff in the College of Arts in the first instance. Please complete the survey in the usual way (it should take less than five minutes) and return it as soon as possible or no later than 1st December 2005.
The survey results and analysis will be used in our discussions with University management about the future of the University. We will publish the results here prior to Christmas. You can also obtain a copy of the results by contacting the College of Arts campaign group.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
PBRF news
The use of compulsion in the submission of Evidence Portfolios in the 2006 PBRF Partial Quality Evaluation – Information for AUS members 14/11/05
The Issue
Some universities are attempting to make it compulsory for staff who prepared an Evidence Portfolio (EP) in 2003 to prepare an updated EP for Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) purposes in the 2006 partial Quality Evaluation round. This is in spite of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) PBRF Guidelines 2006 which describe a voluntary process for EP preparation for such staff as part of the “partial” Quality Evaluation round.
The AUS Position
AUS opposes the use of compulsion in the preparation of EPs and calls on university management to respect the TEC PBRF Guidelines 2006. Furthermore AUS calls on the TEC to remind universities that in order to be eligible for funding under PBRF scheme they must follow the Guidelines, including the voluntary nature of the EP preparation process.
What AUS is doing?
AUS National Council discussed this issue at its last meeting. AUS has communicated our position to the relevant vice chancellors, the TEC, the Minister and interested media. In particular we are attempting to convince the TEC that it should abide by its own Guidelines and tell universities that if they use compulsion they will make themselves ineligible for PBRF funding. We are yet to find out what action the TEC will take and have yet to hear back from the vice-chancellors or the Minister.
Refusal to prepare an EP
Our advice is that it is a lawful instruction for your employer to ask you to prepare or update your EP and refusal to do so may result in disciplinary action being taken against you. AUS will not have strong legal grounds on which to defend you in such circumstances. Any attempt by AUS to organise a mass refusal to prepare EPs is also very likely to attract a successful injunction from the university management and will be weakened by the fact that a number of staff have already prepared EPs.
Background
AUS supports a funding system that recognises and supports quality research. The PBRF meets some of our criteria but it also has major flaws, the single most critical being its individual base for assessment. Individual units of assessment are an unusual aspect of the New Zealand system, compared to the UK for example, and are especially controversial because the 2003 results were in some cases passed back to university management to use for purposes for which they were not intended – such as recruitment and promotion. AUS therefore supports the PBRF but with strong reservations.
The TEC decision to make EP submission voluntary in the 2006 round defused some of the more controversial issues with the Quality Evaluation, in particular the issue of the individual unit of assessment. Staff believed that they would have a chance to engage in a thorough review of this aspect of the system after the 2006 voluntary round was completed before the next full (compulsory) round. The Sector Reference Group, with both university staff and management represented, made this explicit in its recommendation that:
[N]o change be made to the current unit of assessment, particularly in light of the decision to conduct a ‘partial’ round in 2006. However, the SRG also recommended that a review of the unit of assessment be undertaken in preparation for the third Quality Evaluation
(Recommendation 8, Report of the Sector Reference Group, June 2005).
If some universities were now to make this round compulsory then they will be reneging on the compromise reached in this recommendation and undermining support for the PBRF process.
15 November 2005
Association of University Staff
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Call for Claims for National Bargaining in 2006
From an email sent to members today:
Members are asked to identify potential local claims based only on their
current collective agreements. Any suggested claims and arguments supporting them should be sent to the AUS office no later than 12 midday Thursday 24 November.
When suggesting claims members should keep in mind that claims should have the widest possible appeal across the various universities. The National Industrial Committee will then go through them and ascertain priorities. This will be done in mid December.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Canterbury AGM Minutes
Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the
University of Canterbury Branch of the AUSNZ
12.30pm Lecture Theatre A4
Thursday 27th October 2005
Present: David Small (President) in the chair and 61 members.
In Attendance: Matthew Fitzsimmons (Organiser)
Apologies: Megan Clayton, Maureen Montgomery, Liz Sawyer, Mike Shurety, Neville Blampied, Jack Heinemann.
Minutes of the Last AGM, 21st October 2004: Circulated prior to the meeting.
Resolved (Chair): That the minutes be accepted as a true and accurate record of the last A.G.M.
Carried
Matters arising from the minutes: None.
President’s report: David Small spoke to the printed report that he had circulated, outlining the major activities undertaken by the AUS in the last year and concluding that it had been a big year for the AUS and the University.
Resolved (Chair): That the President’s report be accepted.
Carried
Treasurer’s report: Andrew Maples' unsigned report was circulated. This was xeroxed for the AGM before being signed off by the Treasurer and President. It has now been audited. The report indicates a healthy financial position for the Branch with accumulated funds being three times the yearly expenditure (approximately).
Resolved (Tim O’Sullivan/Alan Robb): That the Treasurer’s report be accepted.
Carried
Appointment of Auditor: Adrian Sawyer was the only nomination.
Resolved (Andrew Maples/Peter Glassenbury): That Adrian Sawyer be appointed auditor for 2006.
