Statistics New Zealand attributed this rise to recently settled collective employment agreement increase for secondary school teachers.

Secondary teachers with a level 7 qualification and recognised teaching qualification now have a starting rate of $47,023 and a top rate of $71,000. By comparison, the starting rate for an adademic staff member at NorthTec, for example, is $41,649 and a senior academic staff member at NorthTec has a top rate of $68,521.

TEU national secretary Sharn Riggs says what the statistics show is that sectors that are highly unionised, such as in education, are getting more consistent, and higher, pay rises on average than other sectors.

“But there is still some way to go in the current environment where too many employers in tertiary education are using pressure from the State Services Commission as an excuse to keep pay rates low.”

More broadly, CTU economist Bill Rosenberg warns that the 2.0 percent increase in the Labour Cost Index for the year to September means that wages are still falling behind price increases. Prices increased 4.6 percent in the same period, including about 2.1 percent due to the GST increase.

Dr Rosenberg noted, “56 percent of people got pay rises in the last year. Those who did got a median rise of 3.0 percent and an average of 3.6 percent. So those people who got a rise didn’t keep up with the rise in prices.”

“Some people have had compensation for the rising prices from tax cuts, but this was heavily weighted to higher incomes. People on lower incomes will be feeling the effects of the price rises much more strongly,” said Dr Rosenberg.

The chief executive at Otago Polytechnic, Phil Ker, saw his total remuneration drop from more than $330,000 to less than $300,000. He was one of three polytechnic bosses, one vice-chancellor and one wānanga boss who took pay cuts last year.

By comparison, eight tertiary institution chief executives or vice-chancellors recorded remuneration increases that shifted them into a higher pay band than they were on last year – four of them were vice-chancellors. There were increases in remuneration of over $20,000 for the vice-chancellor of Massey, over $30,000 for the vice-chancellor of Victoria University and over $40,000 for the vice-chancellor of the University of Auckland.

The report notes a further 4,800 public tertiary education employees earned more than $100,000 in 2010. Those 4,800 made up 13 percent of the tertiary education sector workforce. The number of employees receiving $100,000 or more had increased 13 percent this year, compared with 21 percent last year.

SSC says various factors influence the growth in the number of employees earning more than $100,000, including increases in collective agreement rates for senior university staff and progression between salary steps. The remuneration listed takes into account payment of any entitlements on the last day of duty, which could include performance pay, superannuation or redundancy payments.

Victoria University of Wellington is currently undertaking five separate change proposals affecting academic staff. Two of these are located in the Faculty of Education, where management claim there is a surplus staffing situation in the BA programme and in Technology Education. TEU is disputing the workload calculations used to support those proposals but also believes there are important academic implications associated with both changes. There are also two change proposals in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, one to Philosophy and one to Political Science and International Relations. The final proposal is to disestablish completely the Criminal Justice and Research Centre. TEU is launching public campaigns around both of these last two proposals. In total, the university proposes to disestablish seven academic positions, with many more academic and general staff jobs affected by the changes.

In the meantime, TEU has written to the university asking it to honour the requirements of both the Education Act and a university statute, which require that the academic board be consulted on all academic matters. There is no evidence that management has consulted the board on any of these proposals so far. This is despite a ‘note’ in the Consultation Policy on Employment Matters to the following effect:

“These processes (change management proposals) are not to be used for new, or changes to existing, academic programmes. These matters are to be dealt with through established processes at Faculty and Academic Boards.”

TEU has also launched an online petition to the vice-chancellor.

“Looking at the content of these proposals it is clear that there is simply not enough depth or breadth of understanding in management of the relevant academic matters to make for good decisions of this kind,” said TEU organiser Michael Gilchrist. “That is the reason for the statutory requirement for democratic processes such as Academic and Faculty Boards in which all members of the university can participate or be represented.”

• Fact sheet about Political Science and International Relations (PSIR)
• Fact sheet about the Crime and Justice Research Centre (CJRC)
• Victoria cuts technology education again
• Fact sheet about School of Educational Policy and Implementation (Technology Education)

Also in Tertiary Update this week

1. Otago University members quickly negotiate three percent
2. Minister plans further cuts for industry training
3. Report wants more jobs focus in secondary-tertiary transition
4. Global policy on vocational and educational training

Other news

Fears that families will no longer be able to afford early childhood education because of cuts in last year’s Budget are starting to become a reality. Latest figures show the cost of early childhood education increased by 11.7 per cent in the year to June – a rise the sector’s union attributes to government funding cuts – New Zealand Herald

The State Services Commission had announced Briton Lesley Longstone is the new chief executive of the Ministry of Education. Longstone is currently a director general within the English Department for Education and has 25 years’ experience in the education and employment sectors in the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. “Improving the life chances of all young people and the skills of adult learners will be my overriding ambition.” – Dominion Post

The CTU is objecting to Minister of Welfare Paula Bennett saying that the jobs are there for those with the right attitude when commenting on youth unemployment. Peter Conway, CTU Secretary said “in the last 5 years the rate of youth unemployment has doubled to 27.5 percent and it is simply wrong for the Government to say this is due to the attitude of young people.” – CTU

The University of Oxford has said the scandal engulfing News International will not prompt a rethink of its relationship with the company, which funds five academic posts including a Rupert Murdoch professor of language and communication – Times Higher Education Supplement

The National Quality Council has warned of a repeat trashing of Australian education’s reputation “if decisive action is not taken to improve the regulation of VET delivered offshore” – The Australian

—

TEU Tertiary Update is published weekly on Thursdays and distributed freely to members of the Tertiary Education Union and others. You can subscribe to Tertiary Update by email or feed reader. Back issues are available on the TEU website. Direct inquiries should be made to Stephen Day.

“Our members successfully and peacefully negotiated a number of employment agreements last year that deliberately protected them from the government’s 90 day fire-at-will law,” said Ms Riggs.

“We did what a union should do – worked constructively with employers to reach agreements that benefit both our members and the employers they work for. The employers didn’t particular want these fire-at-will provisions and our members definitely don’t want them.”

“Now, in its efforts to introduce punitive and mean-spirited employment laws the government, through the SSC, is telling employers, workers and their unions in the public sector, that even where they don’t want or need those laws, they have to have them.”

“It’s a bizarre direction that suggests the government is more concerned with ideology than practical solutions for happy workplaces,” says Ms Riggs.

The University the Auckland’s vice chancellor, Stuart McCutcheon, saw his remuneration increase yet again, according to the State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie, from less than $570,000 in 2008 to more than $610,000 in 2009.

The University of Auckland chancellor Roger France defended the pay increase to the Sunday Star Times saying it appeared Professor McCutcheon had a $50,000 boost, when he had actually been given less than 2 percent.

“The difference was down to a quirk in the calendar that meant he was paid 25 times in 2008 and 27 times in 2009. Part of the 2008 payment is sitting in the 2009 year.”

However that ignores an on-going trend that has seen Professor McCutcheon and his predecessor consistently receive significant pay increases.  In 1999 the State Services Commission reported that then vice chancellor of Auckland University, Dr John Hood, was receiving less than $200,000 per year.  Since that time inflation (CPI) has increased 31 percent and average wages have increased 43 percent, but the vice chancellor’s pay has increased over 300 percent.

The University of Auckland vice chancellor is not alone however, with virtually all tertiary education sector bosses enjoying pay increases of more than 150 percent in the last ten years.

Mr Rennie used the release of these figures to call for pay restraint in the tertiary education sector. He noted there has been a big rise in the number of people earning more than $100,000 a year at universities, wānanga, and polytechnics.

Tertiary Education Union national secretary Sharn Riggs said however that ordinary staff in the sector have exercised considerable restraint over the last year and a half.

“Most people working in tertiary education have had pay increases less than the rate of inflation in the 18 months since the economic crisis hit. This is effectively a pay cut.”

Since 1999 the lowest pay increase for TEU members has been just under 30 percent and the highest increase has been 55.5 percent.

At Unitec, for instance the lowest paid tutorial assistant earned $22,604 in the year 2000, and the highest paid principal academic staff member received $65,583.  The chief executive at the time received between $200,000 and $210,000.  That was about 8 or 9 times more than the lowest paid tutor and about 3 times more than the most highly paid academic staff member.

Now the lowest pay rate on the tutorial assistant pay scale is $28,765 and the highest pay rate for a principal academic staff member is $83,459.  By comparison last year the chief executive received between $320,000 and $330,000. That is about 11 or 12 times more than the lowest paid tutor and about 4 times more than the mist highly paid academic staff member.

Despite the substantial pay rise over the last ten years the Unitec chief executive’s pay has risen by a smaller percentage than many of his other chief executive and vice chancellor colleagues.

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. Govt saves Wānanga from going overseas
2. Ministry seeks value for money
3. VUW chops and changes
4. Minister defends industry training cuts
5. CTU’s alternative economic strategy

Other news

Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki (Witt) councillors will next month decide whether to pay themselves more money as the institution they help govern struggles with massive funding cuts. They will decide whether the six regular councillors should stick with their per-meeting fee of $320 or change to a salary of up to $14,400 – a 125 per cent increase. -Taranaki Daily News

Service and Food Workers’ Union (SFWU) delegate Jude Young said cleaners at Massey University arrived to work about 4am on October 19 to find the doors locked, security guards waiting and three managers telling them to go home. “I have never seen all of us so gutted. Some of us were crying, it was the darkest day of our lives. I will never forget that day.” Workers had no indications of a looming lockout. Mrs Young said “Cleaners “reluctantly” signed the agreement”. - Manawatu Standard

The London School of Economics, one of the world’s leading universities in social sciences, has been examining the option of going private as fears grow that a rise in tuition fees will not provide sufficient funding for English universities to compete globally – The Guardian

TAFE students paid almost $300 million in fees last year, and further dramatic fee rises are expected. But a report released last week by the independent government advisory body Skills Australia says student fees account for only 4.5 per cent of TAFE revenue and argues for increased market-rate fees for certificate III and above – The Australian

Massey University has committed that, even if the government’s introduces its proposed new employment laws which deny workers their basic personal grievance rights in the first ninety days of work, those laws will not apply to staff at Massey University - TEU

13 September 2010

For Further Information contact

Sharn Riggs

National Secretary

Phone (04) 801 5098

Email http://scr.im/sharnriggs

Introduction

This submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee is made on behalf of the Tertiary Education Union – Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa (TEU). The TEU is the professional association and industrial union representing 11,000 academic and general staff members who work in polytechnics, institutes of technology, universities, whare wānanga, private providers, other tertiary education providers, WEA, and REAPs.

