EdU (August 2010) by Independent Education Union (SA)

Vol 25 Issue 2 Jul 2010

EdU

Independent Education Union South Australia Working with members in non-government schools

financial services delivered with a smile?

clichĂŠd, yes, but

refreshingly accurate.

creditunionsa.com.au 8202 7777 creditunionsa ltd | ABN 36 087 651 232 | AFSL 241066 400 King William Street Adelaide 5000

Contents Secretorial – Agree in haste and regret at leisure

Catholic EA meetings

SA Unions challenges WorkCover levy cuts

Paid parental leave scheme passed through Parliament

Equal opportunity rallies

Federal review of school funding

New teaching resources will help students understand human rights

EdU is published 4 times a year and has a circulation of approximately 4000. Enquiries regarding circulation should be directed to the Communications Coordinator, on (08) 8410 0122.

National Professional Standards for Teachers: cosmetic or functional?

Editorial comment is the responsibility of Glen Seidel, Secretary.

Ark Tribe trial, 15 –18 June

Election Notice: Fair Work Act 2009

Workers’ Memorial Day

Representation in agreement making: crunch time for non-members

The unlikely spy: ethical decisions in the internet age

Meet the Principal pays dividends!

Apheda: Teacher2Teacher

AGM

May Day

ISSN 1448-3637 Published by Independent Education Union (South Australia) Inc. 213-215 Currie Street, Adelaide SA 5000 Phone: (08) 8410 0122 Fax: (08) 8410 0282 Country Callers: 1800 634 815 Email: enquiries@ieusa.org.au

Advertising Disclaimer Advertising is carried in EdU in order to minimise costs to members. Members are advised that advertising that appears in EdU does not in any way reflect any endorsement or otherwise of the advertised products and/ or services by the Independent Education Union (SA). Intending advertisers should phone (08) 8410 0122.

IEU(SA) Executive Members Margaret Sansom (Retired) (President)

Who gets the blame? Who is responsible for poor educational outcomes?

The true causes of bullying

ESO duty statements are not optional

What’s your problem – ask Dorothy

Muslim feminists deserve to be heard

Greg Elliott (St. Peter’s College)

Do you think I did that well?

Sheryl Hoffmann (Concordia College)

AIS and Lutheran bargaining workshop

Secretary’s AGM Report

We’ve clocked ten-thousand

Mother’s Day Classic

Lutheran Digest

Absolutely Super: The Cooper Review of the Australian superannuation system

DON’T FORGET TO ADVISE IEU(SA) IF:

Rep profile

• You have changed address

Glen Seidel (Secretary) John Blackwell (Retired) (Vice President) Jenny Gilchrist (Prince Alfred College) (Vice President) Val Reinke (Nazareth College) (Treasurer) Christopher Burrows (Cardijn College)

Noel Karcher (Christian Brothers College) Marlene Maney (Cardijn College) Stephanie Margitich (Gleeson College) Shirley Schubert (Cornerstone College)

• You have changed your name

OHS project – OHS&W is everyone’s responsibility

• You have changed schools

Members express gratitude

Book Review – And Gladly Teach: A Classroom Handbook

• Your employment status has changed (eg. now working part-time)

• You are going on unpaid leave

IEU Member Education Programme

• You are retiring or leaving employment – you can remain a member at a reduced rate • Resignation from IEU(SA) must be in writing • Details can be forwarded by email to carlyd@ieusa.org.au, by fax on (08) 8410 0282, or by post.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Secretorial

Agree in haste and regret at leisure Glen Seidel Secretary for use as a basis for local claims. The extra effort is an investment in an agreement which will be easier to use by management and employees alike. For those who want a simpler life, the unmodified awards can be simply attached as before.

The theme emerging from AIS schools negotiating new agreements is that employers are avoiding formal, registered enterprise agreements in favour of cosy, in-house memorandums of understanding (MoUs), possibly based on that minimalist document, the modern award. The claimed advantages of MoUs, with or without the modern awards, are confined to simplicity of process and slimness of documentation. The real advantages for employers are that they preclude intervention by the independent umpire, Fair Work Australia (FWA). Under a MoU, all the assistance that FWA can provide in the negotiation phase, the approval stage, and with disputes and enforcement, is binned, leaving employees to rely on employer benevolence.

Before WorkChoices, schools traditionally negotiated registered enterprise agreements in the state jurisdiction. This was not an issue for most employers then. I do not understand why it would become problematic now that agreement making that is very similar to the past practices has emerged from the legislative turmoil.

In the dark old days of WorkChoices, a MoU was the best of a bad bunch of options available when a compromise between a union and non-union agreement couldn’t be reached. A MoU was also a way of agreeing to continue past practices which were prohibited in an agreement. These impediments no longer exist, so there is no further need for MoUs.

• insist on a registered agreement via ‘majority support’ orders if the employer refuses to negotiate an agreement

Until 31 December 2009, old state-registered agreements (PSAs) could be formally varied and extended by FWA. Many schools chose this pathway because there were no ‘prohibited content’ restrictions and the old award (NAPSA) conditions could be locked in by attaching the awards to the revised agreements. The resulting agreements were thicker, but no more difficult to negotiate because the awards didn’t need to be modified.

• insist on appropriate staff coverage via ‘scope orders’

Under both WorkChoices and the Fair Work Act 2009, an enterprise agreement needs to include any award provisions that are to continue. Awards no longer operate as an underpin to an agreement. If award content is not included and the agreement is silent on those issues, then those conditions are lost.

One normally negotiates from the existing set of conditions. That almost universally will be an amalgam of the local agreement and the state award conditions (NAPSAs). Modern awards are not an acceptable base as they have vastly inferior conditions to the state awards. For example, in the modern teachers’ award, there are no AST or positionof-responsibility allowances, and teachers take an extra two years to reach the top of the scale (step 12). The modern ‘general staff’ award structures are quite different to the school assistants’ award, creating translation problems. Our current structures ain’t broke and don’t need fixing.

That leaves two options: attach the awards as appendices or incorporate the required terms in the body of the agreement. To incorporate the individual terms is a technical and tedious process, but not one that needs to be reinvented at every worksite; the IEU has a template model

To negotiate a MoU instead of a registered agreement is like negotiating with both hands tied behind one’s back. Unlike a MoU, the Fair Work Act 2009 allows employees to

• insist on having claims properly considered and negotiated in ‘good faith’ via bargaining orders • insist on the production of documentary evidence to justify employer claims • apply for protected industrial action and avoid $6,600 fines • be represented by their union and have the union recognised by the employer • have their union with ‘party rights’ to the agreement • seek assistance of FWA in progressing stalled negotiations • take disputes and grievances about the EA or National Employment Standards to FWA for conciliation or arbitration, and • take enforcement action for breach of EA terms in a nocost jurisdiction dedicated to solving workplace issues. If you want an easy time, go for a MoU. But, in so doing, you will forfeit all the above rights. We fought hard for YourRights@Work. If we go down the MoU path, that was all in vain and sets a dangerous precedent for the sector. Don’t fall for the cosy con.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Catholic EA meetings

Members from across the SA Catholic sector gathered in meetings from Mount Gambier to Port Lincoln during May and June to vote upon the IEUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed enterprise agreement for Catholic schools. A large majority voted to proceed with the EA, albeit with a few adjustments currently being finalised.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

SA Unions challenges WorkCover levy cuts The IEU(SA) has lent its support to an SA Unions campaign against cuts to WorkCover levies. Twenty-three South Australian unions backed a full-page advertisement urging Premier Mike Rann to ensure that the financial burden of workplace injury isn’t borne by injured workers. “We’re exposing the unfairness of the WorkerCover decision to hand business a financial windfall in simple language that everyone can understand,” says SA Unions secretary Janet Giles. “The clear fact is that cutting the levy means cutting WorkCover’s income – even though the scheme can’t cover its liabilities. Less money for WorkCover means less for injured workers.”

The advertisement, which appeared in The Advertiser in May 2010, calls upon the Premier to “tell the WorkCover board to stop cuts to employer levies until injured workers’ rights are restored” and to “restore full weekly payments while injured workers’ claims are in dispute”. “This is an issue that goes right to the heart of what unions are about: protecting workers, their rights and their lives,” says Ms Giles. “We won’t stop until balance is restored and fairness is achieved.”

Paid parental leave scheme passed through Parliament The passage through Parliament of the federal government’s paid parental leave bill is welcomed by families. It has been a long time coming and removes Australia from a list that few developed countries would want to be on; that is the two that did not have some form of paid paternity leave scheme. At most of our non-government schools, employees are entitled to 12 or 14 weeks’ paid maternity leave at their substantive rate of pay. And for most there is no time period within which to re-qualify for paid leave – entitlements that must be protected. A couple of independent schools have managed to offset their responsibilities under the scheme through their EAs, but this mean-spirited approach must be resisted. The ACTU target for paid maternity and adoption leave is 26 weeks at the substantive pay rate. This contribution from the government would be best deployed in addition to existing EA entitlements to, for example, make up 26 weeks at full pay without adding much to the employer’s wage bill.