Carried
Election of Branch Committee: Many nominations were received prior to the AGM meaning that an election was not necessary. The nominations for the unfilled positions of Technicians Representative, Service Sector Representative, PEP Committee were received at the AGM. Nominations for the unfilled positions of Health and Safety Representative and Te Kahurangi Whaiti Representative were reopened.
President
Nominee: David Small (Nominated by Anna Versluis/Seconded by Andrew Maples)
Vice President
Nominee: Manja Pieters (Dave Lane/Susan Julian)
Immediate Past-President
N/A
Secretary
Nominee: Tim O’Sullivan (Romy Forrer/Max Podstolski)
Treasurer
Nominee: Andrew Maples (Theek Suraweera/Bevan Clarke)
Academic Sector Rep
Nominee: Jack Heinemann (Matthew Turnbull/Andrew Maples)
Academic Support Sector Rep
Nominee: Emma de Lacey (Bill Rosenberg/Les Kokay)
Admin Support Sector Rep
Nominee: Jennifer Middendorf (Helen Debenham/Gareth Cordery)
Library Sector Rep
Nominee: Angela Davies (Jenny Owens/David Lane)
Services Sector Rep
No Nomination
Technical Sector Rep
No Nomination
Industrial Committee Rep
Nominee: Zane Gilmore
Nominated by: Branch Committee
Status of Women Committee Rep
Nominee: Kari Bassett (Steve Weaver/Margaret Bradshaw)
Te Kahurangi Whaiti Rep
No Nomination
Health & Safety Rep
No Nomination
Committee Members
(up to 6)
Megan Clayton (Philip Ferguson/Susan Robertson)
Jo Diamond (Bob Gordon/David Small)
Helen Kissell (Mary Cain/Glyness Taylor)
Aditya Malik (John Freeman-Moir/John Davies)
Bill Rosenberg (Emma de Lacey/Gregor Ronald)
Mike Shurety (Megan Clayton/Bob Gordon)
AUS National Council
David Small
Professional & Education Policy Committee
No Nomination
Resolved (Chair): That these nominations be accepted as elected to the Branch Committee.
Carried
General Business: None.
Meeting closed at 1.11pm and was followed by an address by John Freeman-Moir entitled “Do we still work in a University?”
AUS Bargaining Newsletter
AUS Bargaining newsletter
2 November 2005
The recent settlement of the Lincoln University collective agreements means that all collective agreements at the seven universities involved in the national bargaining campaign have now been settled. As a result, the national umbrella agreement is now in force, opening the way for the tripartite process between the Government, university unions and the vice-chancellor’s to move into its next stage.
This newsletter is intended to bring AUS members up to date with the results of the last bargaining round and to provide an update on the tripartite process and the preliminary arrangements for bargaining in 2006.
1. Bargaining outcomes from 2005
All collective agreements are due to expire on 30 April 2006. Unless otherwise specified, the salary levels will be effective until 30 April 2006.
Auckland
- A 4.5 percent salary increase from 1 May 2005
- A one off payment of $300 to union members
Waikato
- A 3 percent salary increase from 1 June 2005
- A further 1.5 percent from 1 October 2005
- Salary rates will be effective until 1 October 2006 unless additional funding is provided through the tripartite process
Massey
- A 2 percent salary increase from 4 July 2005
- A further 2 percent from 1 September 2005
- A further 0.5 percent from 1 January 2006
Victoria
- A 4 percent salary increase from 1 August 2005
- There will be some differential payment between union members and non-union staff, but the amounts are variable and cannot easily be reported
Canterbury
- A 2.75 percent salary increase from 1 May 2005
- A further 2.25 percent (on the 2004 rates) from 1 October 2005
- Salary rates will be effective until 31 October 2006 unless additional funding is provided through the tripartite process
Lincoln
- A 3.7 percent salary increase from 1 May 2005
- A Further 1 percent from 1 October 2005
- Salary rates will be effective until 31 December 2006 unless additional funding is provided through the tripartite process
- Non union staff will receive the increase from 1 June 2005
Otago
- A 5 percent salary increase from 1 May 2005
2. The national “umbrella” agreement
The national umbrella agreement provided a way through the impasse between university employers and unions during the 2005 bargaining round. It sets out a framework for the parties to work in a cooperative manner, with the addressing of salary problems as a priority issue, through the University Tripartite Forum.
The umbrella agreement can be found here (downloadable pdf).
3. The university tripartite process
Background
The University Tripartite Forum, comprising the Government, the vice-chancellors and unions, was set up before the General Election.
As a part of the agreement reached with the vice-chancellors, each of the university collective agreements provides that the parties will work actively and co-operatively with each other through the Universities Tripartite Forum to:
- ensure that the issue of competitive and fair salaries for all staff in all Universities is given a high priority in the Universities Tripartite Forum’s work plan.
- use best endeavours to develop and agree and implement sustainable solutions to providing competitive and fair salaries for all staff in all Universities.
- implement, as appropriate, agreed outcomes from the Universities Tripartite Forum into collective agreements.
- use best endeavours to develop solutions to other funding and resourcing issues facing Universities.