Opposition to Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)

The TEU is strongly opposed to the proposals in this Bill, which will not create more “flexibility, greater choice and ensure a balance for both employers and employees” as stated in the general policy statement of the Bill.  This amendment will further turn the balance of power away from employees, in particular young and vulnerable employees, and those employed in low unionised work sites. Basically, the bill will allow employers to dismiss employees without reason or justification, clearly contradicting the concept of ‘natural justice’ built up in New Zealand employment law over time through case law.  Additionally, this Bill seeks to restrict union access, which will only lead to unnecessary legal challenge and create a level of administration that is not required and  goes against the concept of freedom of association.  The proposed amendments to the current provisions around communication during bargaining are unnecessary as the current provisions are clear and several legal cases have further clarified this issue.

This submission should be read in conjunction with the over 200 individual submissions made by our members and TEU branches, across the country.

The TEU endorses the submission from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi.

The TEU wishes to speak to this submission at the select committee.

1. Union Access

1. The current union access clause in the Act does not require any changes and has worked well since it was introduced in 2000 under the Employment Relations Act (ERA).
2. Clauses 6-8 of the Bill bring further restrictions on union access to work sites by requiring active consent of the employer.
3. New Zealand case law is clearly established in this area. The right of unions to have access to workplaces is a fundamental aspect of employees’ rights to freedom of association and compliance with ILO conventions 87 and 98.
4. The leading case in this area is Service and Food Workers Union v Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation 2 ERNZ 513.
5. In that case, the Employment Court commented that under the Employment Contracts Act 1991, Parliament had concluded “that the freedom of association guaranteed by the Act could not be satisfactorily exercised without fully free access between employees and their representatives during the employees’ work hours and at their place of work” (p. 531).
6. In the New Zealand context, the right of employees to join and form unions and the right of the unions to have access to members in workplaces are inseparable.
7. Under the proposal a union request for access to a workplace need not be responded to by the employer until at least four days after it is made.  The proposed s.20A requires that the union both request and obtain the employer’s consent before accessing a workplace (s.20A(1)).
8. Although consent may not be unreasonably withheld, the employer need not even respond to the request for two working days; and if the answer is “no” the employer has another two working days to give reasons.
9. This places an unnecessary delay in the ability for an employee and a union to be in contact with each other and places an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on unions trying to organise.
10. The proposed repeal of s.21(5) is also of serious concern.  Section 21(5) currently provides that nothing in subsections (1) – (4) of s.25 (which deals with conditions relating to access) allows an employer to unreasonably deny access.  The Courts have rightly interpreted this to mean that an employer should seek remedies against unions in the Authority, not in a “might is right” approach by denying access.  Section 21(5) should be left alone.  There is no sound policy reason to interfere with the subsection.
11. The proposed changes will also lead to substantial and unnecessary and wasteful litigation as unions and employers attempt to exercise or limit the obligations and opportunities imposed by the Bill.  This is itself most undesirable.
12. There is not a problem to be solved here. This is not only a union position. The government’s advisors in the Department of Labour clearly have the same view.
13. Furthermore it finds, “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way.”
14. Even more explicitly it argues, “The Department [of Labour] has no evidence to suggest that unions are not, in general, meeting this requirement, or that employers are dissatisfied with current arrangements and practices.”
15. In evidence of this, the Department’s report on its consultation on Access states:
16. The issue of union access is not a high priority for Business NZ and they indicated that they do not receive many complaints from employers regarding workplace access by unions. They do have some views on other aspects of union access provisions but these are not covered by this review.
17. It concludes that “maintaining the status quo” is “the Department’s preferred option and is supported by Business NZ and the NZCTU”.
18. TEU representatives respect the confidentiality, security, educational continuity, health and safety requirements of a work sites that our members are employed in.
19. It is the TEU’s view that these restrictions will be used to disrupt recruitment of members, a fundamental function and right of unions.  The TEU has recent experience in two work sites where the union was recruiting.  This involved a number of union organisers visiting a site with the intention of approaching non-members and inviting them to join the union.  In these cases the union had displayed courtesy and notified the employer of the intention to carry out this project, prior to the visit.  At all times, the union complied with the existing provisions, and did not disrupt the operation of the workplace.  The TEU views this as an appropriate working of the existing provisions.
20. Employers in non-unionised sites, in the tertiary education sector and in particular the private training providers, could use the period of notice of access to attempt to disrupt the recruitment of members.
21. Where more than one union covers members in a workplace these powers could be used by an employer to favour one union.  This has been the TEU experience at one of the TEIs that we organise in, where there is a preference by the employer for the in-house union rather than TEU.
22. We can only conclude that the amendments have been proposed either under pressure from a small anti-union employer lobby, or for purely ideological or political reasons, regardless of the evidence, the effect on the economy and employees, and New Zealand’s international obligations and reputation.

2.      Communication during the bargaining

1. Clause 9 of the Bill supposedly clarifies the situation around communication during bargaining by adding a new subsection to section 32 of the ERA.
2. The law in this area has been the subject of several cases and the current law does not require Parliament to interfere with the current law, which was clarified by the Court of Appeal in Christchurch City Council v Southern Local Government Officers Union (2007) 4 NZELR 63.
3. The proposed justification for the change – namely to “improve employers’ ability [sic] to undertake normal and essential business functions” – demonstrates that the authors of the legislation have insufficient knowledge of the current law.  There has never been any suggestion – by anybody – that the current law prevents normal and essential communication about business functions.  It is simply impossible to predict the consequences of the proposed freeing up of the employers’ right to communicate about bargaining, except to say that much wasteful and expensive litigation will flow from the new subsection (6) proposed for s32.
4. There is no evidence that there is a problem with the law. In most cases TEU and employer representatives make clear statements about communication during bargaining, under the bargaining process agreements that are agreed and signed by the parties prior to entering the bargaining.
5. This change will encourage employers to attempt to persuade their employees to ignore the advice of their union representatives or to try to undermine their credibility