For some employees, it may be more advantageous to accept the non-taxable baby bonus ($5,185) instead of the taxable 18 weeks ($9,788). For others on low time fractions or low wages, the 18 weeks at the full-time minimum wage may be better than their existing 12-week entitlement. There are options for two partners to split the new 18-week entitlement, too, but the time must be taken in a continuous block. With paid parental leave and the Fair Work Act 2009 comes the right to request flexible working arrangements, and there is an equal pay case being run by some unions at the moment. We are getting some traction on work-family issues, but to make best use of the various mechanisms will take careful planning and strategic bargaining. Paid parental leave doesn’t normally attract superannuation, so it will be interesting to see how many employers respond to demands for super on paid parental leave as the Catholic employers have just done. Careful attention will need to be paid when drafting EA clauses in order to avoid inadvertently gaining one right, only to lose others. Model clauses developed by the ACTU for affiliates like the IEU will prove useful in such situations.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Equal opportunity rallies Rallies were recently held around Australia in support of the Australian Services Union’s (ASU) Pay Up! campaign. The ASU is also leading a landmark test case which is crucial to extending the principle of fair pay rates for female-dominated industries. With backing from the Health Services Union, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Australian Workers’ Union, Australian Education Union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ASU has lodged submissions and witness statements with Fair Work Australia, seeking to lift the pay of more than 200,000 workers in the female-dominated social and community services sector by an average of 25 per cent or $100 a week. These include workers who look after the homeless, people with a disability, refugees, domestic violence victims, children at risk, the elderly and other vulnerable people in our society.

The latest data shows that women’s pay has slipped even further behind that of men to an average 18 per cent pay gap, or $1 million over their working lives. The gap is so wide that a woman would have to work an extra 66 days a year to earn the same as a man. It also means that women have far less in their superannuation accounts to retire on, particularly if their career is interrupted by child-bearing. Working women and their unions are seeking to address the imbalance through • flexible hours of work and access to decent part-time jobs • accessible, affordable and good-quality out-of-school care and childcare, and • improved reporting and auditing at workplace level of equal pay and equal opportunity.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Federal review of school funding A review of school funding arrangements will commence this year – the first time funding arrangements for all schools have been reviewed since 1973. In a discussion paper and draft terms of reference published recently, Education Minister Julia Gillard says the Review of Funding for Schooling will be ‘open and transparent’, ‘consultative, wide-ranging and comprehensive’, and that ‘the review is not about taking money away from schools, but any new funding system must be financially sustainable’. The Minister has indicated that the review should address some of the most fundamental questions about school funding: • What are the principles against which school funding should be measured? • What is the right level of resourcing needed to provide a child with high-quality education? What are the most effective means of distributing those resources?

• How do we ensure that all students have access to a high-quality education? • How do we best support students with a disability, indigenous students, students at risk of leaving the education system, and other vulnerable students? • What funding models are used overseas and how do these link to outcomes and quality in their respective education systems? Are there lessons that Australia can learn from other countries? • What does data tell us about the relationship between resources and outcomes for students? The review will report to government in 2011 – well before the next funding period, which commences in 2013. The IEUA, in conjunction with its state and territory branches, will be actively involved in providing input and feedback to the review. The discussion paper and draft terms of reference are available at www.deewr.gov.au/fundingreview.

New teaching resources will help students understand human rights Teachers and students now have access to a new range of interactive human rights education resources, released by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Commission president Cathy Branson QC launched the new rightsED resource by sending a complimentary DVD to schools around the country in a bid to help students develop a critical understanding of human rights and responsibilities. “The importance of human rights education should not be underestimated in our efforts to create a more respectful human rights culture in Australia,” Ms Branson said. “Human rights education is critical if we are to make real inroads in our efforts towards true social inclusion in Australia.” The rightsED resource includes a range of interactive education activities for teachers and students which introduce human rights concepts in an engaging and relevant way. It is guided by a clear set of education principles and learning outcomes and consists of nine resources which each feature activities around different human rights issues and topics searchable by the key learning area into which they fit.

The nine resources in the new range include ‘Understanding human rights’, ‘Commemorate Human Rights Day’, ‘Child rights’, ‘Bringing them home’, ‘Face the facts’, ‘Voices of Australia’, ‘Disability rights – What about Doug’s Rights?’, ‘Young people in the workplace’, and ‘Tackling sexual harassment’. “rightsED comprises more than 400 pages of worksheets, resources and activities and is the culmination of over a year’s work. The resource fits in well with the emphasis on human rights education announced by the AttorneyGeneral,” Ms Branson said. “Education will be a key focus of the Commission in the coming year,” Ms Branson said. “I urge all teachers to take advantage of these practical tools that will bring human rights to life for students around Australia.” All resources are available free online at www.humanrights.gov.au/education, or the DVD can be ordered by calling 1300 369711 or emailing education@humanrights.gov.au

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

National Professional Standards for Teachers: cosmetic or functional? Bruno Sartoretto Organiser There are inherent industrial implications in the development of the standards which need to be addressed prior to their delivery in schools. Would a progression to a lead teacher rating attract significant salary benefits, and as such require teachers to demonstrate proficiency through formal qualifications? Or would it suffice to demonstrate competency as an educator without further formal qualifications?

The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) recently consulted the education industry on the National Professional Standards for Teachers1. On the surface it’s admirable that national standards are being considered, but on close examination their practical usefulness is dubious. The IEU unequivocally supports quality education, but to simply measure and categorise Australia’s teachers, however validly, will do nothing to grow the expertise and effectiveness of the profession. A 30 cm ruler does not become a one-metre ruler simply by measuring it, no matter how often or how precisely it is measured. As it stands, the IEU sees the standards as being of little practical benefit to teachers, students or society without fully considering the necessary administrative, professional and industrial aspects, and without the contribution of teachers individually and through their unions. The descriptors used in the standards are confusing, too numerous and not clearly differentiated. The standards attempt to define what a ‘graduate’, ‘proficient’, ‘highly accomplished’ and ‘lead’ teacher may exhibit in their capacity and interaction with colleagues, students and the broader community. However, in small schools or in exceptional circumstances, it would be appropriate for an early-career teacher to be regarded as highly accomplished. Aside from this looking great on a CV, there is no industrial recognition for performance at a higher standard. Unions will be left to argue the financial value of a highly accomplished teacher over a merely proficient teacher. Indeed, one would like to assume that the teacher fronting to teach their child is at least proficient. If I went in for some surgery I would like to be confident that the surgeon would be at least proficient in their capacity to perform the operation and is not just an ‘unproficient’ graduate.

How will national consistency be achieved and will this produce consistent employment and salary conditions transferable from state to state and school to school? Will there be a central register, and who will bear the cost of establishing either effective communications between state registration authorities or the establishment of a new organising body? There is potential to clash with the work of teacher registration authorities in each state and this initiative may influence by stealth an agenda for national harmonisation of teacher registration and the expansion of information on the controversial My School web site. The impact on non-practicing teachers needs to be detailed. Many experienced teachers hold relevant, current qualifications and teacher registration, but may not be currently working in a school. They may be working in a related educational setting such as a school system office or an education union. Should these individuals wish to return to the classroom, at what level do they access the standards? Does access to the standards diminish with time and need to be re-demonstrated? Will a teacher on paid or unpaid parental leave, who is a lead teacher on commencement of leave, return as a lead teacher? Or will they be required to prove their skills to return to the same standard? If a teacher returning from parental leave was to not return to their equivalent position, it would be a breach of industrial and discrimination legislation. There is potential to misuse the standards in a punitive and controlling fashion, particularly if local school management approach evaluations with a narrow and pedantic checklist mentality. Conversely, there is potential for uncritical evaluations toward the higher levels if there is to be community reporting on the number of high-standard teachers being employed in any single school. This will be accentuated if there are no associated industrial outcomes for high-performing teachers. 1

Available at http://www.mceetya.edu.au

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Ark Tribe trial, 15–18 June

Unions of all shapes and sizes descended upon the Adelaide Magistrates’ Court on 15 June in support of rigger Ark Tribe. Tribe again faced trial and the threat of six months’ jail after being charged by the Australian Building and Construction Commission with failing to attend an interview in 2008 related to a safety meeting.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Election Notice Fair Work Act 2009 Nominations are called for: • Branch Secretary • Ordinary Members Of Branch Executive (11) • Branch Delegates To Federal Council (3) Written nominations, which comply with the Rules of the Organisation, open on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 and must reach me not later than 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 31 August 2010. Nominations cannot be withdrawn after this date. Nomination Forms are available on request. Candidates’ Statements: Candidates may include with their nomination form a statement not exceeding 200 words, containing only the candidate’s personal history and/or policy statement, and/or a passport-sized photograph. Candidates’ statements will be distributed with ballot material.

