The University of Melbourne¡¯s bold promises to?reduce casualisation have?not enlivened its workplace negotiators, who took six months to?table a?job security clause that commits the institution to?maintaining the status?quo.

In early September, union bargainers walked out of?talks after the university failed to?meet a?third self-imposed deadline to?produce a?¡°secure work¡± proposal for inclusion in?the enterprise agreement?(EA).

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) said Melbourne had promised such a clause in March, having requested what turned out to be a three-month pause in negotiations so that it could revise its position. It repeated the pledge in June and again in August, when it asked for another pause.

Its response to the union¡¯s claims on 4?September contained no?job security clause. An EA commitment would ¡°unnecessarily limit¡± its ability to?¡°manage changes that may be necessary¡±, it?explained.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

This caution contrasts with Melbourne¡¯s public commitments to ¡°dramatically¡± reduce its dependence on casual staff. ¡°We¡¯re starting to pull together the possibilities and avenues that we wish to explore, in consultation with our staff and unions,¡± provost Nicola Phillips told a Senate committee last year.

Vice-chancellor Duncan Maskell told Times Higher Education that Melbourne was ¡°working very hard to rectify¡± its reliance on casualisation, which he instinctively disliked because of his working-class roots. ¡°But it¡¯s a big and complex problem. It¡¯s going to take time to get it right,¡± he said.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The union¡¯s key demand is for 80?per cent of the staff ¡°headcount¡± to be in ¡°continuing employment¡± when the next EA expires. At present, insecurely employed staff outnumber their permanently employed colleagues, although to what extent is?not clear. Casual numbers and fixed contract terms fluctuate widely and are?not reported in a consistent manner.

On 8 September, the university finally presented a job security clause saying it would ¡°apply all reasonable endeavour¡± to ensure that 75?per cent of its full-time equivalent staff were ¡°core workforce¡± ¨C employed permanently or on contracts of at least a year ¨C subject to ¡°factors beyond the control of the university¡± such as enrolment shortfalls, funding changes or any other ¡°adverse impact¡±.

The union has asked how this target differs from current arrangements, and wants to remove the ¡°beyond the university¡¯s control¡± qualifier so that any clause is enforceable.

The university has also brushed off union proposals for EA?limits to workloads, saying ¡°this is a matter best managed through policy¡±. The NTEU plans a week-long strike in October if workloads are not addressed.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°The university is in constructive negotiations with the unions and is discussing clauses that address security of employment along with a wide range of other proposed benefits for staff,¡± a Melbourne spokesman told THE.

Acting NTEU branch president Chloe Mackenzie said her members were frustrated at the pace of progress. ¡°Executive salaries keep going up, apparently on the basis that they have to make hard decisions, but¡­they don¡¯t seem to be able to make the hard decisions,¡± she said.

She added that the ¡°dysfunctional¡± bargaining process and the university¡¯s inability to pay casual staff correctly, which had seen it twice taken to?court by the fair work ombudsman, suggested that workload problems were infecting the people in charge. ¡°It begs the question as to whether they¡¯ve restructured themselves out of a workforce that can actually enforce their legal obligations.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com