3.      Extension of the 90-day trial period

1. The TEU was and remains opposed to the introduction of this provision in the current Act and  believes the extension of the 90 days’ provision to all work sites in sections 67 A and 67B of the Bill to be fundamentally unjust and contrary to the concept of good faith within an employment relationship. The good faith provisions (which work both ways between employers and employees) establish a duty to be communicative and responsive in the employment relationship. This amendment removes any requirement to fulfil that duty by giving the employer the right to end an employment relationship for no stated reason.
2. Sections 67A and 67B remove longstanding protections and access to dispute resolution and to justice.
3. It also cuts across the responsibilities of employers in the state sector to be ‘good employers’. according to s56 of the State Sector Act 1988:
4. A good employer is defined in the State Sector Act as “an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of staff in all aspects of their employment.”
5. All chief executives of Public Service departments are required to operate personnel policies that comply with good employer principles. The State Services Commission is responsible for promoting personnel policies and standards, and monitors their achievement in the Public Service.
6. The claimed intentions of this provision according to the explanatory note to the Bill are improving labour market flexibility, encouraging employers to take on new staff, encouraging employers particularly to take on new staff from disadvantaged groups.
7. The evidence to date is that it has failed on all three objectives. (DoL)
8. “Labour market flexibility” appears to be equated with ease of hiring and firing. The explanatory note says that “employers will have the confidence to hire new employees without facing a personal grievance on the grounds of dismissal should the employment relationship be terminated within the trial period”
9. We strongly object to this statement as this will eradicate the longstanding and valued natural justice rights of employees: the rights to fair and equitable treatment and to appeal against treatment they consider is unjust.
10. Employers could already have “the confidence to hire new employees without facing a personal grievance on the grounds of dismissal should the employment relationship be terminated within the trial period” before the 90-day trial was introduced in April 2009. All they needed to do was to use the existing probationary provisions of s 67 the ERA, which allow for employers and employees to agree to probationary periods.
11. Some of the collective agreements which TEU is a party to do have probationary clauses.  All of these clauses include provisions for support, training and monitoring for new staff in the work site.  They also include fair, transparent and reasonable assessments during these periods.  These requirements are fundamental to a genuine probation that is fair and reasonable.
12. The proposed provisions do not have the same obligations on the employer to treat employees in a fair and reasonable way.
13. The protections of natural justice are key in any employment relationship as was made clear by the  Employment Court in Greens Industries Limited v Barton (EC, Auckland AC 55/04, 8 October 2004), which stated that the requirements of procedural fairness are satisfied if the employer:
    • conveys its concerns to the employee;
    • provides an appropriate opportunity for the employee to comment; and
    • considers the explanation in a fair manner.
14. We submit this is hardly a great burden for a reasonable employer. Yet the 90 day provision will remove even these minimal requirements. In essence the current probationary provision preserves a right for employees to be heard, and for their views to be considered fairly.
15. In addition the test for justification of dismissal in section 103A of the Act requires an objective test “in the circumstances” which could include how long they have been employed among other matters.
16. The legislation, as it currently relates to workplaces of under 20 employees, is in practice encouraging poor personnel management practices, including failing to supervise employees adequately, failing to give them feedback to enable them to improve their performance, and using dismissal rather than good interview and employment practices to address the quality of the appointment process.
17. The following comments are from individual TEU members that express their concerns about the 90 day fire at will extension:
18. This Bill is a mechanism that allows for poor employment practices by employers. Currently employers do need to try and recruit the right person. By this we mean a person with the skills and attributes required for the job. It is not unreasonable in our view that employers should take care in the selection process. This Bill encourages unscrupulous, careless or foolish employers to employ anybody as a stop gap measure until by a process of elimination (by size, shape, skills, or whatever) they dismiss employees until they find one that they think they like.
19. Employers currently have rights that allow for fixed-term appointments. They can offer casual employment and they can employ people on probation. The problem for employers in times of high employment is that people do not want fixed-term or casual employment. Therefore employers need to do better. This Bill allows an employer to advertise and promise a full-time job that is much more attractive to a prospective employee while all the time only really wanting the person for a short time. Within the 90-day period the new employee can be sacked without cause or right of appeal. This Bill allows a back door way of fixed-term employment without admitting it. This Bill introduces a new category of ‘precarious work’.
20. One argument in support of this Bill is that it will reduce casual work or fixed-term appointments. We find this hard to understand. Firstly the Bill actually allows employers to treat any employment as ‘de facto’ fixed-term or casual. The right without fear of appeal to dismiss an employee means even though an employee might believe they are being employed on a permanent basis, the employer can dismiss them at any time within the first 90 days. Secondly if an employer genuinely needs a fixed-term appointment then he or she (if honest) will employ that way. The difference is that, whereas now the employer ‘promises’ work for the term of employment, this Bill will mean the employee can be dismissed without reason, explanation, appeal or recourse at any time. Having to accept a fixed-term appointment in the first place the employee cannot even be sure that the term in question will be honoured. A genuine fixed-term appointment as per the ERA is for a specified length of time. At the conclusion of that length of time there is no more work. Therefore, although during the employment period the employee may have demonstrated what a great asset they could be, there is no job to offer. If at the end of a fixed-term appointment the employee is offered more work then it was not a genuine fixed-term appointment in the first place, unless of course the circumstances have changed. This Bill will not assist in either case. While there may be a tiny percentage of employees who get full-time employment from a casual appointment due to the employer ‘trying them out’ ‘safely’ because the Bill was enacted, the vast proportion will be on a ‘merry-go-round’ of job after job. That is only if they are lucky! If they are unlucky they will be dismissed by the employer and then be unable to access any unemployment benefit until after the usual stand down period.
21. There are other consequences of the 90 day loss of employment rights periods.
22. As the CTU state in their submission, they have been informed of a student who bought and sold her house during her 90-day period. She found that, because she was on a 90 day period, her bank would not provide her with any access to mortgage finances, including bridging finance.  She subsequently discovered that another three banks had adopted the same policy – namely that no mortgage money can be advanced to anybody who is employed on a 90 day period, regardless of any other factors. Thus even relatively affluent New Zealanders who own their own home will not be able to sell it in order to buy another while employed on a 90 day period, as they are unable to access bridging finance.
23. Rather than increase labour mobility, as the proponents of this provision apparently intend, this will make people more reluctant to change jobs, especially if they need to move house for a job. They may find they cannot purchase a new place to live for three months after taking the new position.
24. The provisions will in general induce a reduction in mobility because employees in the tertiary education sector will be at their most vulnerable when changing jobs and it will increase their reluctance to move. This will not be in the best interests for academic careers in New Zealand and may lead to many academics leaving New Zealand for better job security overseas.
25. Another aspect of reduction in mobility is for immigrants. Many immigrants will be reluctant to undertake the considerable risk and upheaval to come to New Zealand if they are aware their new employment will be subject to a 90-day trial.
26. A significant proportion of tertiary education sector staff are recruited from overseas.  New Zealand employers may find that their opportunity to recruit excellent candidates is limited, as individuals will be unwilling to risk relocating here with such uncertainty around their continued employment.
27. We imagine that the 90 day period may also have an impact on an individual’s application for a work visa.
28. TEU members’ comments in this area included:
29. Coming from Europe, I would have never risked coming to a country where I could have been fired for no reasons less than 90 days after starting. This bill will decrease the number of skilled migrants to New Zealand and make them to choose safer countries in terms of employees right. Since salaries are lower than in Australia, New Zealand has to demonstrate better working conditions than other countries to attract or retain skilled employees.
30. I could have been fired for no reasons less than 90 days after starting. This bill will decrease the number of skilled migrants to New Zealand and make them to choose safer countries in terms of employees right. Since salaries are lower than in Australia, New Zealand has to demonstrate better working conditions than other countries to attract or retain skilled employees.
31. I may be looking for a new job as a result of this restructuring, and it will be more stressful if I know that I can be dismissed without reason during the first 90 days.New migrants who are already struggling to get jobs in line with qualifications and experience may find the 90 day trial rule resulting in temporary jobs to fill vacancies or organizational needs during busy periods with the risk of being fired.  Cultural workplace differences may result in unfair termination without giving the new recruit adequate time to learn and settle down and no proper redressal systems may weaken the ‘good faith” practice.
32. The 90-day probation possibility for staff employed at our institution would be a major disincentive for academic staff to move themselves and their families across the world to work at any of New Zealand’s universities.  The probation period and its inherent risk of losing employment after a short time will also limit the opportunities for me to consider other job opportunities.  It would not be a wise decision for me to make at this time of rising unemployment to risk beginning another job and then losing my family’s livelihood without proper procedural processes and reasons.
33. I am concerned also for the future of the tertiary education sector in New Zealand under the proposed 90-day provision.  We rely heavily on attracting world-class academics from overseas universities.  But who would uproot their whole family and move half way round the world when there’s the chance of being sacked without reason within the first 90 days?  That’s not a risk any sensible person would take.
34. Immigrants with skills in high demand may be able to negotiate the provision out of their employment agreement – if they are aware of the provision and its significance, which the above evidence shows cannot be assumed to be the case. However less skilled immigrants may be unable to negotiate this. For many, their continued residence in New Zealand is completely dependent on their continuing employment with a particular employer. For those 90 days they will be even more than usually vulnerable to pressure and unreasonable demands.
35. The Bill will expose groups already disadvantaged in the labour market to greater disadvantage and more precarious work arrangements.  They will add to the discrimination faced by women, Māori and Pacific employees, and other vulnerable employees. Much better ways must be found to promote the employment of disadvantaged groups because removing employment rights that provide protection and advocacy will not achieve this.
36. Women are more likely to have broken employment patterns and change jobs more often because of parental leave and child care and other caring responsibilities. Extending 90 day periods to all workplaces will mean women employees have more precarious employment periods across their employment history, which will increase the number of times that women can be dismissed without protection from unfair dismissal protections.
37. Women constitute over half of the unionised workforce in New Zealand now. Restricting access to unions is a gender issue. Collective bargaining improves the wages and condition of women employees and improves gender equality in the workforce. Restricting access by women to their union restricts the right of women union members to secure advice and support when they want it and will make it harder for women to join a union.

4       Trial Periods and the Benefit System

1. Trial periods will have profound implications for those on social security benefits and employees who are beneficiaries between jobs. There are only very limited circumstances in which the stand down period to an unemployment benefit can be waived.
2. The extension of this law to all workplaces means that almost all employees who are dismissed during a 90 day trial period will face a two week benefit stand down. Even if an employee is on a trial period which is terminated after moving from other work, he or she will still face a social security stand-down of at least one week and usually two weeks.
3. Trial periods will create stress and economic hardship for beneficiaries as a result of the recent legislative changes to the Social Security Act that introduce work testing for Domestic Purposes and Sickness Beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are in no place to negotiate a trial period out of the employment agreement. There is no “choice” under the trial period law, as is claimed, if the only option a beneficiary has is to take up a job with a 90 day trial period or otherwise lose their benefit.
4. Beneficiary advocates fear an increase in employees facing the 13 week stand-down, given that 22 percent of trial periods in the Department of Labour survey were dismissed during the trial period.
5. If a Work and Income case manager believes that a person on a trial period has been dismissed for misconduct, or left work voluntarily, they will ultimately face a 13 week disqualification period without the ability to challenge the validity of the dismissal (and the consequent stand down) through an unjustifiable dismissal claim.  The former is unable to test who was at fault because of his or her loss of personal grievance rights. He or she may be unable to challenge the decision of the case manager because of lack of evidence.

5       Young Employees

1. Trial periods will not provide opportunities for young employees – they will just increase disadvantage for vulnerable young employees in New Zealand. Young people entering the workforce are at a clear disadvantage and this disadvantage will be intensified by the ability to dismiss within the first 90 days of employment.
2. The recent report by the Human Rights Commission found that New Zealand youth are going into their first jobs under-prepared and concluded that they will be unfairly hit by the extension of the 90 day trial period.
3. The 2010 Labour Department research confirmed the lack of knowledge that people had about trial employment periods. Young people are at even greater disadvantage given their inexperience, the greater inequality that they face in the employment relationship and their greater vulnerability to exploitation.
4. Given the record high rates of unemployment among young people, and the lack of any evidence to show that this will increase employment, it is an extraordinary response for the Government to expose young people to a greater degree of vulnerable employment and also potentially repeated periods of unemployment.

6.      Other Vulnerable Employees

1. This Bill introduces the likelihood that certain groups of vulnerable employees will be targeted for jobs without employment rights within their first 90 days if the intention is to provide more jobs for people who do not currently have job opportunities.
2. The TEU supports the CTU Runanga’s fears that Māori will face greater insecurity with the Bill removing existing employee protections. Māori employees are more likely to be in the unskilled and semi skilled workforce and have a greater rate of unemployment. It is probable that they will face more trial periods. Te Runanga considers this Bill is a deliberate attack on the rights and job security of Māori.
3. The TEU strongly opposes these trials as a breach of fundamental employment rights with no redeeming features. They are bad policy making with disastrous effects for many people.