Workers’ Memorial Day

HOW TO LODGE NOMINATIONS By Post: GPO Box 344, Adelaide SA 5001 By Fax: (08) 8237 6553 By Hand: Australian Electoral Commission, 9th Floor, Origin Energy House, 1 King William Street, Adelaide By email: A properly completed nomination form including all necessary signatures may be scanned and submitted as a PDF file to saelections@aec.gov.au The ballot, if required, will open on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 and close at Noon on Wednesday, 20 October 2010. Changed address? Advise the union now. Note: A copy of the AEC’s election report can be obtained from the organisation or from me after the completion of the election. Clare Scriven Returning Officer Tel: (08) 8237 6579

Workers’ Memorial Day events were held around the country on 28 April to remember the more than 7,000 workers who die at work each year in Australia, including a memorial service held at St Stephen’s Lutheran Church in Wakefield Street, Adelaide, followed by a rally in Victoria Square.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Representation in agreement making: crunch time for non-members

Glen Seidel Secretary The new Fair Work Act 2009 may have continued the WorkChoices over-regulation of unions, but when it comes to agreement making, it has legitimised and clarified the role of unions as representatives of their members. For far too long we have worked with the ambiguity of who is actually doing the negotiation and who the negotiators are representing. WorkChoices drew a distinction between union and non-union agreements and this politically motivated distinction caused serious philosophical difficulties quite apart from the content of any agreement. Thankfully this distinction is no longer with us. Collective agreements are negotiated by the people who are covered by the agreement. Union members are deemed to be represented by their union. Employees who do not belong to a registered industrial organisation can represent themselves or formally appoint another named individual in writing. Negotiating with an in-house staff association can be attractive to an employer as it allows them to paint the union as a third-party outsider with a natural predilection for upsetting harmonious relationships within the school community. The managerial power differential then pervades the negotiating relationship. Employers continue to access their own legal and industrial expertise through their own unions – AISSA or LSA – and would rather that employees didn’t match their technical firepower. Little do they realise that the union is already inside the school gates as soon as there is one member on staff. You can’t call the union into a place where members work – it is already there. The Fair Work Act 2009 corrects the fiction of the staff association as an industrial organisation. Staff associations are usually not incorporated and therefore have no legal identity. Even though a staff association may be an ‘association’ of staff, to be the industrial representative of staff members it will need to become a registered ‘enterprise organisation’ under Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

An employee only has one bargaining agent. If a union member wanted to be represented other than by their union they would have to formally revoke that authorisation and make arrangements to appoint another or go unrepresented. Why would one revoke the authority of the organisation with the expertise, resources, standing in Fair Work Australia, and the legal protection of incorporation? One would doubt that the average staff association president would have the technical understanding or experience to apply for the various orders – scope, majority support, protected action ballot, bargaining orders – yet alone take care of union-like compliance issues and be prepared to sue or be sued as the public officer of a body corporate. Employers are required to issue a notice of employee representational rights within 14 days of initiation of bargaining. If non-members want to be involved in the bargaining process and have their views considered they have a choice: personally represent themselves at the table, appoint or hire another individual to represent them, or join the union and contribute to the formulation and negotiation of their claim. The IEU will not negotiate for non-members. The IEU doesn’t operate on a fee-for-service basis. We are committed to collectivism. Legally, we can’t demand or purport to demand a bargaining fee1 and why would we do it for free for people who have persistently rejected membership? It is inappropriate for IEU members to facilitate the representation or organisation of non-members. One can’t have a foot in both camps out of a misguided feeling of inclusivity or middle-class niceness. Members have made the decision to join and pay their dues in order to get the benefits of membership. Non-members need to realise that they can’t freeload anymore. Members pay the piper and get to call the tune. 1

Section 353 of the Fair Work Act 2009

Employee bargaining reps will either be named individuals (in writing to the employer) or an ‘organisation’ that can represent the industrial interests of the employee, i.e. one that is registered and has all the formal election and reporting requirements of a union.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

“...the phrase WorkChoices is dead...”

WorkChoices Whatever the name, never again.

“What will you call it this time?”

Everyone knows how WorkChoices took away the rights of Australian workers. Yet as a senior minister in John Howard’s government, Tony Abbott was an enthusiastic supporter of the policy. Even now he can’t bring himself to say WorkChoices is dead, only that “the phrase” is dead. More blatantly, since becoming Liberal leader he has promised to reintroduce individual contracts and cut back protection from unfair dismissal – two of WorkChoices’ worst aspects. Australians fought hard to get rid of WorkChoices. We can’t let Tony Abbott bring it back. Whatever the name. Never again. www.neveragain.org.au Authorised by Jeff Lawrence, Australian Council of Trade Unions, 365 Queen Street Melbourne 3000

The unlikely spy: ethical decisions in the internet age Chris Leese Communications and Office Coordinator The proliferation of laptops in classrooms has caused a number of debates, predominantly around unlawful misuse and the implications of issuing laptops to staff or students. But the solutions implemented by some schools have proved worse than the problems and serve to put other schools on notice. The Lower Merion School District hit the headlines in the US recently when it was accused of spying on students through laptop webcams. A spyware program was used that enabled staff to remotely capture images as a means of recovering stolen school-issued laptops (or disproving false claims of theft). When a laptop was reported stolen, IT staff could capture images, even snapshots of applications open on the screen, to identify the thief. A scandal broke when student Blake Robbins was confronted by the vice principal of Harriton High School about his supposed drug use, captured in images taken of him at home. Robbins insists that the ‘pills’ were confectionary and that matter has gone no further. The vice principal’s decision to confront Robbins, however, has backfired on the district, forcing it to confirm that it installed spyware on 2,300 laptops issued to students without the students’ or parents’ knowledge. Furthermore, Robbins’s laptop had not been reported lost or stolen. At that time, it was believed that several images taken of Robbins were the only ones to be taken inappropriately. But since the Robbins family led a class action against the district, court proceedings have revealed that the district captured more than 56,000 images of its students, many of them in their homes. Lawyers for the Robbins family found more than 400 of Blake Robbins alone, including images of him ‘partially undressed and sleeping’. (Additional images were allegedly captured but purged by IT staff.) The FBI is also investigating whether the district’s actions could be considered breaches of US wiretapping laws, and the US Congress is seeking to update legislation to outlaw webcam spyware.

From a technical perspective, the spyware offered an excellent aid to recovery and, potentially, prosecution. It is legal and there is no law in the US, nor in Australia, that specifically addresses the act of capturing images with a webcam without the subject’s permission. Images captured from six laptops stolen from the Harrington High School gym reportedly helped police catch the thief. But the district should have decided against using it on the basis of the ethical catch-22 it presented. If students and parents were made aware of the spyware, many would refuse to accept the laptop in the interests of their privacy, thereby limiting the effectiveness of a programme designed to equalise students’ access to technology. Or they might just cover the webcam with tape, rendering the spyware useless. And if students and parents were not made aware, of course, the district would breach students’ trust and privacy. To expect the management of Lower Merion School District to foresee the extent to which the spyware would be abused during their risk assessment would be unreasonable. The IT staff who recommended the spyware probably assured management, quite rightly and with a clear conscience, that it was all legal. However, the broadening gap between technology and legislation requires that all employers apply the utmost diligence when implementing technologies to ensure they are acting ethically – even if the technology is technically legal. The staff of Harriton High School has been globally exposed as voyeurs, the Lower Merion School District is facing civil action and investigation by the FBI, and the case will probably enter legal history as a precedent for the breach of civil liberties in the internet age. When it comes to technology, what is legal is not necessarily just.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Meet the Principal pays dividends! After attending the Teachers Employment & Orientation Programme (TEOP) at Flinders Uni where I first heard about the IEU, I immediately took advantage of the free membership Bruno offered. It proved to be a great decision because a few weeks later I received a ‘heads up’ about an exclusive Meet the Principal session in July. I registered immediately because I was keen to draw on all the help I could to secure a job in the very competitive non-government school sector.

David Cole Teacher, Tenison Woods College

used what I learned to assist me through the application and interview processes. A few months later I landed a 12-month contract at a top Catholic school in the state’s south-east, Tenison Woods College in Mount Gambier, where I am now already in the middle of term 2.

The meeting was held at Scotch College, where, incidentally, I had just done my recent prac and so this location worked perfectly for me. I took plenty of notes as the principals answered many critical questions relating to the ‘ins and outs’ of just how to secure a position. I received plenty of invaluable tips and answers to some burning questions – particularly about what not to do! The session, which was facilitated by Bruno, was extremely helpful and I definitely

David Cole with Chris Lloyd, IEU rep at Tenison Woods

APHEDA

Teacher2Teacher South-east Asia is regularly portrayed as a success story. However, poverty in Laos still remains a significant issue with over 70 per cent of the population living on less than US$2 a day. Life expectancy, malnourishment, maternal mortality and infant mortality all remain unacceptably high. While we know poverty reduction relies on education, quality is the key. Sadly, teachers in Laos are poorly paid, under-resourced and overworked. Each year, hundreds of young trainee teachers go through a one- to two-year course and are then sent out into rural and remote areas, often with no support. Many of these teachers are ‘nonpermanent’ for the first one to two years, meaning they receive no salary. Union Aid Abroad – APHEDA has taken action to help these teachers by launching a new campaign called Teacher2Teacher.