The parties have met three times. The general approach of the unions is to provide a preliminary argument to the Government to make funding available in the next Budget to provide university staff with an acceptable interim salary increase while the Forum continues its work on a more detailed approach.
General short-term aims
Vice-chancellors and the unions in the university sector agree that there are serious salary issues that require both an urgent and a more long term response from government. The extent of the salary issues have not been fully defined, nor is there complete agreement between the parties about what the full range of issues are or how they are best resolved in terms of pay systems.
The vice-chancellors and the unions have agreed that the full extent and nature of all issues around salary need not be resolved before any of the issues are addressed. Addressing the issues of salaries in the sector can begin immediately in areas that are uncontested between vice-chancellors and the unions. These “uncontested” salary issues should be resolved by agreement between the three parties in time for the next Budget round. The vice-chancellors and the unions agree that to resolve them, new government money is required.
Resolution of these uncontested issues would have a number of advantages for the tripartite process including:
- It would provide the space for the full extent of the salary and funding issues to be discussed over the next year without the pressure of immediate wage pressures clouding the issues
- It would provide an indication to the parties that the tripartite process is the correct forum for resolving the issues long term, and that the parties are serious about addressing the issues
- It would provide some security in the workforce in the immediate future, both by enabling wages to be increased and by giving an indication to staff that a longer-term resolution is under consideration
- It would enable the next negotiation round in the university sector to be quickly settled in an amicable way (the next round is in May 2006).
While the Tripartite Forum’s work may have only just begun, vice-chancellors and the unions have expressed concern about the need to address salary issues in the sector in a more sustainable way for a number of years.
The longer term
At present, a number of briefing papers are being prepared for the Forum, including background papers on funding and salaries. These will be made available as appropriate.
4. Bargaining arrangements for 2006
The AUS Industrial Committee has met recently to review the 2005 bargaining round and consider preliminary arrangements for 2006.
The outcome of bargaining in 2006 will be influenced by progress made in the tripartite discussions currently under way, but it is proposed that the multi-employer bargaining process again be initiated in 2006. While, in the interim the form of bargiaining (MECA/SECA) may become less important, (i.e. if the tripartite forum resolves salary issues nationally for next year), initiating a MECA will provide a safeguard if this doesn’t happen and also provide a process for implementation of any agreements reached in the forum.
Timeline
To initiate multi-employer bargaining it will be necessary, once again, to ballot union members. The timeline for this process and for the formal initiation of bargaining will be:
- Early February 2006: Campus meetings of AUS members to discuss form of bargaining
- Late February: Secret ballot for endorsement on multi-employer bargaining
- March: Claims meetings, and endorsement of bargaining team and ratification procedure
- (No later than 20 March): Formal initiation of bargaining
- Early April: Commence negotiations
Bargaining Team
It has been recommended that the structure of the AUS bargaining team should be retained for the next round. This is;
- one team member and one deputy from each branch
- if the nominated team member is unavailable for a negotiating session, then the deputy attends. If neither is available the negotiations continue without them, but report back responsibilities devolve to the advocate and/or national president.
- the National President attends ex officio when available
- the AUS Industrial Officer be the lead advocate
Claim Development
Because of the national strategy to concentrate on salary issues and national bargaining in the last two bargaining rounds, a number of local claims have been set aside. It was felt by the AUS Industrial Committee that some of these may need to be addressed in the 2006 round.
Branches will be asked to identify priority issues which need to be addressed, concentrating on issues that have a wide-ranging affect on large numbers of members.
The Industrial Officer will commence a process by which these are identified at branch level and reviewed by the Industrial Committee in mid-December.
5. Medical and dental academic staff
Bargaining was initiated earlier in the year for collective agreements for medical and dental academic staff at both Auckland and Otago Universities.
Otago
The Otago standard individual agreements for medical and dental and joint-clinical academic staff have been effectively “rolled over” with a 5 percent salary increase from 1 May 2005, on the basis that a working party is established to deal with funding and salary problems.
More news on the working party will be placed on the website as progress is made.
The latest University of Otago medical and Dental Academic salary rates can be found here.
Auckland
A new collective agreement for Medical academic staff at the University of Auckland is currently under negotiation.
The latest bargaining newsletter, with links to the draft collective agreement can be found here (downloadable pdf).
6. New collective agreements and salary rates
The recently settled collective employment agreements are being placed on the AUS website as soon as they are signed.
The university collective agreements can be found here.
Academic salary scales can be found here.
General staff salary scales can be found here.
7. The AUS Industrial Committee
The AUS bargaining strategy is administered by the AUS Industrial Committee which is comprised of the National President (Chair) and representatives from all branches and national standing committees.
The AUS Industrial Committee can be found here.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
New National Officers
Further to the September election of AUS national officers, the following members have been elected:
Maori/Tumuaki Vice-President: Fiona Te Momo (Massey at Albany)
Academic Support Vice-President: James Oxnam (Canterbury)
Library Vice-President: Lindsay Ainsworth (Lincoln)
The following positions remain unfilled:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)