7.      Test of Justification

1. The proposed change to the test of justification represents a significant reduction in employees’ rights and a major distortion in the balance of justice in favour of employers.
2. The primary argument in favour of the changes is based on a misrepresentation of the meaning of fairness. Supporters of the proposal have tried to frame the problem as being that the current law is hard to understand and, as a result, the outcome of a personal grievance is hard to predict. But this is attempted without reference to any particular circumstances. There cannot be one fair outcome irrespective of the facts. Fairness comes by applying core principles to the facts of the case.
3. Equally the current law is not hard to understand: what would a fair and reasonable employer have done? It is plain English that everyone can comprehend. One key consequence of the proposed change will be a necessary protracted period of litigation to establish the real scope of what a reasonable employer “could” do.
4. The change of the word “would” to “could” looks like a minor change, but it radically alters the focus of the law. There will be a range of processes and responses demonstrated by employers in a personal grievance situation. In focusing on what a reasonable employer would do, the court looks towards the middle of that range. A change to could will mean the courts look at the fringes of that range and try to establish the extremities of reasonableness.  Instead of considering “a fair and reasonable employer”, the Authority or Court must consider “a fair and reasonable employer operating as close as possible to unacceptable conduct but not breaching the law”.
5. This runs counter to the very idea of reasonableness and establishing a common ground. The reality is that the shift from “would” to “could” is a diminution of rights, again, without any policy rationale. It is a deliberate lowering of the type of standard expected of New Zealand employers and therefore diminishes and dilutes rights.
6. The Government’s focus has been on the employer’s ability to dismiss employees but this Bill extends this gravely lowered threshold measure of reasonableness to all employer actions – not just dismissal but any action that may have caused the unfair disadvantage.
7. This unwarranted reduction in rights is further compounded by the flawed attempt in Clause 14 to codify the terms of natural justice in an employment relations setting. The exercise is poorly executed and an invitation for repeated and wasteful litigation. Perhaps a codification might have some advantages, but this is woefully incomplete and confusing in its use of language and will lead to substantial ongoing litigation to clarify its meaning.
8. In any case, the idea of natural justice is not limited or specific to employment law. It applies across all law – whether that be criminal or commercial or constitutional.  That universality renders its delineation here pointless. Natural justice exists without needing to be enacted by a legislator. Thus the proposed new Section 103A(3) is a hollow gesture designed to pander to a subset of employers who seek tick-box justice in  preference to real fairness.
9. Those components that are included are equally flawed. For example the new Section 103A (3)(a) makes investigation of an allegation conditional on, “having regard to the resources available to the employer”. Investigation cannot be deemed sufficient at a lesser or even variable levels because of the relative size of a business. The right must be universal. Would small employers would be happy to receive justice in proportion to the size of their businesses?
10. It is wrong and naive to change the test of misconduct investigations which hitherto has been a right to a “full and fair” investigation to a requirement that the matter be “sufficiently” investigated. Although case law may eventually establish that the concepts are interchangeable, the core question is “why make the change”?  The changes proposed result not in employer certainty, but uncertainty and litigation.
11. The insertion of the term “allegation” in the new Section 103A (3)(a) also further warps the purpose of personal grievance provisions. Personal grievances are, as it should be, currently about employees’ concerns about unfair employers’ actions. This Bill will change the starting point to first “allegations against an employee” and then investigation of those allegations. There is no actual statement that the process should start from the validity of the employer’s actions.
12. Concepts such as “sufficiently investigated”; “the allegations”; “raised the concern”; “genuinely considered” and so on will only have clear meaning when the Employment Court gives them that; and much litigation water will need to flow under the bridge in the meantime causing financial costs and uncertainty.
13. The subsection deals with concepts such as “the allegations” and “the employer’s concerns” as if these matters are identical and interchangeable; and appears to entirely overlook the fact that many dismissals (or even most) are not related to misconduct or performance but assertions that the position is redundant.
14. The provision which states the Authority “may” consider other factors is scarcely helpful (proposed subs103A(4)).  The Authority must be required to consider other factors if that is necessary to reach a fair result.
15. The final inanity of Clause 14 is demonstrated by the new Section 103A(5). In asserting that the Authority or court cannot find an action unjustified solely because of minor technical details it addresses an entirely non-existent problem.
16. There is no concern about the Authority dismissing a grievance because the employer only committed a minor or technical breach which did not result in the probability that the employee was treated unfairly.  That happens now under the current law.  The suggestion that minor or technical breaches result in remedies under the current regime is fanciful and fictional.
17. The TEU experience is that dismissals are very rarely held to be unjustified for minor or technical reasons under current practice.  The only result of the proposed change will be much wasteful litigation on what “minor or technical” means.
18. Overall the failed attempt to demarcate natural justice in an employment relations context is more confusing, uses new concepts and wording, and will only create grounds for increased litigation.

8.      Removing reinstatement as the primary remedy

1. The TEU is fundamentally opposed to Clauses 13 and 15 of this Bill, which propose removing reinstatement as the primary remedy in an unfair dismissal.
2. It is impossible to overestimate the importance that a job can have to an employee. Not just in terms of financial security and economic wellbeing, but to their emotional wellbeing, personal motivation and sense of worth.  In an unfair dismissal case, the second that reinstatement is removed as the first solution, the law has started to lose sight of what is important.
3. Effectively this change will make wrong-doing by employers cheaper and less risky. This incentivising of bad behaviour can only have negative consequences in the workplace.  As Judge Travis recently noted in his ruling on Horton v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd, “to routinely award compensation instead of reinstatement would be to create a system of licensing unjustified dismissal”.
4. The introduction of new grounds that the Authority or Court may provide for reinstatement, “if it is practicable and reasonable to do so” provides far too much scope for employers to place spurious barriers in the way of reinstatement.
5. It is an open invitation for employers to move immediately following the dismissal to employ someone in the dismissed employee’s place. They can then claim that it is not “practicable and reasonable” to reinstate.
6. Removal of reinstatement as a right will inevitably undermine the idea of interim reinstatement. Interim reinstatement is a key tool in trying to maintain employment relationships. There is a clear correlation between minimising a disconnection from the workplace and the relative success in repairing that employment relationship over time.
7. Removal of reinstatement will also have the effect of significantly reducing the value of settlements. The current requirement that employers must first address the option of reinstatement forces them to face the real cost of their unjustified behaviour. When there is no pathway back to the workplace for a wronged employee, there is much less pressure on an employer if they simply wish to wash their hands of that. There are many dismissals that are so egregious and blameworthy that only a claim for reinstatement gives a possibility of justice.

9.      Cross examination in the Authority

1. The TEU fully supports the CTU submission in this area.

10.    Prioritisation of cases that have been to mediation

1. The TEU fully supports the CTU submission in this area.

11.    Mediation without representation

1. The TEU believes that Clause 20 of this Bill, which will provide for mediation to proceed without representation seriously undermines the role that a union member has to representation via their representative.  This is one of the key reasons employees join unions and this is their expectation, in any personal grievance or employment relation problem, where mediation is being used.

Conclusion

• This Bill will not deliver what it proposes: to provide more flexibility, greater choice, and ensure a balance of fairness for both employers and employees in the principal Act while improving its overall operation and efficiency. These changes will allow for employment problems to be resolved more quickly, reduce costs, support more efficient, effective, and flexible processes around ending the employment relationship, and help restore the confidence of all parties in the personal grievance system and the employment institutions. It is also intended that by assisting employment relationship problems to be resolved more quickly the negative impact of these problems on workplace productivity will be reduced.
• In fact this Bill will reduce the flexibility of the labour market and remove choice by making the prospect of changing jobs too risky for many employees.
• It will swing the balance of fairness even further away from employees towards employers by creating precarious employment periods where employees will have no access to employment rights.
• It will create more litigation around union access rights, around communication during the bargaining, around the contradiction between the requirements of good faith and the 90 day period, and the test of justification.
• It will increase the vulnerability of women employees, Māori employees, Pacific employees, young employees, disabled employees and older employees.

Otago University, 8 July 2010

Sharn Riggs

TEU National Secretary

Kia ora koutou katoa. Greetings from the President and Council of the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa. We have a strong and valued relationship with NZUSA and I am very pleased to be here today.

I want to begin today by telling you the story of one of our members, who used to be one of your members. Teurikore Biddle finished school in what I used to call the fourth form but which most of you will know as year 10. She spent several years in performing arts classes until 1997 when she enrolled in Waikato University’s Te Timatanga Hou course. Te Timatanga Hou was set up as a bridging course to help Māori students enter tertiary education.

Teurikore said of that course:

“The teachers there were committed to seeing Māori succeed. I am absolutely sure that had it not been for their efforts and the programmes they offered I would not have maintained my interest in tertiary education. To have started off at the main campus of the university on a BA would have been a grave mistake in my case. I needed to go to Te Timatanga Hou so that I was properly prepared.”

Teurikore eventually graduated from Waikato University with a BA Honours degree and then Victoria with an MA. Now Teurikore teaches Māori language and Māori performing arts at Victoria University. Last year she was awarded a New Zealand Fulbright travel award. She used this award to travel to a Native American and Indigenous conference in Minneapolis, USA. Teurikore participated in a panel discussion on Indigenous Activism as seen through the lens of Māori performing arts. She also received an International Science and Technology award in 2007/2008. She used this award to participate in a collaborative research project with Native American Indian academic staff from the University of Montana.

Teurikore told us:

“I have attended only one of my graduation ceremonies, and that was for the qualification I received from Te Timatanga Hou – I made a promise to myself that same day that the qualification from Te Timatanga Hou would be the only ceremony I attended until I complete my PhD.”

Some of you may know that Waikato University cut the Timatanga Hou course last year.  It is no longer available.

Teurikore’s story is important because it is about the hope that education can provide. The path from fourth form dropout to internationally recognised scholar can be a remarkably short one. Sadly, that hope is currently being challenged by a government that says it believes in the importance of Teurikore’s story, but is failing to match its actions with its words.

Let’s look at those words first:

Last year the government said that its vision for tertiary education is for a world-leading, world-class education system that equips all New Zealanders with the knowledge, skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21st century. In particular it wants to focus on  increasing the number of young people (aged under 25) entering and succeeding at tertiary education, particularly degrees, increasing the number of Māori students enjoying success at higher levels and increasing the number of Pasifika students achieving at higher levels.

The Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015 said education was important because higher education levels have been linked to better general well-being, better health and greater social mobility. Tertiary- educated people are more involved in the community and are more likely to vote and stand for public office. Tertiary education promotes debate, democracy, culture and expression. And not least of all, it is god for the economy. But, sadly, that’s not what people are always experiencing today in universities, in polytechnics and in wānanga around New Zealand.

Here are some of the events of the last year and half:

1. Adult and community education courses have closed in the face of a savage 80 percent cut in funding. This affected 15,000 night class tutors and up to 200,000 students whose learning was previously estimated to have an economic benefit to the economy of between $4.8 billion and $6.3 billion. All to save $16 million.
2. Polytechnic funding was cut at the very stage when the government was saying it wants to get more young New Zealanders into education, and particularly into skills and trades training. Most polytechnics now face shortfalls of millions of dollars in 2011 unless they can significantly cut costs.
3. University tripartite funding worth $50 million dollars was wiped away in last year’s budget. This money had aimed to help keep New Zealand’s world class academics teaching and researching here in New Zealand. It went some way to addressing the huge salary gap between lecturers in New Zealand and overseas. Without it vice chancellors are once again reporting that they are losing entire departments of staff and PhD. students to overseas and in particular Australian universities.
4. Student numbers have risen dramatically at the same time as there has been static or falling funding for services and staff at most institutions. At AUT for instance the number of equivalent full-time student (EFTS) increased last year from the previous year by over 10 percent to over 18,000 EFTS. What is not increasing however is the number of staff. Full-time equivalent academic staff numbers fell last year by 2.8 percent despite that dramatic growth in student numbers.
5. Like many other tertiary institutions AUT reported a net surplus of $8 million but its staff-student ratio rose from 16.8 students per staff member to 18.8 which may not seem much but that is an increase of two students per staff member or nearly 12 percent. For staff that number reflects workload. For students it is an indicator of quality.
6. The government removed local democratic governance from all 20 polytechnics.  It reduced the number of council members to eight rather than the previous 12 to 20. It gave its own minister the right to appoint four of those eight. It gave ministerial appointees longer periods on the council than their community appointed peers, and the right of veto over important decisions like electing the chair. It also removed the right of those people who work and study at polytechnics, staff and you, students, to have a seat on the council.
7. Roger Douglas’ voluntary student membership bill.  Well I don’t need to tell you about this.  Except to make two points.  The first is that this is an issue that affects staff as well as students at tertiary institutions, and we continue to support your campaign to prevent this bill becoming law.  The second is that we continue to hope that this is not part of the government’s greater plan for tertiary education but simply an aberration supported only by Roger Douglas and his small number of student disciples.
8. There has also been a concerted effort by employers, strongly supported by the Government and the State Services Commission to undermine working conditions at tertiary institutions.  For example at NorthTec, Unitec, BoPP, Wintec, WITT and Whitireia after a year of long protracted negotiations that included several days of strike action and months of industrial disharmony, the employers refused to accept an offer from academic staff of zero pay increases at four of the polytechnics in return for retaining their existing employment conditions. The employers remained adamant throughout the dispute, which is only now drawing to an end that they wished to increase duty days and reduce leave provisions for their staff.
9. The government has introduced a significant shift in the focus of research funding to favour research that has an immediate economic return for businesses. Its Tertiary Education Strategy reads:

“Better linkages between firms, universities and other public research organisations will inform firms of the research that may be relevant to them, and inform researchers of the research that firms want and need. We will ensure that the Performance-Based Research Fund assessment fully recognises research of direct relevance to the needs of industry and its dissemination to industry. We will also ensure there are further incentives for universities, other research organisations and firms to work together.”

Remember, this is not new money the government is talking about but existing public research funding that is being shifted to help private businesses.

Staff and students are the kaitiaki, the guardians of New Zealand’s commitment to public education. We cannot just defend the interests of those members who currently pay to belong to our organisations.  We must also speak for the students to come, staff yet to be employed, research yet to be done and communities that will benefit from a robust, well-funded, quality tertiary education system. If we don’t take on this responsibility there is probably no-one else that can or will.

In the 1990s the challenge we faced when defending our vision of public education was a determined effort by the government of the time to turn the tertiary education sector into a business.  Polytechnics and universities were encouraged to compete against each other for students and courses and funding.  International students were flown into the country in record numbers and advertising and marketing budgets blossomed as institutions did everything they could to meet the demands of what later derisively became known as the ‘bums on seats’ funding model.

A commitment by and organisation of staff and students and the public at the time turned back this challenge. In this decade the new challenge is not about turning tertiary education into a business, but rather into a tool for business.

Notice the subtle difference and the differing challenge it presents for those of us committed to protecting public education. We need a similar commitment today to defend that thing that makes public education most important to us – and that is hope.

Public education is a democratic tool that gives us hope.  It exposes us to new ideas, new people and new chances. Deciding that some topics are of less relevance to business or have no productive value undermines the democratic hope that education gives us.

Most New Zealanders support public education. It is a crucial pillar of our egalitarian democracy. It gives people like us, you and me and people like Teurikore opportunities. It helps bring social justice to our communities. It gives our economy real, sustainable economic strength and the competitive edge that the Government seeks. Through research and learning it expands our horizons and it connects our history to our future.

Private education might do these things incidentally, but not consistently and certainly not on purpose. Individual policy decisions like cutting adult and community education or limiting students’ access to tertiary education through an EFTS cap or allowing numerous low quality private providers to proliferate, all have an impact on the ability of our public education system to meet its egalitarian goal of giving opportunities to New Zealanders and our economic goal of moving out of being a low wage economy unable to compete in the global market.

New Zealand has an excellent tertiary education system. It produces world class graduates and is highly respected. All the people involved deserve credit for that. The best way to defend public education, to defend tertiary institutions and to defend those students who are yet to come, is to work together collectively and nationally. That is what NZUSA does and it is what the TEU does.

This belief that we are stronger together than we are separately was at the very heart of the merger that led to the creation of TEU.  The Association of University Staff (AUS) and the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (ASTE) had different cultures, different habits and different voices and on one level, different interests, but they shared a common belief in the value of public education and in the value of the people who work to make that happen.

A merger such as the one we went through over the last few years is never easy, especially for local branches and organisations that understandably, but not necessarily rightly, want to devote more of their time, money and energy to their own local issues.  But luckily for us, throughout the process, our members continued to lift their heads and look towards the bigger picture, to look towards the shared common belief that binds us together.

Our union has a waiata, and a saying: Tu Kotahi – stand as one.  That concept of standing tall for what you believe in, as part of group, is what helped Teurikore become the woman she is today.  It is also what makes our organisation with our short history and yours with your longer history into the voices that we are today.

We will meet the challenge, you as students and we as staff, by working collectively and nationally for our shared common belief that education is important and the people involved in education are valuable. Our strength will come from our collective commitment to keep voicing our vision of education as one of hope.

A no reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa

The minister of state services, Mr Tony Ryall, has released updated Expectations for Pay and Employment Conditions in the State Sector.

“While there are no fundamental changes to these updated Expectations, there is a stronger emphasis on reinforcing the critical link between decisions about pay and employment conditions, productivity and fiscal restraint and improved service delivery” said Mr Ryall.

“I expect all decisions about pay and employment conditions to support these priorities, and that any decisions to increase employment costs are tied to service improvement.”

Mr Ryall said that the key points of the new Expectations are that any changes to pay must contribute to the overall improvement of frontline services, be financially sustainable for the next 3-5 years, and be linked to improved productivity.

The Expectations apply to all tertiary education institutions but, unlike other state sector bodies, there is only an obligation to consult with the State Services Commission rather than the commissioner having overall responsibility for negotiations.

TEU national secretary Sharn Riggs said the government’s last Expectations had caused significant problems for the union. These new Expectations appear to be substantially the same, if not even harder still on public sector workers, with further references to constraint and the new requirement that employer bargaining strategies “demonstrate continuing affordability”.

“Employers need to recognise that staff in the tertiary educations sector have all demonstrated improved productivity, increased workloads, and commitment to service over the last year and so should be paid accordingly” said Ms Riggs.

Also in Tertiary Update this week

1. Otago teacher educators the meat in the sandwich
2. More international students to replace capped domestic students
3. Salaries fall but unionised teaching professionals do better
4. Reflecting on the Budget
5. School principals fear students won’t get to university
6. Australian govt not consulting over indigenous institute

Other news

The New Zealand Library Association (LIANZA) says the University of Canterbury’s Change Proposal – Learning Resources – if implemented, would endanger the University as a centre of teaching, learning and research excellence because it would significantly reduce services available in the university’s libraries. The proposed disestablishment of 28% of the Library’s positions would see the University rushing into change which is expensive to implement and very costly in terms of the loss of institutional knowledge and proven ability.

TEU has released draft policies for consultation on teacher registration and the supervision of student practicum, public tertiary education, intellectual property, general staff job evaluation, academic freedom on its online forum.

Education Directions reports that, finally, one single polytechnic in New Zealand has appointed a current staff member to its council. What’s more she’s a union member. NorthTec has appointed Gwen Edge to its council. She has been a staff member for 24 and a member of the local TIASA Executive for 22 years. Congratulations, Gwen!

The Department of Labour reports that the main reason employers hire migrants (83 percent) is that they cannot find New Zealanders with the right skills or training. Eighty-five percent of employers who had employed a migrant in the last 12 months say they had tried to find a New Zealander to fill the position.

Families with new babies can expect a boost to their parental leave payments next month, says Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. The maximum parental leave payment will increase from $429.74 per week to $441.62 per week from July 1.

A lecturer who has been ordered to undergo two years of “monitoring” after showing a female colleague a paper about oral sex among fruit bats has challenged the president of his university to a debate on the topic of “limits of academic freedom” – Times Higher Education Supplement

—-

TEU Tertiary Update is published weekly on Thursdays and distributed freely to members of the Tertiary Education Union and others. You can subscribe to Tertiary Update by email or feed reader. Back issues are available on the TEU website. Direct inquiries should be made to Stephen Day, email: http://scr.im/stephenday

The result of this increase in equivalent full time students (EFTS) and decrease in spending on staff was that the operating cost for each EFTS was down $600 on last year. The EFTS to academic staff ratio rose from 21 students per academic staff member to 24 students per staff member. TEU National secretary Sharn Riggs said polytechnics last year were challenged by the State Services Commission to show productivity increases before awarding pay rises to staff.” 

“Weltec is one example of many where productivity increases are evident. It’s time staff are compensated for that increased productivity,” said Ms Riggs.

Weltec’s chief executive Linda Sissons noted in the report that the fall in expenditure on staff was not a one-off but part of a deliberate strategy to reduce costs:

“Our operating expenses per EFTS fell as we had strong controls on expenditure in place. Other efficiencies included improving our academic staff to EFTS ratio…To facilitate containing personnel costs, Human Resources focused on improving management reports on: personnel costs; staff leave liability; and FTE numbers.”

TEU organiser Phil Dyhrberg said that staff at Weltec were experiencing increased workloads as the polytechnic simultaneously cut its costs and took on more EFTS.

“A short term effort to make the books look healthy is having long term consequences for staff,” said Mr Dyhrberg.

Dr Sissons also noted that the polytechnic has used its international students to generate an extra $700,000 of revenue despite taking the same number of international students as last year.

TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION (TEU)

TE HAUTÃ…ª KAHURANGI O AOTEAROA

Minutes of the Conference held in the Victoria Room, at the Mercure Hotel

Willis Street, Wellington

Monday 9 and Tuesday 10 November 2009

PRESENT:

MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2009

Karakia and Whakatau

The Conference commenced at 9.30a.m with karakia and waiata.

Sharn Riggs outlined the programme for the day and housekeeping matters for the conference.”  Participants were invited to welcome new attendees.

1) TEU NATIONAL PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS

Cheri Waititi was asked by Tom Ryan to clarify the change in protocol for commencement of the conference from that stated in the agenda.

Cheri Waititi took the Chair during the President’s Address.

Copies of the President’s address were tabled.”  Tom Ryan welcomed all delegates and visitors to the first full TEU Conference, a major achievement for the organisation.”  He noted that Kaumātua Dr Te Huirangi Waikerepuru was unable to attend this meeting and his presence was missed.

Tom Ryan paid tribute to the former presidents of ASTE and AUS, Tangi Tipene and Maureen Montgomery for their work at the time of the merger.”  He also thanked Sharn Riggs, Nanette Cormack and the staff who had worked tirelessly and professionally throughout the merger.