The first induction workshop with 30 new teachers will be held in July. To help us to continue to make this partnership with teachers in Laos successful and sustainable, APHEDA needs your help in calling on Australian teachers to support their colleagues in Laos through Teacher2Teacher. For as little as $10 a month (just 33¢ a day) you can make a difference for teachers in rural Laos and help them to deliver quality education. If you would like to assist Teacher2Teacher by making a monthly, tax-deductible donation, or to find out more, please contact APHEDA by phone on 1800 888 674, by email at office@apheda.org.au, or online at www.apheda.org.au.

Teacher2Teacher will provide a resource kit of teaching materials, such as pencils, a dictionary, mini-blackboards and chalk. The program will also develop a mentorship and support system for teachers sent into isolated rural locations, including an induction program for teachers to share their experiences and strategies of teaching. One local partner is the Pakse Teacher Training College. This college covers four southern provinces, including some of the poorest and most remote districts in Laos. Teacher2Teacher will help to lift education outcomes in these communities, which is vital to overcoming poverty. APHEDA and Pakse Teacher Traning College have already started working closely with teachers to identify their needs and feedback has been very promising and positive.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

AGM

The IEU(SA) Council meeting and 2010 AGM held on 2 June at the Education Development Centre was well attended by delegates and members, with many keen to hear the presentation on the Australian Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s paid parental leave scheme by Angas Story of SA Unions.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

May Day

Unions large and small converged on the city for the annual May Day demonstration, beginning with a speech by outgoing ACTU president Sharan Burrow in Victoria Square, followed by a march down King William Street to the Torrens Parade Ground.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Who gets the blame?

Who is responsible for poor educational outcomes? The recent launch of the My School website has engendered fierce debate from all sections of the education fraternity, parents and politicians. The focus on the performance of schools regarding outcomes for individual students has fuelled the debate about where the responsibility for poor performance really lies. Is it substandard teaching, poorly resourced or badly managed schools, or socio-economic factors? While schools may be disadvantaged for a variety of reasons, a poor report card on My School is likely to compound their problem if parents are able to exercise choice, vote with their feet and move their children to other schools that they perceive to be performing better. For independent schools, this may be a more significant issue than some state schools because of the parent cohort’s resources and ability to make choices for their children’s education. Blaming the school or individual teachers for children’s poor educational outcomes is something teachers and school administrators deal with either first hand or indirectly through bad press about the deficits of education in general, whether it is justified or not.

Educational negligence is an area of law that has been tested in the USA and in Britain to a greater extent than in Australia to date. Perhaps somewhat reassuring is that, in both the USA and Britain, courts dealing with these claims have been reluctant to find teachers and schools accountable for the poor academic performance of particular students. Largely because of the complexity of the issue and the impact that adverse judgements on teachers may have on the ability of teachers and schools to continue to effectively provide this service. There is no doubt that schools and individual teachers owe a duty of care to teach each and every student, but to determine what is a reasonable standard when the individual child’s intellectual capacity or physical capacity is taken into account, and to determine the extent to which there has been some identifiable and quantifiable loss to the child, is another matter.

Education is a complex process and teachers are better trained and more skilled than ever before, but despite this there are children who will not achieve their potential and parents will ultimately blame teachers. Teachers are facing an ever-expanding range of intellectual, physical and behavioural disorders and syndromes exhibited by children in their classrooms. With the expansion and refinement of medical diagnoses for these conditions there is a greater duty of care expected of the school and individual teachers to meet the needs of these students. The requirement for schools not to discriminate on the basis of disability (if it is reasonable to accommodate the child), has seen the number of children with special needs in almost every classroom grow.

In South Australia, a teacher may have a defence under s59 of the Civil Liabilities Act (formerly the Wrongs Act) which says:

Teachers and the school have a duty of care to ensure the physical safety of their students, but also to teach and develop them socially and intellectually. Independent schools market themselves as places where children will be nurtured, taught both academic and life skills and have their individual needs catered for. The ability of schools and ultimately teachers to genuinely fulfil this promise requires two things: first, smaller class sizes; second, more professional development to assist teachers to understand the nature of students’ recognised syndromes or disabilities and acquire a set of specific skills and resources that will better meet their needs. Both of these things are notoriously difficult for teachers to achieve because both involve significant increases in costs to the school. By not providing adequate resources to deliver on the promises made in their promotional materials, however, schools run the risk of legal action by disgruntled parents under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Clth).

There are no published decisions from Australian courts or tribunals that might provide guidance: the few matters which have been taken up have settled confidentially. This may provide further reassurance for the teaching profession in Australia. While litigation for individual teachers is still a reality, there are more likely and immediate consequences for teachers when parents complain about their competence. Similarly, schools that are seen to be underperforming are more likely to suffer declines in student numbers and the consequences that flow from that, rather than litigation.

If a parent considers that this promise has not been fulfilled because of the incompetence of an individual teacher, then the teacher could face a claim of educational negligence.

Louise Firrell Organiser/Educator

“…where an employee commits a tort for which his employer is vicariously liable— (a) the employee shall not be liable to indemnify the employer in respect of the vicarious liability incurred by the employer,” except in situations where “a person commits serious and willful misconduct in the course of his employment and that misconduct constitutes a tort, the provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of that tort.”

Related Reading Newman, Jason, Wy Kant Juli Spel? Will Australian Schools be Held Accountable for Educational Negligence? TressCox Lawyers Newsletter Article, February 2008. www.tresscox.com/resources/resource.asp?id=39 Tait, Gordon, Behaviour Disorders and Teacher Negligence, International Journal of Law and Education Vol 14, Number 1, 2009.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

The true causes of bullying In her new book Bully blocking at work: A self-help guide for employees and managers, psychologist Evelyn Field says organisations need to take more responsibility for bullying in the workplace. Bullying isn’t just a result of aggressive personalities going unchecked, she says, but a symptom of larger ‘systemic dysfunction’. A ‘cooperative, collaborative work culture’ that makes employees feel ‘safe, involved and empowered’ requires clear leadership, Field says, in showing managers how they should listen, show respect, give and receive feedback, and set reasonable boundaries. Effective managers will also intervene and adjust inappropriate behaviours – including their own – without becoming aggressive, Field says. They should be able to identify ‘manipulative metaphors’ (such as ’women overreact’ or ‘that’s John’) and ‘mobbing’ by a boys’ club or a girls’ clique. They should be able to separate genuine and malicious complaints, too, and distinguish between bullying and performance or disciplinary issues. It follows that employers must train their managers in problem-solving, communication and conflict resolution, and monitor them to ensure their skills develop and adapt on the job.

Day-to-day prevention strategies Field says employers can mitigate the risk of workplace bullying with what she calls ‘day-to-day professional standards’, including: • ensuring every employee has sufficient induction, training, regular mentoring, and material resources for their job requirements • implementing an effective job design for all staff and then clearly defining and publicising every job description and each employee’s roles and responsibilities • supervising all new staff, including managers, to help them settle into an approach to team work • training managers in how to instruct, delegate, mentor, listen, show empathy and use feedback to improve their relationships • monitoring managers’ management skills regularly • assigning work and rosters fairly and according to experience and competence (not power or politics) • conducting regular performance appraisals in conjunction with a review of employees’ interpersonal skills • preventing misuse or misunderstanding of nepotism, including cliques and clubs, friends, family and union members. Managers should clarify and justify, but not deny • avoiding role fossilisation where employees make decisions based solely on their past experiences without being based in reality or showing respect for others • assessing the labour and materials required for each project or task to ensure there are adequate staffing levels, materials and equipment where possible, and • reviewing and comparing each exit interview to each employee’s work history.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

ESO duty statements are not optional Wendy Evans & Frank Bernardi A recent dispute at St Ignatius College has again cast a spotlight on the importance of position information documents (PIDs), also known as duty statements. In this particular case, the employer had neglected to comply with a requirement to provide support staff with sufficient PIDs, causing a number of ESOs to be uncertain about their responsibilities. There is no excuse for this omission; the issue was identified by a CESA audit in 2006, but was not acted upon. The School Assistants (Non Government Schools) Award and Catholic Safety Health & Welfare SA’s own psychological health procedures require that all staff have current, agreed PIDs, reviewed at least every two years. Also fuelling the dispute was the unilateral rearrangement of ESO roles by the college management. The college management insisted that restructuring had not occurred, and the award requirements for notification and consultation did not therefore apply; even though some employees had been asked to apply for their own downgraded positions. Employees were told which positions they could apply for, and that they wouldn’t be losing pay as they were to be ‘grandfathered’ in their new roles, which management considered to be sufficient consideration. In fact, the only situation in which the employer should provide a PID without consultation with the employee is at the beginning of their employment. This was certainly not the case; the ESOs concerned were ongoing employees and some had been in their roles for many years.