Since July he had been involved fully in the role focusing on advocacy, submissions, involvement with the NZCTU and sub-committees, visiting half the branches and administration.”  Tom Ryan said parts of the governance structure were now working well, and he felt well supported by the six vice presidents.”  It was noted that Michael O’Connell had resigned due to a change in employment and his contribution to date was noted with appreciation.

The regrettable split of ITPNZ during the year into two parts had created difficulty with advocacy.”  Meetings with other external organisations included VCs, CEs of institutes and supporting international links.”  TEU was also part of Education International, and it had been decided at the Bangkok conference recently to bring tertiary education unions in the pacific region together on a regular basis.

Political issues being dealt with and priority issues for 2010 as detailed in the President’s report were presented.”  The Prime Minister had announced an intention over the next 15 years to bring New Zealand salaries to a comparable level with Australian salaries, and TEU must continue to remind him and his Ministers of this goal.

Questions and comments were invited on the President’s speech.

• Union leadership was requested to put sufficient resourcing into budget information to enable constituents to negotiate with vice chancellors.

This would be focused on to ensure institutions were held accountable for their claims about their budgets.

• No mention noted in external meetings of meetings with Māori, including the Associate Minister for Education.

This was a significant point and would be a priority in 2010.”  Efforts had been made to establish contact with the Māori Party.

• Timelines for actions for 2010.

Hoped to achieve these within one year’s time and be in a position to report to the next Conference that all are happening in some extent.

• Does the President get involved in any collective bargaining or collective grievances?

Historically and for legal reasons the President does not get involved. This is work for the professional staff of the union.

• Significance of pay increases to CEOs of various institutions given the State Services Commission advice on pay issues.

TEU had strongly voiced their concern with the SSC regarding what the union considers the SSC’s improper involvement in issuing what were seen as virtual instructions in this regard.

• Is pay equity including closing the gender gap a priority in 2010?

Pay equity and the issues of addressing the gender pay gap were very real issues for the members of the union – and whilst not listed as a specific priority were definitely ongoing priorities.

BARGAINING UPDATE

Irena Brorens and the ITP MECA bargaining team were invited to provide an update on the current bargaining round and strike action.”  Up to seven days industrial action involving full strikes, lightening strikes and Wear Red days had been undertaken to date.”  This was a struggle that affected members had taken on, on behalf of all TEU members to protect core conditions from erosion by employers; specifically to increase teaching days per year, and erode discretionary leave.”  Legal challenges had been received from some of the institutions on action taken.

Irena Brorens sought a press statement from the Conference to the effect that the SSC had not criticised the pay increases the employers have received while staff are out on strike.”  This was supported by acclamation.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Action: President

Representatives spoke on the ramifications of strike action on members, including loss of pay and the difficulty of walking away from students during assessment times.”  Members were thanked for their emails of support, and were encouraged to support picket lines in person, disseminate information through branches, and email CEOs of affected institutions which would highlight the involvement and solidarity of the whole Union on protection of conditions.

Cheri Waititi referred to Section 4 page 48 of the papers, which outlined industrial goals and priorities for 2009/2010.”  Tom Ryan took the Chair.

Tom Ryan thanked the representatives from the ITP MECA team and endorsed the support of the membership to those members who are on strike.”  He encouraged all members to support their colleagues.

2) APOLOGIES

Apologies were sustained from:

Dr Te Huirangi Waikerepuru” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Kaumātua

Glennis Birks” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  WinTec

Susan Wātene” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Unitec

Adele Stone” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  NorthTec

Dr Maureen Montgomery” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Immediate Past President, AUS

Janet Bedggood “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  AUT

Nick Chandler “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Otago University

Fiona Te Momo “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Massey University (Albany)

Pearl Barron “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Otago University

Colleen McMurchy-Pilkington” ” ” ”  Auckland University

Geoff Austin “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Auckland University

Sharon Phillips “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Whitireia Community Polytechnic

Branch representatives, members of council, Te Toi Ahurangi and staff identified themselves.

3) MINUTES OF INAUGURAL TEU ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2008

a) Confirmation of the Minutes

Amendments:

Sue Bretherton requested that her name be recorded as present.

It was resolved:

That the minutes of the Inaugural TEU Conference held on 24 and 25 November 2008 be confirmed as a true and accurate record incorporating the above amendment.

Moved: From the Chair

Seconded: Joce Jesson

CARRIED

b) Matters Arising

The President was asked what measures were being taken to ensure that the CTU has recruitment of new members or unionisation of staff as a high priority. “ Tom Ryan confirmed this was a high priority at the CTU, National Affiliates Council and sub-committees.”  Sharn Riggs said at the recent CTU Biennial Conference one of the highest priorities identified was to ensure a process of recruitment where people would then be directed to the appropriate union.

Visit by the Minister for Tertiary Education

Tom Ryan advised that the Minister for Tertiary Education had been invited to address the meeting.”  Regular meetings had been held with the Ministers of Education and Science during the year.”  He was aware of differing views regarding the invitation to the Minister to address the Conference, and advised that this was a Council decision.”  The Prime Minister had attended the CTU conference two weeks ago, which indicated a general acceptance within the union movement that relevant ministers in the sector should be invited to conferences.

Tom Ryan outlined the format for the Minister’s visit which would include a prepared statement to be issued at the conclusion of the Minister’s speech by Cheri Waititi on behalf of Council and the sector.”  Questions from the floor would not be taken.”  Council had agreed on this course of action, and hoped it would result in good media coverage.”  Members of the media were welcomed to the Conference.

There were a number of questions and comments on this direction determined by Council as follows:

• Disappointment and concern was expressed by a number of delegates that there would not be an opportunity to pose questions to the Minister, as it was felt she should be held accountable to answer on behalf of government for its action (or lack of) in the sector.
• Disappointment was strongly expressed that members had not been canvassed on this course of action prior to the Council’s decision, and Council were asked to ensure consultation took place with members in the future before taking such steps.

Action: President

• Members were encouraged to write individual letters to the Minister.
• Some members felt the Minister should not have been invited to address the Conference.”  There was a view that non invitation would have sent a stronger message.
• It was suggested that it would have presented a stronger impact for specific questions to have been addressed to the Minister from the floor by Branches rather than individuals.

Cheri Waititi was requested to include key messages in her reply to the Minister:

1)” ” ” ” ”  reduced funding to community education,

2)” ” ” ” ”  narrowing of national standards,

3)” ” ” ” ”  no recognition of the importance of tertiary education in the regions.

Helen Kissell expressed surprise at the advice that Council had made this decision.”  She had conferred with other Council members who also did not recall this decision, and requested a reference to the decision in Council minutes.”  Tom Ryan apologised for the level of discomfort with the decision.”  His recollection was that the Council decision was based on a verbal agreement earlier in the year.”  The Minister’s visit had been extremely difficult to arrange and he would be happy to review the process for future such invitations.”  He had approached the Minister’s office earlier in the week to seek acceptance of questions from the floor, but was advised it was too late to change the protocol.”  Cheri Waititi supported the President’s comments and hoped that the Minister would leave the meeting with points to consider from the prepared statement.

Resolved:

That in future Conference only invites government ministers who are prepared to take questions from the floor.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Tom McGrath

Seconded: Sue Bretherton

CARRIED

Action: President

Tangi Tipene said Māori members had met the day before and supported silent protest in the absence of being able to question the Minister by the display of placards around the room.

4) address by the hon anne tolley – minister of education, minister for tertiary education

At 12.10 p.m Tom Ryan introduced The Hon. Anne Tolley, Minister for Education, Minister for Tertiary Education and Minister responsible for the Education Review Office.”  He thanked Mrs Tolley for accepting the invitation to speak to the first conference of TEU.

The Minister thanked TEU for the invitation to speak and made the following points:

• Government appreciated the sector’s efforts in establishing and maintaining world class teaching and research.
• Government recognised that the long term health and wellbeing for this country depended in part on tertiary study.
• 2008-09 Government expenditure on tertiary education was $5 billion including tuition, loans and allowances.”  In tight economic times there were not the financial resources to fund an ever increasing tertiary sector.
• Need to be smarter and more focused on best value for tertiary education to ensure qualifications are high quality and meet needs of students and future employers.
• Government set clear goals for tertiary education: simplify funding system, reduce bureaucracy, centralise accountability, improve interface between schools and tertiary institutions.
• Developing new tertiary education strategy to implement these objectives.
• Long term goals (5-10 years)

1)” ” ” ” ”  provide New Zealanders of all backgrounds opportunities to gain world class skills and knowledge.

2)” ” ” ” ”  Build high quality research

3)” ” ” ” ”  Māori to achieve tertiary education success.

• Consultation on the tertiary education strategy closed on 6 November and views would provide valuable feedback.”  New strategy should be finalised by end of year to inform investment planning 2011-2013.
• Targeting priority groups: need to ensure students achieve.
• Improve completion rates: targeted incentives for higher level qualifications.
• Māori and Pacifika are under-represented in higher level qualifications and completion rates are lower.
• Young people entering because of financial situation: need to ensure that their tertiary education experience is valuable.”  Strengthening interface between secondary and tertiary institutions – Youth Guarantee Programme, ultimate aim for this to be available to all 16-17 year olds.
• Improve performance in tertiary education system.”  Education Polytechnics Amendment Bill is a move by the government to ensure strong governance in Polytechnics.
• Focus on research.

Cheri Waititi thanked the Minister for her address and said members appreciated her presence given that she would be aware of the level of dissatisfaction in the sector with regard to some recent decisions made.”  The TEU wished to aspire to the goals outlined by the Minister but there were major points of disagreement:

• The slashing of bulk funding to community education being one area.”  Community education was seen to foster those people who had been let down by the education system to progress to further education.
• Cap on student enrolments
• Cut backs on graduate scholarships
• Changes to Councils – quality Councils were built from members of the community.
• Anti student legislation – students should have access to all education, learning about their rights in a first nation country.
• Impact of the government’s decision on tertiary education is evident in industrial action taking place. 0% increases were insupportable in face of rising living costs.”  Members of TEU are angry that employers are demanding greater productivity – something that has been delivered consistently over past years.”  Discretionary leave is essential for members to undertake administration and quality research that the government is promoting.

Cheri Waititi said the Minister had the power to influence the sector as a whole and hoped the TEU’s response to her address would influence her decisions to have a positive impact on growth within the sector, and the country.”  To close the gap with Australia, government must put resources into the sector.

The Minister left the meeting at 1.30 p.m.

Lunch break 12.30 – 1.30 p.m

On reconvening Tom Ryan thanked Cheri Waititi for her eloquent and appropriate speech on behalf of the TEU and this was endorsed and supported by acclamation.

5) address by Grahame mcculloch, general secretary, national tertiary education union (australia)

Joce Jesson welcomed Grahame McCulloch, who has been a strong voice for the rights of staff in Australia and a proponent for education for citizenship.”  Grahame McCulloch thanked the TEU for the warm welcome and extended greetings and congratulations from the 25,000 NTEU members in Australia on this first conference post merger, and to Tom Ryan and Sharn Riggs on their appointments.”  He made a presentation on Tertiary Education in the Australian context:

• Spread of teaching universities, staff engaged in applied vocational education.
• New collective bargaining and award regime – Fair Work Australia.
• 2008-2012 Bargaining Campaign core claims include an indigenous employment clause.
• Provided summary of pay offers for comparison with New Zealand.
• Budget bid 10% current growth by 2010: some commitment by Government towards 5% by 2012 but elections will take place prior to 2012.
• Climate change central issue and will be included in bargaining claims.”  Invitation extended to TEU to participate in major conference beginning 2010 on climate change.
• Membership up 5% this year.”  Hope to repeat next year.
• Co-operation: economic and higher education flow across the Tasman.
• Possible combined “Aus NZ financial database.
• Complementary bargaining strategies.

Lynn Boddington thanked Grahame McCulloch for his presentation.

6) REPORTS

a) National Secretary’s Report

Sharn Riggs presented her report.”  Challenges to launch of new union

• Governance and structure
• Membership
• Staffing
• Political Activities
• Industrial Matters
• Professional Matters

Sharn Riggs said the merger year had been very challenging for staff and members, and extended her thanks to staff for their focus on a particularly intensified work programme.”  2010 needs to be a year of consolidation, building on the work undertaken this year and growing numbers – in particular general staff.”  She extended thanks to the members of the sector groups, committees, branches and Council for their forbearance in coming to grips with a new structure.

b) Financial Report

c) Audited Accounts

Tom Ryan welcomed Roger Shackleford, BDO Spicers to speak to the audited accounts in the following order:

• ASTE (for 6 months ended 31 December 2008)
• AUS (for 12 months ended 31 December 2008)

Questions were invited and were answered on the accounts.”  Roger Shackleford was thanked at the conclusion of his presentation.

d) Draft Budget 2010 (Introduction)

Sharn Riggs clarified the TEU financial year was January – December.”  The budget would be voted on the following day.”  The budget was based on extrapolation of figures from the previous years from both organisations, recognising that there were still some significant challenges around coding and branch mergers.”  Sharn Riggs focused on key points and welcomed questions from the floor.

• The TEU were encouraged to think about sustainability more actively and move to a paperless environment where possible.
• The budget for Pasifika was noted positively, but questioned if this should be increased in recognition of Pasifika recruitment membership targets and clarity was sought on where Fono would appear in the strategic plan timetable.
• Clarity was sought on representation of capitation, whether this was the entire amount paid by members.
• There should be sufficient time allowed for questions on the budget to be heard in the open meeting, and Sharn Riggs confirmed that there would be time for this the following day before the vote, although any member of Council could be approached individually with questions on the budget.

It was resolved:

That the following reports be accepted:

National Secretary’s Report

Financial Report

Audited Accounts

Membership Report

Benevolent Fund Report” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Tom Ryan

Seconded: Pania Melbourne

CARRIED

A request was made for reports from industrial officers on personal grievance cases to be included in the National Secretary’s Report, and clarity under the Benevolent Fund Report, and Employment Relations Authority 34/36 hours.”  Sharn Riggs advised that the first two items were in part related to database difficulties and would definitely be addressed in the future, and the latter would be dealt with in the ITP workshops.

Action: Sharn Riggs

Roger Shackleford left the meeting at 3.20 p.m.

7) WORKSHOPS

Conference members then broke into Workshops on the following topics:

Delegate Structures

General Staff

Campaigns

Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF)

Reviews and Restructuring

GUEST SPEAKERS: SOPHIA BLAIR AND JORDAN KING, CO-PRESIDENTS, NEW ZEALAND UNION OF STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

Sandra Grey introduced guest speakers Sophia Blair and Jordan King.”  A message of solidarity and support to those institutions currently facing industrial action was offered from NZUSA.”  They raised issues faced by students:

• students have not seen the brighter future promised in the election campaign
• student unemployment over the holiday break would be at its highest over the last decade, and there is no fallback option
• cuts to scholarships, financial barriers
• lack of funding for community study
• use of completion rates
• changes to Polytechnic Councils
• proposed voluntary student association membership bill.

Tania Loughlin thanked Sophia and Jordan for their presentation as key stakeholders in tertiary education.

Sophia Blair and Jordan King left the meeting at 4.55 p.m.

9) TE HAU TIKANGA O TE TIRITI – TIRITI PARTNERSHIP GROUP

A co-presentation was made by the Treaty Partnership group outlining:

• Composition
• Draft terms of reference
• 2010 Work Plan
• Resources.

10) CAUCUSES

The meeting broke for Women, ITP, University and University Bargaining caucuses at 4.55 p.m, which was then followed by the Conference dinner:

TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2009

Karakia

Tom Ryan welcomed everyone to the second day of the Conference which commenced at 9.30a.m with karakia and waiata led by Bill Rogers.

MESSAGE OF SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS FACING INDUSTRIAL ACTION

It was resolved:

That this first annual conference of TEU Te HautūKahurangi o Aotearoa endorses and supports the struggle of TEU members in Whitireia, WinTec, Western Institute of Technology, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Unitec and NorthTec to maintain their core conditions of work which contribute to providing quality education for New Zealanders and gain a modest wage increase to keep up with the cost of living.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Steven Blumenfeld

Seconded: John Prince

CARRIED (by acclamation)

Amendment proposed

There was discussion on, and support given for Branches to consider the contribution from branch funds of money to the strike fund to show support for their colleagues.

11) POLICY PAPERS

Tom Ryan advised Nanette Cormack would be conducting any formal voting procedures should this be required for this section of the meeting, and reminded members that only delegates could formally vote.

RESEARCH AND DEGREE TEACHING

It was moved:

That paragraph 1 of the policy on Page 13 be amended to read:

“Research activity for those engaged…new knowledge relevant to the researcher’s subject matter, discipline or profession being taught (i.e. basic or pure research).”  In the same way…for students.” Moved: Helen Charters

There was discussion on the proposed amendment, in particular over the inclusion of the word “researcher”.”  It was noted that the documentation had already been circulated to Branches for consideration, however Branch representatives could vote at Conference representing their Branches on such issues.

Whilst noting that the policy had been consulted on extensively, there was support for the recommended amendment, it was agreed that a formal motion be drafted and considered later in the meeting.

RESEARCH ASSESSMENT:

Tom Ryan invited comment on the policy document.

Grant Duncan advised the policy was discussed at length at the PBRF workshop yesterday where concerns about measurement of research quality had led to a request that it be set aside for further drafting and consultation.”  A policy on the PBRF was urgently required for Branches as the PBRF impact on members was now an industrial issue.”  Joce Jesson supported this view but felt that a formal remit was necessary to show that the TEU does not accept government measuring research in this way.

It was resolved:

That the Research Assessment policy be set aside for further consultation and drafting.

Moved: Grant Duncan

Seconded: George Hill

CARRIED

It was noted that Council could vote on a revised policy paper to ensure that it is efficiently handled rather than waiting for 2010 Conference.

LIANZA PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION SCHEME:

Helen Kissell was invited to speak to the draft policy.”  This had been distributed late to the branches which meant that they had not been afforded the same time for consultation.”  The policy had been supported by AUS in 2009 and by general staff but had not been presented to 2009 Conference.”  It was agreed that the LIANZA professional registration scheme be considered at Conference despite the shortened consultation period.

Helen Kissell proposed two amendments to the policy which were discussed.”  It was agreed, given the general support for the amendments that these be drafted and considered for vote later in the meeting.

HOSTING GUESTS TO CONFERENCE

Jack Heinemann put forward a view from the Canterbury Branch, who wished to comment on invited guests who were openly hostile to the union and yet were welcomed to social occasions.

It was moved:

That if those who are openly hostile to the union are invited as guests to dine in the future, they must sing for their supper.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Jack Heinemann

There was some support for the sentiment expressed in the motion.”  However, it was noted that it was important for the TEU to develop and maintain relationships with key figures for the promotion of the TEU’s objectives.

It was agreed with the approval of Canterbury Branch that the motion be left on the table and that its sentiment and the views of Conference be part of the Conference record.

12) GUEST SPEAKER: BILL ROSENBERG – NZCTU POLICY DIRECTOR AND ECONOMIST

Helen Kissell welcomed Bill Rosenberg to address the meeting.”  Bill Rosenberg thanked TEU for the invitation and made a presentation on an alternative economic strategy considered at CTU Conference.”  CTU would arrange workshops to discuss this proposal with the final document prepared by June 2010.”  He hoped that TEU as an affiliate would enter that debate.

Questions were invited:

• Any analysis of how social indicators i.e. child poverty rates and health have been impact assessed? Good MSD report on their website that looks at that impact.

• Will involvement in free trade agreements improve things? These are largely to increase access for dairy products and to a lesser extent other agricultural commodities.”  They ignore effects on the economy and make it difficult to nurture other manufacturers, and create difficulties in service industries.

Barry Foster thanked Bill Rosenberg for his stimulating presentation and this was followed by a waiata.

13) INTRODUCTION: TEVITA KOROI, PRESDIENT, FIJIAN TEACHERS’ UNION

Tom Ryan welcomed Tevita Koroi to the meeting and thanked him for his attendance.

Morning Tea 11.10 a.m.

14) GUEST SPEAKER: PAT FORWARD, FEDERAL TAFE SECRETARY, AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION UNION

Ken Laraman welcomed Pat Forward to speak to the Conference.”  Pat Forward thanked TEU for the invitation to the its first Conference and congratulated the union on the amalgamation.”  She gave an overview of the Australian Education Union which covers teachers in schools, primary, secondary and kindergarten, as well as members in TAFE colleges.”  Key points:

• Focus is currently on contemporary events with particular reference to international education in Australia.”  Previously focus has been on the design of markets rather than students.
• International students and private providers
• Gaining profit not education primary focus
• Market flood lower cost end
• More regulations required
• Students have to sit job ready test prior to being granted residency – what reflection is this on quality of education.