What information is needed? A PID is personal and should reflect accurately what you do in your role, what skills and knowledge you have, and what qualifications or training you have undertaken in order to perform your role. PIDs should detail the level of supervision that an employee needs to do their job, or the level of supervision that they provide to other employees, and the level of responsibility associated with the role. A PID should provide detail of an individual’s classification including stream and grade. It should provide the hours and weeks of the year that they are required to be at work and detail sick leave and annual leave entitlements.

In the case at St Ignatius College, PIDs were not supplied at the time of appointment. So, without a current, agreed duty statement, it was difficult to ascertain whether the employees were correctly classified. When the IEU raised this point, the school wrote in response, “No staff member is being underpaid or is classified incorrectly. All staff are classified and paid as per the current Enterprise Agreement (EA).” How the school managed to determine that staff were correctly classified and paid when they had no PIDs (and hadn’t undertaken the required PID reviews as directed by the award) is a mystery. It was not a creditable position, but was certainly in keeping with Rule 13 of Ignatius’ Rules for thinking with the Church: ’I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.’

What’s at risk? Not having a PID could mean incorrect classification and a loss of access to employee entitlements such as to higher duties pay or the ability to seek reclassification. The School Assistants (Non Government Schools) Award quite clearly states that, in order for an employee to seek reclassification, the application must be in writing and accompanied by a current, agreed duty statement. Also, without a PID, if there is a dispute about what you are doing or not doing, there is no document to use as a guide for settling the matter. One could be called to account for neglecting duties that one never understood to be required. The St Ignatius dispute is ongoing and the branch and members have lodged hazard and incident reports due to the anxiety caused – all of which could have been easily avoided by getting it right from the outset. If you do not have a current, agreed PID and you are asked to sign one without consultation, contact your IEU organiser to clarify the situation. Our advice to members is to not sign until you are comfortable with the process and the accuracy of the PID.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

What’s your problem...? an interactive column

If you have a question about your employment conditions that requires a prompt response, call the office and ask to speak to the duty officer of the day. If it is something that is not urgent, or you think that may be generally relevant to other members, send an email to dorothy@ieusa.org.au Identify yourself by name or membership number and any queries that are not selected for publication will be responded to personally.

Recognition for learning support ESOs

Dear Dorothy, I read with great interest Shirley Bauer’s article in the December 2009 edition of EdU in which she describes her experiences in working with special-needs students. I have worked for the last five years in a similar role in another Catholic school in Adelaide and I readily identify with the growing complexity of the role, particularly in dealing with autistic and Asperger syndrome students. The number of these students is growing and they present the greatest challenge to classroom teachers and ESOs supporting them in the classroom. Some registered teachers have chosen to work in the role of learning support ESOs and, as in my case, the schools are happy to have the expertise of teachers, but are unwilling to pay them appropriately or give them permanent status. My own case was only resolved when the IEU took my case to the Industrial Commission. Schools often justify their position by saying that they have exhausted the funding bucket – a reference to centrally distributed, targeted federal government funding. However, this ignores the state government’s special needs and additional needs funding. In 2008, my school received $83,719 from this source in addition to the funding received from the federal government. Individual support of students is difficult because the student is usually totally disengaged from the classroom teacher’s initial explanation to the class and the ESO has to represent the material. Consequently, I think it is very unjust that many ESOs who do this work are paid as low as grade 1. In my view, they should be paid at grades 4 to 6 depending on experience, duties and qualifications.

Dear Disillusioned, ESOs, by whatever name, almost routinely are classified at the lowest possible level that they will accept, rather than the level which properly rewards them for the expertise and responsibility of their actual roles. At the structural level, about 70 per cent of schools have enterprise agreements that match the top of the teacher incremental salary scale and the top of the ESO scale at grade 6. There are requirements for ESO duty statements to be reviewed every two years and there are clear processes for reclassification applications and appeals. Just as medicine doesn’t make you better unless you take it, any cases of under-classification can only be addressed if they are raised by the person concerned. The IEU, as you know, will vigorously pursue these matters on behalf of members, but members need to bring their individual circumstances to the attention of their branch organisers if they are unable or unsure of how to negotiate a successful outcome at the school level. The first step will be to make sure that a current agreed duty statement is in place, and then align it with the classification descriptors. If there is an apparent mismatch, then the application and negotiation begins. There is no magic wand that will fix every circumstance at once. It is a matter of individual application and using the processes that have been in place for decades – and not necessarily accepting ’no’ as an initial answer. It is just process, but it should be a just process. It puzzles me why our level of membership is lower for ESOs than for teachers. ESOs generally are more vulnerable to workplace issues, including classification issues, and are at least as likely to need individual support as any teacher. Dorothy

Clearly, there is a case for the IEU to investigate the salaries and conditions of ESOs and teachers who work in this area with a view to achieving a more just and equitable outcome for them. Sincerely, Disillusioned

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

NOT-SO-HEAVY LEVY? WHO’S CARRYING THE REAL WORKCOVER BURDEN?

Some employers are crowing about WorkCover’s cuts to its injured workers’ compensation fund levy. Of course they would: it’s all about money to them, isn’t it? But to us, it’s about lives. The truth is that cuts to employer levies means less money available to soften the blow to workers and their families when they can’t work. Added to that, WorkCover still has a liability it can’t cover and injured workers are still missing entitlements. So who’s carrying the real burden here? The same ones who always do: the workers.

That’s why we want the Premier to: • tell the WorkCover Board to stop cuts to employer levies until injured workers’ rights are restored; and • restore full weekly payments while injured workers’ claims are in dispute. No-one disagrees with economic responsibility. However, we’ll never agree to putting injured workers’ welfare at risk.

CARING FOR INJURED WORKERS IS UNION BUSINESS.

To join, go to www.unionsaustralia.com.au

SAU0003

Muslim feminists deserve to be heard Randa Abdel-Fattah & Susan Carland Orientalists writing on Islam and Muslims have tended to represent Muslim women as infantilised and oppressed, victims in need of rescue by the enlightened West. This is a classic example of the tyranny of self-projection, where the ‘rescuer’ assumes a position of superiority so the belief systems, values and norms of Muslim women are judged against the Western experience. The work of Muslim human rights and social justice advocates is discredited and ignored. It is as if liberation and freedom are the monopoly of secular feminists. Muslim women are apparently too downtrodden to care to make a difference. If they do insist on fighting for equality and justice within an Islamic perspective, their efforts are dismissed, assuming freedom and Islam are mutually exclusive, or, worse, that Muslim women are brainwashed, suffering from a form of religious Stockholm syndrome. This patronising discourse arrogantly assumes the way to overcome patriarchy is to abandon Islam and adopt ‘Western values’. How can a constructive effort to improve the situation of women begin when the conversation is so unsophisticated, demeaning and primitive? Muslim women have engaged in the quest for dignity, democracy and human rights, for full participation in political and social affairs, since the time of Prophet Mohammed. As Amina Wadud, the American-Islamic feminist scholar, said, “By going back to primary sources and interpreting them afresh, women scholars are endeavouring to remove the fetters imposed by centuries of patriarchal interpretation and practice.” And although you may not hear much about them, Muslim women and men are doing much to improve the plight of women, from grassroots projects to legal activism and religious leadership training. They see Islam not as a stumbling block to progress, but as a platform for change. In Jordan, there is a strong push, spearheaded by journalist Rana Husseini, to fight honour killings. Husseini’s team has publicised each crime despite death threats. She has led the charge for law reform and mobilised protest rallies, which even princes from the Jordanian royal family have attended. Far from fighting Islam to achieve this, Husseini tells the murderers during interviews that their acts contradict the teachings of Islam and are punishable by God. Most of them concede this.

In Malaysia, groups such as Sisters in Islam offer free legal clinics to teach women their rights under Sharia and civil law, run campaigns to stop domestic violence and hold education programs for women with a goal of ‘justice and equality within the family’. In the United Arab Emirates, Ahmed al Haddad, the head of the Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities Department, has started a program to train women to become muftis. Previously, women religious advisers were only allowed to speak on ‘women’s issues’. The training will enable them to work as equals to men in issuing religious rulings in all areas. There is nothing new in this. Islamic history is “rich in examples of highly learned women acting as muftis and issuing decrees on all matters,” al Haddad said. The Shura Council of the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity, an advisory council comprising of Muslim women scholars, activists and specialists from around the world, aims to ‘critically engage with dominant Islamic interpretations of social issues and practices and promote religiously grounded arguments that enable women to make dignified choices based on their own religious tradition’. There is a long way to go for women in many Muslim societies, just as there is for women everywhere. But if we are interested in change, it is time to let go of outdated Orientalist arguments and ill-informed generalisations that see Islam as The Problem. It is time to respect the fact that Muslim women are fighting for their rights and doing so without giving up their allegiance and commitment to Islam. Their quest does not stem from imported Western values but is integral to the Islamic tradition. Demonising their convictions is unhelpful – and a repudiation of the feminist ideal of the right for women to autonomy and freedom of choice. This article was re-published courtesy of Muslims Australia and the authors. Randa Abdel-Fattah is a lawyer and author, and Susan Carland is a lecturer in politics at Monash University.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Do you think I did that well? Feedback should be an integral part of the ongoing development of our professional lives, but it is not always given or received well. Louise Firrell Organiser/Educator Feedback from those around us shapes the way we behave. Parents and teachers are constantly providing feedback to children regarding their relational behaviours and use of life skills. When you think about it, that feedback is pretty constant and is often as fundamental as ‘don’t do that’, ‘here, let me show you the way I want you to do it’, ‘that was good’, ‘I don’t like it when you do that’, ‘that was much better’ and so on. Our parents and grandparents may have grown up with ‘correction’ in the form of corporal punishment, which was powerful feedback indeed. There is more awareness now of the need to be positive and affirming, but none the less children are constantly bombarded with feedback of one sort or another in our best efforts to encourage the development of a fulfilled person and good citizen. As children grow into adulthood, one of the bonuses (from their point of view) is that there is less and less overt feedback on their performance of life’s functions. For the most part, the feedback we are exposed to is more subtle and indirect. The exception is when it comes to performance appraisal processes in the workplace. We are usually expected to provide feedback to presenters at professional development sessions, to review panels for workplace leaders, to school leadership on the success of group projects and our students’ progress if we are teaching. The purpose of feedback is to enable the receiver to evaluate their behaviour or performance in a way that will improve their performance and their relationships with the people with whom they interact.

It is always much easier to give than to receive, but if the giver has given some thought to how the feedback might be delivered, it can be a win-win situation. The feedback should focus on behaviours, not the person and what behaviours or attitudes have been observed, not generalisations or comments based on hearsay. Stick to observations (‘I noticed…’, ‘I heard…’ etc.). Be descriptive of the behaviour about which you are providing feedback. Using observation helps relate the feedback to real situations and facts, and is therefore less likely to be taken personally. Be specific in describing what was observed. This gives concrete behavioural examples that can be reflected on and allows the receiver to consider ways to develop or modify that behaviour. Avoid using emotionally charged words that are likely to elicit strong emotions. For example, a word that is frequently used in this context is ‘unprofessional’. This is a judgment, not an observation. A behaviour might be construed by others as ‘unprofessional’, but to effect behaviour change, it is important for the receiver to know what the behaviour was, not just how it was perceived. By spending a little time considering how best to frame your feedback, so that it can provide useful information and assist the person concerned, so that it will not leave them feeling unfavourably judged and inadequate, the experience can be a worthwhile one for the recipient and the giver.

Many adults do not take criticism – positive or negative – particularly well, which can render the process in the workplace of little organisational value and certainly of not much personal value. Yet feedback to reinforce desirable behaviour or to modify undesirable behaviour is crucial in any workplace, especially schools, where staff need to manage peer relationships, interactions with students and parents, as well as maintain professional standards.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

AIS and Lutheran bargaining workshop Members from AIS and Lutheran schools met with IEU organisers at Marcellinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pizza Bar for advice on legislative changes to enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009 before entering negotiations.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Secretary’s AGM Report Glen Seidel Secretary IEU(SA) Inc – State Report Without naming everyone, I do want to place on record my gratitude to the team in the office and to the executive. I am proud to lead this team, which is dedicated to working for the professional and industrial interests of our members. This year is an election year for the executive. Members will soon receive notices about the process of electing the 12-member executive for the next three years. Although her decision isn’t binding at this stage, our president, Marg Sansom, has indicated that she will not seek re-election. I wish to publically thank Marg for the energy and drive she has ploughed into the role over the last nine years. As reported by the treasurer and auditors, our financial position is stable and properly managed. We are reliant on membership fees to be able to provide the support that members require. We keep those fees aligned to salary movements of a top-of-the-scale teacher, hence the annual addition of an extra fee band. ESOs still tend to be under-represented in our membership, but they are perhaps the most vulnerable industrially. The cost of fees shouldn’t be an issue for Catholic school ESOs, as they will have had their IEU fees fully funded by the proposed EA pay rises. The 8 per cent increase most are likely to receive is double that received by their public sector counterparts. That increase is directly due to IEU negotiations. That extra $2k on a $50k salary, after IEU fees of only $435, would still leave them over $1,500 better off for every year of the rest of their working lives. Much of the professional agenda happens behind the scenes. There has been a long running review of the Children’s Services Act and also of the provision of early childhood services, on which Marg Sansom has been representing our views. The new SACE is presenting significant workload issues and we will be working with members to raise them with schools and the SACE Board. Our representatives on the Teachers Registration Board put in many hours to ensure the maintenance of appropriate professional standards by anyone who wishes to become or remain a teacher in SA. IEU organiser Louise Firrell has been appointed to take over from Julie Lundberg; the rest of our team being David Smith, Bernadine Bourne and Lyn Castle. As much as no-one ever expects to have an industrial issue, industrial support at the individual or collective level is a significant part of our work. The new federal Fair Work Act started in full force on 1 January 2010. There was a flurry of agreement activity as old state agreements were extended before the 31 December deadline, but now we are dealing with the new agreement-making procedures and technicalities. Award clauses are going to need to be included in agreements, either neatly interwoven into the body of the agreement or attached.

Unions are now deemed to be the representatives of their members in agreement-making and non-members are quite rightly on their own. If non-members want a say in their own EA, they will need to organise their own representation and a staff association is not a recognised organisation under the Act. The IEU takes directions only from members. Members pay the piper and get to call the tune. The IEU has been sending a fair bit of dispute-related business to Fair Work Australia. We have successfully run applications for protected action ballots, majority support determinations, good faith bargaining orders, unfair dismissal and general protections. The AIS is currently promoting the use of unregistered agreements or MoUs instead of enforceable, registered agreements. The IEU’s advice is that this is a dangerous move. It removes the ability of Fair Work Australia to assist in the bargaining and enforcement process and disempowers members. The Catholic EA campaign is drawing to a close after two years of agitation and negotiation. A series of member meetings is being conducted to determine member support before the drafting and voting process. There has been a political win-win on the salary front and that would not have been achievable without the vocal support of members. No amount of intellectual debate at the table can match the power of grass roots agitation. Our involvement with the SA Commission hasn’t ended with the referral of IR powers to the Commonwealth. The SAIRC is still our forum for underpayment and bullying actions, OHSW and workers’ compensation. Our most common workplace injuries are still psychological injuries as a result of bullying and harassment or general workload stress. For the past three years we have received state government funding to raise awareness and support for elected health and safety reps in schools. There is still much to be done in this area and we hope that the government will see fit to offer another round of funding when the grant expires this year. We tried a different timing and format for the annual conference this year. General feedback was positive, as being at the start of the year it facilitated organising plans for the upcoming year. After the general topics, separate sessions were run for AIS and Catholic school reps to focus on the industrial matters most relevant to their situations. Our training program continually attempts to increase accessibility by being flexible with timing and venue. Reps are critical to IEU effectiveness at the branch level. They are aware of emerging issues and can act in a timely manner before they become too big or too late. The rep training program is designed to equip reps for their essential roles in recruiting, communicating and representing.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Superannuation is very much union business and our industry fund, NGS, continues to perform well amongst industry funds and is continually refining its investments, marketing, communications and compliance processes. Marg Sansom and I represent the IEU(SA) on the NGS board and various committees.

IEU(SA) Branch – Federal Report As a federal entity, IEUSA Branch works with other state branches of the IEUA on matters of broad national interest, and to provide support to individual branches with significant issues stretching their own resources. The IEUSA state organisation provides the funding for the activities of its federal entity. Much has been happening at the federal level on professional issues. The BER, National Teacher Professional Standards, national curriculum, NAPLAN and the My School website are just some of the areas where the federal office has been active with public comment, lobbying, negotiations and submissions. Organisers from each state work through the IEUA equity, education, organising and industrial committees to develop our national positions. The federal executive and council are the governing bodies of IEUA and have proportionate representation from SA. The federal funding of schools is being reviewed this year and the IEUA will be promoting its policy of adequate funding for all schools rather than of public and nongovernment schools competing against each other for funding. We expect the usual disappointing level of venom from the AEU at the national level, but hope that reason will eventually prevail without the need for the two unions to engage in a public slanging match. In order to promote the diversity of the non-government sector, the IEUA held a national symposium to dispel lingering rhetoric that non-government schools are somehow enclaves of privilege with their snouts in the public trough. Now that most of our industrial activity is in the federal jurisdiction, we have been able to pool our national expertise to the benefit of all. Consultation with Catholic and independent employers was conducted by the IEUA nationally in the award-modernisation process. The modern awards are essentially irrelevant for most of Australia’s 70,000 IEU members, but they do form the reference point for determining whether an enterprise agreement passes Fair Work Australia’s Better Off Overall Test (BOOT). As much as agreements are still being negotiated on a state basis, there is a push by Lutheran employer groups for a national Lutheran EA, and sometimes initiatives from one state – such as the NSW three-tier teacher model – are taken up in other states.

The issues Although our membership base has shown some growth in the last two years, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be 75 per cent or more in all occupational groups in all schools. Our task will be to demonstrate our relevance to new staff being employed to replace the baby boomers drifting off into retirement. We are making efforts to talk to teaching students at the universities and early-career teachers about unionism – something that may not come naturally to young folk. We need to recruit to even stand still, and reps play an important part in personally approaching non-members in the workplace. The task of recruitment should, however, fall a bit wider: if every member just approached and signed up one new member, the IEU would double in size and power. We are continually looking at ways of communicating with members electronically in a timely and cost-effective manner. The website is being continually refreshed and a member login section is being populated. We are up for a federal election this year and you can expect the IEU to communicate with members on issues relevant to them. The issues will be different to 2007 when WorkChoices polarised the nation, but we will have to be on our guard to make sure it doesn’t sneak back in under another name. Industrially, we will always have to be on our guard to prevent the union being presented as a third party coming in from outside. The new Fair Work Act defines a clear and legitimate role for unions and we will fulfil that role to the best of our ability. Remember, you can’t call the union into a place where there is at least one member. It is already there and it is not an intrusive third party.

We’ve clocked

10,000! Donna Carpenter joined the IEU(SA) in March, becoming the tenthousandth person to do so since the union’s inception in 1984. Donna is a teacher at Tenison Woods College, Mount Gambier, and has long been an active union member.

Donna’s commitment is testament to the benefits of collectivism among education professionals and further proof that active unionism is as relevant today as ever. From everyone at the IEU(SA) office, welcome aboard, Donna.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Motherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Day Classic Thousands took part in the annual ME Bank Motherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Day Classic fun run along the Torrens, coinciding with events around Australia to raise money for the National Breast Cancer Foundation.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Lutheran Digest Louise Firrell Organiser/Educator Lutheran school officers (LSOs) were balloted in May to see whether or not they endorsed the new classification structure so that it could be included in the next Lutheran Schools Enterprise Agreement. Of the 512 LSOs eligible, 354 voted in the ballot. Of those, 94 per cent were in favour of the new structure. The new classification matrix and indicative duties will replace the current structure in the enterprise agreement (EA) to be negotiated over the next few months, and will include a new appeal process for unsuccessful applications for reclassification. At present, if a LSO is unsuccessful, they can request that an appeal panel review the application. This will consist of the principal or their nominee, a teacher, and another person acceptable to both parties. The new process will be conducted outside of the school by an independent arbitrator.

A log of claims has been sent to the Lutheran Schools Association on behalf of IEU(SA) members. This was prepared after extensive consultation with reps and branches, including a survey which was initially sent to members and then to all staff via school principals. The negotiating team for IEU(SA) members will be Shirley Schubert, teacher and counsellor from Cornerstone College; Sheryl Hoffmann, laboratory manager from Cornerstone College; Jenny Patching, primary teacher from Loxton Lutheran School; and Louise Firrell, IEU organiser. The team may invite other members to attend negotiation meetings from time to time to speak in support of specific issues or areas where others may have particular experience or expertise. Regular progress reports will be sent to members via Lutheran Matters flyers or emails to reps.

Negotiations for the new agreement, which will be registered with Fair Work Australia, will begin in June.

Challenge us to find you a better deal. Union Shopper is all about ensuring members receive great value for money on whatever you are looking to buy.

At no cost to you, we help save time and money, without the hassles and headache. Be part of the savings and make the most of this valuable money saving service. Before you make another purchase, remember Union Shopper and challenge us to find you a better deal.

Participating brands include:

Big Savings for Union Members

Absolutely Super:

The Cooper Review of the Australian superannuation system Bernard O’Connor NGS Super

The Rudd government promised a complete and thorough review of the superannuation system during the 2007 election campaign and commissioned Jeremy Cooper to finalise the report by 30 June 2010. His preliminary report, dated 20 April 2010, is entitled MySuper: Optimising Australian Superannuation1. A key recommendation of the preliminary report is the establishment of MySuper for providing ‘a simple, costeffective product with a diversified portfolio of investments for the vast majority of Australian workers who are invested in the default option in their current fund’2. It is aimed at those members who wish to delegate their investment strategy to the fund trustee and will be one simple, diversified investment option. Some significant characteristics of the proposed MySuper model include: • a value-based superannuation product with added levels of fiduciary responsibility for trustees to ensure they act in the members’ best interest (increased powers will be given to the regulator to monitor portfolio management) • a default option, which is characterised by simplicity, transparency and greater comparability between funds • the option for members to defer investment decisionmaking to the trustee • generally lower fees with no contribution fees and limited performance-based management fees • minimal disclosure requirements to reduce costs with comprehensive information available to members online • accounts to extend to post-retirement products such as pensions

Speaking about MySuper, CEO of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) Fiona Reynolds said, “many of the key features of MySuper – notably a ban on fees and commissions to financial advisors and the requirement for trustees to act in the best interests of their members – were ‘entirely consistent’ with the core objectives of not-for-profit funds, which include industry, public sector and corporate funds.”3 In short, the proposed MySuper model confirms the industry fund position that no ongoing commissions should be paid to financial advisors for advice relating to compulsory, mandated super contributions made by employers or through employees’ salary-sacrifice contributions. It should be noted that MySuper is only one aspect of the Cooper Review and it has not yet been legislated. It relates to a large group of superannuation fund members who do not wish to exercise an investment choice and who prefer to leave that responsibility to their fund’s trustees. The concept is very much in line with the industry fund ethos of all profits for members and no commissions paid to financial planners. If legislated, it is likely that all funds will need to offer a MySuper option for those members who are not engaged with their super to the point of making a choice of investment and who prefer a low-cost, ‘vanilla’ option. It will most likely become the default investment option for all funds. Another major reform is tipped to be compulsory electronic payments to eliminate the current common practice of sending cheques to super funds. E-payments would certainly enhance the processing time for contributions and would reduce the possibility of human error in the recording of contributions. This will be an interesting period for superannuation funds as the Cooper Review presents the government with major reforms and innovations to our world-class compulsory superannuation system. www.supersystemreview.gov.au MySuper: Optimising Australian Superannuation, p.1 3 AIST Media Release, 20 April, 2010 1 2

• no personal advice, as MySuper members would have access to free information on the fund’s website and intra-fund advice only • no trailing commissions or ongoing payments to financial planners, and • compulsory death insurance with the ability to opt out.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Do you want the best-value insurance cover? We have it! NGS Super has been awarded Money magazine’s Best of the Best award for “Best Value Insurance in Super” for 2009 and 2010. Research* has shown that on average NGS Super members are paying less than half for the same insurance cover than they would in a retail superannuation fund. We encourage you to compare your existing insurance with NGS Super and start saving money which can be invested towards your future.

Visit www.ngssuper.com.au for an online quote today.

This is general advice only and does not take into account your personal circumstances. Please read our Member Guide before making a financial decision. Non-Government Schools Superannuation Fund ABN 73 549 180 515 *Source: www.ngssuper.com.au/insurance

NGS12046_NGS EDU Advert .indd 1

20/07/10 4:55 PM

Rep profile:

John Cardew, Marcellin Technical College Chris Leese & Anne Edwards While working at Mildura Senior College, John was chosen to participate in a Victorian government program releasing teachers to industry, which he describes as “a significant turning point in my career”. He joined the Victorian Chamber of Mines and Energy and was tasked with delivering mining education programs in northern Victoria – an area with no mining history. He worked extensively with the mineral sands mining industry, spending six months working with a large company engaged in extensive exploration around Mildura, as well as a smaller company operating an open-cut mine near Ouyen, around 100 km south of Mildura. Since Catholic Education SA took over South Australia’s northern and southern Australian Technical Colleges (ATCs) in 2009, the mix of academic and vocational learning has proved rewarding for students and teachers alike. Students aiming for careers in trades benefit from a workplace-like learning environment, where SACE subjects are adapted to relate to their chosen careers and teaching methods are more practical than theoretical. This approach enables teachers to fulfil students’ academic needs, while also readying them for a workforce troubled by skills shortages. “We all work as a team to provide a viable alternative to mainstream high schools for students who are kinaesthetic learners,” says John Cardew, teacher and IEU rep at the former Australian Technical College – Adelaide South, now Marcellin Technical College. “These students have been neglected for many years since the demise of the old apprenticeship system and technical high schools.” At Marcellin College, every effort is made to reflect a real workplace, rather than a traditional school environment. There are large workshops on campus, trade trainers on staff, and extended hours for trade training sessions. The staff is encouraged to use workplace terminology, and they have even done away with the school canteen, in favour of a lunch truck. “I’m employed as a mentor, rather than a teacher,” says John, “which means I have a case-management role as well as a teaching role.” This means that John not only delivers SACE subjects but works closely with trade trainers in the college workshops, with employers to arrange work placements, and with industry consultants to facilitate apprenticeships.

John began his career as a physical education teacher, graduating from Exeter University, England, before completing a masters degree in physical education and recreation at the University of North Carolina in the US. He travelled to Australia in the early ‘70s to join his uncle’s shipping company in Darwin, and worked there as a shipyard manager for two years, before marrying an Adelaide girl and returning to teaching at Christies Beach High School. It wasn’t until 2002, however, that John developed a full appreciation for the benefits of vocational education.

“It was a great experience and it became the catalyst for a career change from PE and health to vocational education. My experiences with the mining companies reinforced my feeling that we as educators need to do a lot more to help bridge the gap between the world of school and the world of work. And that the system of education operating at the time did not cater to the needs of students who wanted to get out into the workforce and who had no intention of going to university.” Later that year, the Victorian education department introduced the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL), enabling students to complete vocational education subjects toward their year eleven and twelve education certificates. When John was asked to set up a VCAL program at Mildura Senior College, he leapt at the chance. “This gave me the ideal opportunity to put into practice what I had been saying for a long time, that high school curriculums had been dominated by the universities for far too long,” John says. It naturally followed that John would take an interest in the Howard government’s Australian Technical College (ATC) program; particularly the ATC intended for the site of Christies Beach High School. “I became very interested in the project, especially as I was keen to return to Adelaide to be closer to relatives,” says John. The Australian Technical College – Adelaide South was one of 25 ATCs built across Australia. In 2007, the old Christies Beach High School – West Campus was completely rebuilt to accommodate state-of-the-art workshops for the metal fabrication, metal engineering, electrical, construction and automotive trades. The curriculum was designed to help students achieve four main goals: • to complete SACE, through subjects contextualised in accordance with students’ chosen trade • to secure a school-based apprenticeship • to complete the first year of their apprenticeship before leaving school, and • to roll over into a full-time apprenticeship upon leaving school. John joined the staff shortly after and has found the focussed learning approach very challenging, but equally rewarding. “It gives all students who have made a genuine commitment to one of the trades we offer an excellent chance of success,” says John. “The curriculum here is always relevant to their needs and most students find it easier to learn here as a result of our hands-on practical methodologies.”

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

OHS Project OHS&W is everyone’s responsibility Employee fined $4,400 Employer fined $30,000

Gerry Conley OHS Project Officer

The duties of employees under South Australia’s workplace safety laws have been highlighted in a case completed recently in the SA Industrial Relations Court.

In November last year, the man’s employer was convicted and fined $30,000 after the company pleaded guilty to failing to provide a safe working environment over the same incident. SafeWork SA says the case underscores the need for employees to play their part in keeping workplaces safe through being aware of the relevant hazards and safety procedures and acting promptly and consistently to keep themselves and others safe.

James Lawless was convicted and fined $4,400 after pleading guilty to a breach of section 21(1a) of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986. This section of the Act details the legal duties of employees to take reasonable care to keep themselves and others safe at work through their actions or otherwise. SafeWork SA prosecuted after investigating an incident in June 2007 at a West Croydon business that manufactures pressure equipment products, such as boilers and air compressor units. Three workers were painting the inside of a large pressure vessel; a task that involved pouring paint into the vessel and rotating it to ensure the inner surface was covered. This caused a build-up of fumes, which were released when a flange was later opened. The court heard that the fumes were ignited when the defendant then ignited a cigarette lighter while standing nearby, apparently unaware of the presence of flammable vapours and in breach of a non-smoking policy in the workplace. Two workers were injured in the resulting blast; one suffering severe burns to 25 per cent of his body.

“The legal responsibility for workplace safety is not just confined to employers,” says Acting Executive Director, Juanita Lovatt. “Employees also have a duty under the law and, where the circumstances warrant, SafeWork SA will prosecute where a serious breach is uncovered.” If your workplace doesn’t have an elected health and safety rep (HSR), I would have to ask why. The stakes are too high to not avail yourselves of all the support the law can provide. The IEU supports members accessing the highest levels of safety through HSR promotion, general awarenessraising and assistance with hazard and incident reporting. Contact Gerry Conley at gerryc@ieusa.org.au to find out how simple it is to arrange for the election and training of your own safety watchdog.

In his penalty decision today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie said more serious injuries could have resulted and the defendant ”…should not have ignited his cigarette lighter… without first consulting with the other employees…”.

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Members express gratitude Dear IEU(SA), I’d like to personally thank you all for the excellent work you have done in regards to assisting all union members concerned in my issue. Regarding my own experience in this matter, I feel that had I not been a union member, and were it not for the swift intervention and support the union provided to me through you all, I would have been forced out of my job. Although still very wary of college management as a whole, I was actually able to relax slightly and not feel physically ill from stress over the weekend. This is the first time I’ve been able to do so since management’s campaign against me began earlier this year. Once again, thank you all very much for your continued efforts to protect the legal rights of the employees of the college. I don’t know where I’d be right now without your continuing support.

To dear Wendy and all the people at the Independent Education Union, Words cannot express our sincere thanks for all the help, support and advice we received in regards to my WorkCover claim. It was incredibly stressful, but you made it all seem so much more manageable. I think unions play a vital role in supporting staff and it is great that somebody is standing up for workers’ rights. You went way above the call of duty, answering my sometimes distressed calls, comforting me during stressful moments, and encouraging me to stand up for justice. I’ve learned that the union has far more pastoral care and demonstrates gospel values to a greater extent than the CEO themselves. Forever grateful, Name withheld

Kindest regards, Name withheld

And Gladly Teach: A Classroom Handbook

Book Review Bruno Sartoretto

by Glen Pearsall

Glen Pearsall’s illustrated resource is a collection of strategies for modifying student behaviour and facilitating learning. Though clearly targeted at beginning teachers, the strategies for engaging students with their classmates, teachers and the curriculum wouldn’t go astray in the resource arsenal of an experienced teacher. Often there is that moment that hangs heavily with all teachers: ‘What do I do next?’ Pearsall offers a number of options, including an activity that requires students to create a ‘word cloud’ using an online application; the intent being that the most prominent words in any piece of work would be highlighted (as demonstrated here). The book is a worthwhile and easy read with clear instructions for implementation, diagrams to illustrate enactment in the classroom, and variations that can be used by every teacher. Although the author clearly targets secondary students, activities and concepts in the book are applicable to all year levels with simple modification. And Gladly Teach: A Classroom Handbook is available from TLN Press (www.tln.org.au) for $14.95 Created with http://www.wordle.net/

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

IEU Member Education Programme August – November 2010 Courses for

Course

Elements

For IEU reps

Introductory representatives How the union works Role of IEU reps Organising in the workplace

Workplace bullying and workplace stressors

What is bullying?

Date Monday 9 August Monday 6 September Wednesday 29 September (school holiday course) Monday 15 November Monday 16 August

Effects of bullying on the school, victims and other workers Dealing with bullying behaviour Identifying and dealing with other workplace stressors Role of the IEU rep

Building the union in your school

Union communications Recruiting new members

Friday 3 September

Workplace legislation

Industrial relations Understanding your agreement

Wednesday 6 October (school holiday course)

Worker’s compensation Occupational health and safety ESO/LSO representatives

Your role

Thursday 3 November

Your rights How to build union membership among ESOs and LSOs Representing members and handling problems

Supporting members with grievances

Monday 22 November

Conflict resolution

Consultative committee members – Catholic schools

Monday 2 August Monday 23 August

Consultative committee members – Lutheran schools

Wednesday 11 August

Consultative committee members – Mount Gambier and district schools

To be advised

For ESO and LSO members

Process for reclassification

Friday 8 October (School holiday course)

For all members

Advanced skills teacher application information

IEU 4:30 pm – 5:30 pm Wednesday 4 August Thursday 12 August Loxton - to be advised

For members of consultative committees

Workplace bullying

What is bullying? Effects of bullying on the school, victims and other workers

Tuesday 10 August Tuesday 31 August Tuesday 21 September

Dealing with bullying behaviour as an individual and as a workgroup

EdU July 2010 IEU(SA)

Independent Education Union South Australia 213-215 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5000 Phone (08) 8410 0122 Country caller 1800 634 815 Fax (08) 8410 0282 enquiries@ieusa.org.au www.ieusa.org.au