Joce Jesson thanked Pat Forward for her address.

15) TEU GOALS 2010 WORKSHOPS

Sharn Riggs outlined arrangements for breaking into workshops for academic staff and general staff to look through goals to assess relevance, and suggestions for change.”  Recommendations will be brought back to the TEU office for consideration at the first Council meeting in 2010.”  These sessions would be followed by lunch at 1.00 p.m. and Conference would reconvene at 2.00 p.m.

16) FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

DRAFT BUDGET 2010

The President confirmed that the budget had been discussed and approved by the Finance and Staffing Committee and moved for its adoption and opened the floor for discussion.”  The following points were clarified:

• Tolls and postage decrease: new telephone system would provide significant savings.
• Printing and copying decrease:”  new photocopier permitting more in-house copying.
• Budget line requested for General Staff Activity Days: would be covered in re-coding.

It was resolved:

That the budget 2010 be adopted.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: From the Chair

CARRIED

It was resolved:

That BDO Spicer be appointed as TEU Auditor for 2010.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: From the Chair

CARRIED

A no change approach to the annual subscription was proposed.

It was resolved:

That the annual subscription for membership of the TEU for 2010 be 0.8% of the member’s salary, with a maximum of $550 (GST inclusive). “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: From the Chair

CARRIED

17) POLICY REMITS

RESEARCH AND DEGREE TEACHING

Helen Charters was invited to speak to her motion for amendment of the policy document.

It was resolved:

That paragraph 1 of the policy on Research and Degree Teaching be amended as follows:

“Research activity for those engaged…new knowledge relevant to the researcher’s subject matter, discipline or profession being taught (i.e. basic or pure research).”  In the same way…for students.” Moved: Helen Charters

Seconded: Annmarie Jutel

CARRIED

It was resolved:

That the amended policy on Research and Degree Teaching be adopted.

Moved: From the Chair

CARRIED

PBRF

Joce Jesson was invited to speak to her motion regarding the use of PBRF scores.

It was resolved:

That the TEU will support any member who believes their employment rights to undertake teaching and/or research as they determine are threatened by the imposition of PBRF processes and criteria.”" ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  “ ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Joce Jesson

Seconded: Helen Charters

CARRIED

18) GUEST SPEAKER: TEVITA KOROI, PRESDIENT, FIJIAN TEACHERS’ UNION

Tom Ryan was delighted to welcome Tevita Koroi as the keynote speaker for the conference.”  Mr Koroi has been the President of the Fijian Teachers’ Association for a number of years and was recently re-elected to the Asia Pacific Executive of Education International.”  His stand on democracy and human rights was also outlined.

Tevita Koroi brought greetings from the Fiji Executive Committee, members and the Fiji Island Council of Trade Unions, and thanked the TEU for the invitation.”  He shared the challenges facing colleagues in Fiji and thanked Fiji associations in New Zealand for their support.”  He welcomed questions from the floor.

Tangi Tipene thanked Tevita Koroi for his keynote presentation which was endorsed by acclamation.

CAUCUS

Sharn Riggs said that Te Upeūwished to caucus at 3.00pm for a short while and provision would be made for this.

19) POLICY PAPERS REMITS CONTINUED

LIANZA PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION SCHEME

Helen Kissell was invited to speak to her motion for amendment of the policy document.

It was resolved that the following amendments be made to the LIANZA Professional Registration Scheme Policy:

“Policy Statement:

The LIANZA…maintained.”  As such, TEU supports the LIANZA professional registration scheme “as an example” of a framework for which ongoing professional development for librarians can be achieved and maintained;

TEU support for the scheme is also provisional on the following conditions being met by the employer:

1. 1. Fairness…sole reason for non-appointment of a qualified librarian to a qualified position.
   1. 2. Where LIANZA…registration cost.
   2. 3. TEU expects that a good employer…maintain the skill levels expected for professional development and training in registration.”  These training opportunities should not be provided to the detriment of other staff training, including for library staff who are not eligible for professional registration or who do not wish to pursue a LIANZA registration.”

Moved: Helen Kissell

Seconded: Lindsay Ainsworth

CARRIED

It was resolved:

That the amended policy on the LIANZA Professional Registration Scheme be adopted.

Moved: From the Chair

CARRIED

20) RULES AMENDMENTS

Rules Amendment 2: That each Branch of the Union have a Te Uepū(Māori) Representative:

Tangi Tipene spoke to the amendment which was proposed by Hui-ā-Motu and Te Toi Ahurangi.”  There was discussion on the potential constitutional effect on branches should this be agreed.

It was resolved:

That each Branch of the Union have a Te Uepū(Māori) representative and that Rule 9.3 be amended to read:

“There shall be a President, Treasurer or Secretary-Treasurer, and Te Uepūrepresentative in each branch and, in addition, there may be such other officers as the Branch may from time to time determine.”  The additional officers may, wherever possible, include an immediate past-president or presidents, a vice-president, a membership officer, a women’s representative and sector representatives.”

Moved: Tangi Tipene

Seconded: Tania Loughlin

CARRIED

Rules Amendment 6: Change to Branches Clause 9.3

Joneen Walker spoke to the amendment which was proposed by the National Women’s Committee, Te Kahurangi Māreikura.

It was resolved:

That clause 9.3 of the Rules have the first sentence amended to read:

“There shall be a President and Treasurer or Secretary-Treasurer and Women’s Representative in each Branch…”" ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Joneen Walker

Seconded: Sue Bretherton

CARRIED

Rules Amendment 3: That the nomenclature of the Union rules is consistent:

Eric Stone and Pania Bryant spoke to the amendment which was proposed by Hui-ā-Motu and Te Tiriti Working Group seeking to clarify how the Tiriti partnership could be reinforced.

There was discussion on the use of the term Tauiwi which was seen as more inclusive than the term Pakeha for people who have come from other countries but now live in New Zealand.

It was resolved:

That Rule 3.8 be amended to read:

“All references within the rules to “tauiwi” are replaced with “Pakehā”; “tangata whenua” with “tangata Māori”, “Māori representative” and “te pou tautoko” with “Te Uepū“.” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Eric Stone

Seconded: Pania Bryant

CARRIED

Rules Amendment 4: That the Te Uepūrepresentative on Te Kahurangi Māreikura be a member of Te Toi Ahurangi:

It was resolved:

That Rule 13.9 be amended to read:

“Te Toi Ahurangi shall comprise te Kāhui Kaumātua, the National Māori Vice President, Te Tumu Arataki (who shall chair the meetings of the Committee), the other two Māori representatives on the Council, Ngā Tumu Āwhina, and one academic and one general staff member from the University Sector Group, and one academic and one general staff member from the ITP Sector Group, and two general staff members from the General Staff Sector Group and one Te Kahurangi Māreikura representative appointed by the Hui-ā-Motu.”" ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Moved: Tamara Hape

Seconded: Marcia Murray

CARRIED

Rules Amendment 5: Proposed Rule Changes to 13.3 – National Committees

Proposed by National Women’s Committee, Te Kahurangi Māreikura

It was resolved:

That Rule 13.3 be amended to take effect from1 January 2011:

“The National Women’s Committee, Te Kahurangi Māreikura, shall comprise the National Women’s Vice-President (who shall chair the meetings of the Committee), a woman member appointed by the Hui-ā-Motu, four women representatives of the academic staff members of the union and four women representatives of the general staff members of the union elected biennially by the women members of the union.”

Moved: Lyndsay Ainsworth

Seconded: Vicki-Lee Tyacke

CARRIED

Rules Amendment 1: Membership and Subscription Levies for Casual/Fixed-Term Employees in the Tertiary Sector:

Sandra Grey spoke to the amendment which was proposed by the National Women’s Committee, Te Kahurangi Māreikura.”  The proposed amendment was fully discussed.

It was resolved:

“That the Membership (5) and Subscriptions and levies (6) rules be amended to encourage and facilitate membership of TEU for casual and fixed-term (of short duration) staff in the tertiary sector and to ensure continuity of membership for those tertiary sector staff.”

Proposed new wording:

“a) That membership in the TEU for an employee on a casual or fixed-term agreement (of short duration) in the tertiary sector shall be continuous for a year from the first payment of a membership fee by that member;

b) That annual membership of the TEU for casual or fixed-term agreement (of short duration) employees earning less than $5,000 per annum gross from their tertiary sector employment shall be capped at $15 per annum;

and that annual membership of the TEU for casual or fixed-term agreement (of short duration) employees earning between $5,000 and $10,000 per annum gross from their tertiary sector employment shall be capped at $30 per annum.

Moved: Sandra Grey

Seconded: Nick Wallingford

CARRIED

GENERAL BUSINESS

PBRF SUPPORT

Joce Jesson suggested that a policy discussion group on the PBRF be established to support Grant Duncan in his work representing the TEU on the TEC PBRF Sector Reference Group.”  Interested members were invited to put their names forward on a list being circulated.

RESPONSE TO MINISTER

Te Aroha Lemke made a special presentation to Cheri Waititi with the thanks of the Conference as affirmation for her acting as a voice for the TEU in her reply to the Minister. Cheri’s response was delivered with integrity and dignity and she had represented the members well.”  The President also extended his personal thanks to Cheri for taking on this difficult responsibility at short notice, and with great dignity.

VOTES OF THANKS

Tauwehe Tamati and Te Aroha Lemke on behalf of Te Uepūextended a speech of thanks to departing Immediate Past President Tangi Tipene.”  Tom Ryan followed with his farewell speech paying tribute to Tangi.”  Tangi responded and acknowledged Dr Maureen Montgomery and Dr Tom Ryan for working so well with her as well as the members and people who worked for the merger.”  She thanked the Kāhui Kaumatua, the TEU staff, her branch president and her family for their support.

PRESIDENT’S CLOSING

The President thanked Sharn Riggs and the staff for their considerable efforts during the first year of the merged TEU.”  He also thanked the national officers of the union, the branch officers, the vice presidents and delegates for attending and participating in the work of the union.

Rachel Brown was thanked for the Conference organisation.”  The Kāhui Kaumātua were thanked for their unstinting support and advice.

21) WHAKAWĀTEA – KARAKIA AND WAIATA:

Bill Rogers conducted the closing karakia, followed by himene and the Conference concluded at 4.30 p.m.

The minutes were confirmed:

National President:” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”  Date: