EdU November 2011 by Independent Education Union (SA)

Vol 26 Issue 2 Nov 2011

EdU

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

If banks were students they’d be sent to the Principal. In Credit Union SA you have a strong, community-based alternative to big-profit banking. So if it’s time for a change, let’s talk. Call 8202 7777 or 1800 018 227 to learn more about your state’s Credit Union.

creditunionsa.com.au

Credit Union SA Ltd • ABN 36 087 651 232 • AFSL/ACL 241066 400 King William Street ADELAIDE 5000

Contents Secretorial – Waiting for Gonski

Protective Practices Managing the Minefield

2012 Fee Category

Rewarding Teachers – Usual Mythology Regurgitated

Anna Stewart Memorial Program

International Women’s Day 100th Anniversary Dinner

Early Childhood Education

Trivial Pursuit – A Game for Catholic Teachers

Lutheran Digest

Indigenous Education Resource Pack Launch

2011 IEUSA Annual Report

Minutes 2011 AGM of IEU(SA) Inc and IEU(SA) Branch

Absolutely Super – Fatten Up Your Super In 2011 18

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 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. Editorial comment is the responsibility of Glen Seidel, Secretary.

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).

Modern awards – Only Good for the Boot

Domestic Violence and Employment Law – Making the Case for Change

Are you missing out?

ESOs and Teachers, Stronger Together

Vale Marg Devichand

IEU(SA) Executive Members

Meet the Principals

Jenny Gilchrist (Prince Alfred College)

OHS Project – Safer Schools

(President)

Lutheran Schools Conference 2011

Attack on Fijian Workers’ Rights

What’s your problem?

Intending advertisers should phone (08) 8410 0122.

Glen Seidel (Secretary) Noel Karcher (Christian Brothers College) (Vice President) Marlene Maney (Cardijn College) (Vice President) Val Reinke (Nazareth College) (Treasurer) Christopher Burrows (Cardijn College) John Coop (Rostrevor College) Michael Francis (Mercedes College) Anthony Haskell (Saint Ignatius’ College) Sheryl Hoffmann (Concordia College) Fil Isles (Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College) Marion Ryan (St Martin de Porres School)

DON’T FORGET TO ADVISE IEU(SA) IF: • You have changed address • You have changed your name • You have changed schools • Your employment status has changed (eg now working part-time) • You are going on unpaid leave • 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 or by fax: 8410 0282 or by post.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Secretorial Waiting for Gonski

Glen Seidel Secretary Jamie Briggs on a 7.35% margin in Mayo could be seeing $3.4 million lost to local school communities. St Catherine’s at Stirling will find the $352K hard to replace. Mark Butler’s electorate of Port Adelaide has lost relatively little and gained nothing. St Joseph’s Hindmarsh and Dominican will still feel their cuts.

After the initial excitement of submissions and media, we now wait and wait in a Beckettesque time warp for our own Godot - David Gonski’s Review of Funding for Schooling due by year’s end. We were expecting an interim report, but only received four contradictory and flawed academic reports and no insights from Gonski as to the review’s directions. In Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”, Vladimir and Estragon are told to expect Godot “not this evening, but surely tomorrow.” Estragon opens the play with the words “nothing to be done” but while we wait for Gonski, there are things to be done. One possible outcome of David Gonski’s review is that Catholic schools funded as a system (funding maintained) could lose significant amounts of funding. These schools are not well off and the increased costs would be crippling for parents. Local MPs and state senators should have a look at some of these schools to inform their future deliberations when confronted with claims of some schools being overfunded. Kate Ellis in Adelaide with a 7.7% margin, could need to explain why the 220 kids at St Raphael’s would lose $576k or $2,600 each. Schools in the electorate of Adelaide would lose a total of $5.5 million. Although Patrick Secker in Barker sees little change in his electorate, Boothby’s Andrew Southcott on a margin of 0.75% would have to explain an $8.3 million electorate shortfall. $3 million for Mercedes, $1.4 million for Cabra, and even little St Anthony’s would lose $730 per student. Rowan Ramsay in Grey would need to justify the $150k shortfall for St Barbara’s. That is $800 per student. Steve Georganis on a 5.7% margin in Hindmarsh could be overseeing a loss of $3.1 million in his electorate alone. Star of the Sea losing nearly a half million will need a fee top-up of $1,000 per student.

Amanda Rishworth, member for Kingston could be overseeing a loss of $140k at St Martin de Porres - close to $500 each student. Tony Zappia’s electorate of Makin would lose $1.3 million. How would he explain to Our Lady of Hope electors that they need to stump up with an extra $150k?

Shadow Education, Christopher Pyne hanging on by 3.4%, could see a massive $6.7 million lost to his electorate’s schools in Sturt. Few of his schools are high fee and those receive correspondingly lower funding. St Joseph’s at Tranmere may not feel rich, but it will be a lot poorer if it loses $286k. Nick Champion will find little change in his Wakefield schools but even the $48k lost by Mary Magdalene’s will be felt. What is it that we want out of this review? Our schools and our students need • • • •

A fair and robust resource standard to base funding on Funding needs to be linked to Education inflation - not household inflation. The numbers are dramatically different. Full funding of special needs students irrespective of the type of school and that funding should follow the student. A sufficient transition period to minimize the impact of any reductions should they be necessary.

This is not about redistributing the 2% of funding that is provided for the high fee schools. This is a once in a generation opportunity to redefine the “provision of public education” and put the funding on a more equal footing for each and every Australian student. Members will need to be prepared to make a noise in defense of their schools, their students and their own careers. We have a few clichéd stereotypes to dismantle. Or will we just wait for our Godot, expecting little and getting less? VLADIMIR: Let’s wait and see what he says. ESTRAGON: Good idea. VLADIMIR: Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand. ESTRAGON: On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes. VLADIMIR: I’m curious to hear what he has to offer. Then we’ll take it or leave it. ESTRAGON: What exactly did we ask him for? VLADIMIR: Oh . . . Nothing very definite. ESTRAGON: And what did he reply? VLADIMIR: That he’d see. ESTRAGON: That he couldn’t promise anything. VLADIMIR: That he’d have to think it over. ESTRAGON: In the quiet of his home. VLADIMIR: Consult his family. ESTRAGON: His friends. VLADIMIR: Before taking a decision. ESTRAGON: It’s the normal thing.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Protective Practices Managing the Minefield 2012 Annual Reps & Delegates Conference Monday 27 February 2012 Education Development Centre, Milner St, Hindmarsh 8.30 registration 9.00 start 3.30 estimated finish Workplace Reps have a special responsibility to manage emerging situations. They are uniquely placed to be able to look out for members before they get into trouble as well as when they do get called to account. CESA, AISSA and DECS chief executives have signed off on an updated version of the “Protective Practices” guide which offers school employees advice on how to avoid inadvertently coming to attention for child protection matters. The new version has very specific prohibitions on social media usage and photography. This conference will bring together experts in the field to share their views on the matter.

Bookings: email carlyd@ieusa.org.au Information: Training Officer, Gerry Conley gerryc@ieusa.org.au A conference you can’t afford to miss. Don’t wait till next year. Book in now. Claim your EA union training day – available to all Catholic & Lutheran reps and many in AIS schools

IEUA Assistant Secretary/Industrial Officer Anthony Odgers will provide the keynote address from the viewpoint of the industrial/legal process. He will then lead a panel of people representing the Police, Employer legal, Teachers Registration Board and ANZELA though prepared and audience questions. After lunch Reps will meet with their Organisers to discuss the practical implications of the new policy for members. Timely registration is essential. There will be some prereading and a starter question - What one bit of advice would you give to a new teacher to keep themselves safe from undeserved allegations?

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

2012 Fee Category Update Your Details Now

Notice of automatic changes to all members’ categories

month for the period of the leave. Calculate your normal category based on the normal salary as if not on leave.

In keeping with practice a new fee band “O” has been added as the step 10 teacher rate passed the $80k level.

If you wish to change the method of payment eg from annual invoice to monthly credit card, contact the IEU office to provide the new details.

Normally the top two levels are automatically increased by 1 level when a new band is added, unless we are told otherwise. This year all fee bands will be increased by one as of February 1st, unless notified otherwise. Please confirm your gross salary level for 2012 (before salary sacrifice and deductions) from your EA and complete the form to be found either

In the interests of avoiding waste we now have the option to receive EdU and all notices by email. The category confirmation form has provision to record this option. For those who pay by regularly monthly bank debit or credit card, the January payment will be taken on the second Wednesday of the month (11th) as the office will be closed until 9 January.

• Online at www.ieusa.org.au or • On reverse of address sheet for this copy of EdU If you are taking unpaid leave during the year we will be able to put you on the Leave Without Pay rate of $10 per CMYK CMYK

NO gimmicks.

NO gimmicks. Just great

Just great

healthinsurance. insurance. health Findout outmore: more: Find www

www

teachershealth.com.au teachershealth.com.au 1300728 728188 188 1300

SPOT SPOT

TeachersFederation Federation Health 86 097 030 trading 414 trading as Teachers Fund SAIEU/AD-0611 Teachers Health Ltd Ltd ABNABN 86 097 030 414 as Teachers Health Health Fund SAIEU/AD-0611

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Rewarding Teachers Usual Mythology Regurgitated

Chris Watt Federal Secretary There is an old adage about a “lie oft repeated..” Commentary by way of editorial in press recently praises the federal government’s ‘teacher reward’ announcement and simultaneously denigrates teacher unions and slurs classroom teachers. One opinion piece talked about “overseas experience…. shows that competition between schools….help[s] transform the lives…of students”. Presumably the ‘competition’ for the top 10% of ranked teachers in Australia would do the same. The only problem is that the international experience does not show this at all. Fullan (University of Toronto) concluded in a recent review that ‘’performance-based merit pay is a non-starter’’. Hammond-Darling (Stanford University) a recent visitor to Australia and some-time advisor to President Obama, said recent research in the US showed bonus payments for teachers lowered student performance in schools where a one-off bonus was paid. Of course, the opinion pieces remind us that the persistent problem with education reform in this country is the unions. These unions are made up of several hundred thousand teachers. Apparently it is only the teacher unions, and principals, that want to block this nonsense agenda. Which of course dismisses entirely the commentary by Australian and international education experts and researchers. It dismisses the decisions of US state authorities to overturn the implementation of these schemes because they didn’t work. It also ignores the concerns openly held by Australian school employer groups and State governments. As for the apparently very generous sum of money on offer “from $5400 for new teachers to $8100 for the more experienced,” the money falls some $30,000 short of what the Business Council of Australia thought might be an appropriate rate; it is a one-off bonus and not a salary adjustment unlike the BCA model; and it is substantially less than the $13,000 differential for ‘excellence’ in standardsbased industrial agreements that the IEUA is party to. The fact that teachers through their union have actually negotiated agreements that recognize accomplished teaching and move away from the annual progression model also lays bare the falsity of the assertion that “the established system - favoured and entrenched for far too

long by an old-fashioned education hierarchy and selfinterested trade union chiefs - of having rigid pay scales and an incentive born of longevity”. The reality is that employers and governments have shied away from doing anything about the incremental pay scale because of the enormous cost implications. But that reality doesn’t fit particularly neatly with a well-worn tirade against teachers’ unions. Teacher unions have supported the development of teacher standards and recognition for accomplished teachers for over two decades. It was the union movement itself that sought to have recognition for ‘highly accomplished’ or ‘highly skilled’ teachers in the late 1980s and early 1990’s. It was a lack of commitment from governments, including a lack of commitment of funds, that has stalled this progress for twenty years. Therefore it is a nonsense to say that “teacher unions would favour the initiative degenerating into an across-theboard pay rise for all teachers, not linked to performance”. Perhaps most outrageous of all the comments were the pieces that inferred that classroom teachers are either not really trying hard enough, or that they are somehow holding back in their efforts to teach Australia’s students. Comments like “merit bonuses will be a useful incentive to encourage teachers, on a daily basis, to go the extra mile for their students in order to promote greater achievement” or the comment that “best way to get the most out of our primary and secondary school teachers is to have a rigorous system of intelligent appraisal and assessment” are simply insulting. Teachers already go, on a daily basis, many extra miles for their students. It denigrates the profession to suggest that a one-off bonus reward is what has been lacking in Australian schools. And for the 90 per cent of teachers who won’t be eligible, are they not trying hard enough? The notion of a quota is senseless. If the proposal had any merit at all, there would have been no quota assigned by the federal government and that ‘achievement’ itself would have been rewarded. Perhaps what should have been asked in the various opinion pieces was ‘what is the problem that needs to be fixed?’ and then, ‘what evidence is there about things that actually work?’ Of course those are dangerous questions because the answers might require a genuine investment in this nation’s teaching profession, paid for by the Australian taxpayer.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Anna Stewart Memorial Program Marion Ryan St. Martin de Porres Primary School On 23 May I began my two weeks at the Australian Services Union in Kent Town participating in the Anna Stewart Memorial Project. The theme for 2011 was ‘Union women making a difference through collective bargaining’. It was an amazing experience and one that I would highly recommend to every female member of the IEU. I met over a dozen other union members, all from various backgrounds including health, correctional services, women’s welfare, manufacturing (the Holden car factory) and the Police Association. We spent some days with our own Union and some at the ASU. It was great to get the opportunity to see how hard our Union works for us. While at the IEU I was fortunate to visit Blackfriars, St. Thomas at Goodwood and also Scotch College with the organisers for those schools.

Safety and Welfare, and a presentation by Dr. Jude Elton about Aboriginal women’s history and the union movement. We were given an insight into some of the projects being supported by APHEDA (Union Aid Abroad) including the Working Women’s Centre in East Timor. We also heard from past participants of the ASMP which highlighted just how Anna Stewart and the program has made a difference to the way we build Unionism in our workplace. We completed the Project with an afternoon at Parliament House. Frances Bedford (Member for Florey) was our host and she told us the inspirational story of Muriel Matters. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Louise Firrell for taking the time to mentor me while helping me gain a very positive insight into Unionism.

The course covered: ‘Women Workers - Roles Perceptions and Rights’, ‘Women Organising to Build Power’, ‘Our Rights at Work’, ‘Pay Equity’ and Occupational Health

Above: Marion Ryan and Janet Giles (Secretary, SAUnions) Right: 2011 Participants at Parliament House

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

International Women’s Day 100th Anniversary Dinner To mark the 100th anniversary year of International Women’s Day the IEU’s Equity Committee organised a Women’s Dinner. The dinner was held on 20 September at the Rockford Hotel and was attended by committee members, past and present Executive members, Anna Stewart Memorial Project Participants and valued members and friends. Frances Bedford, Member for Florey was the guest speaker who informed and entertained with her presentation about the life of local suffragist Muriel Matters.

Below (Back Row): Sheryl Hoffmann, Anne Daw, Sonya Flynn, Bernadine Bourne, Rosanne Wolfendale, Natalie Feil, Vesna Jadresic, Astride Eberhardts, Glen Seidel (Secretary), Marion Ryan, Anne Edwards Below (Front Row): Louise Firrell, Tania Barton, Shirley Schubert, Frances Bedford MP, Jenny Gilchrist (President), Karen Whitehead, Janine Hanson, Bernadette O’Reilly Bottom (left): Frances Bedford MP Bottom (right): Louise Firrell, Anne Daw

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Early Childhood Education Vesna Jadresic Early Childhood Organiser “There is hardly a better-researched and documented aspect of education than these significant early childhood years, including the long-term cost-benefits of quality childcare/preschool programs and the long-term disadvantage for children without access to quality early childhood programs.......investment in children at this level will pay off in myriad ways, helping to prevent child abuse, lack of thriving, ill-health, school failure, early dropout, poor job chances, delinquency and crime in later life...” Don Edgar, Founding Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies There are all sorts of arrangements for pre-school education in Australia including varied arrangements for the educators who work in this sector. In some states, Early Childhood Education exists in the education portfolio and in other states it exists in the community services portfolio. However, in recognition of the importance of Early Childhood Education, the pre-school sector is now undergoing significant restructure in preparation for the National Quality Reforms. The importance and indeed intensity and variation of Early Childhood Education is something that Early Childhood Educators have always known, but have had to battle for years for recognition and against prejudices that see pre-school activity as something other than schooling. If being responsible for a child’s physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual growth and development is not part of every school’s philosophy, then it should be. But of course it is. That’s why...’It’s not Child Care....It’s Education.’ Recognition at last! But the restructure that will be imposed by the new legislation will bring it’s own challenges for all involved in the sector. However it is heartening to see that many schools are either already practising or planning to and preparing for a more holistic approach to education – the affectionately termed ‘cradle to grave’ approach. Our Lady of the Visitation is a school which has practised the holistic approach for many years now. According to OLV’s website, by providing the first foray into education with programs that are planned with definite developmental goals in an atmosphere which is stimulating and challenging, it caters for individual children’s developmental needs. As for integrating the New Reforms, OLV Principal Bruno Benci says “we welcome the Reforms which values the quality of Early Childhood Education. Our children are at the heart of everything OLV does and we all work together to provide a supportive and life-giving environment”.

OLV also has 100% IEU membership. It’s members are actively involved in EA consultations and any issues affecting the school and it’s Educators. IEU member and Director Monica Sharman says, “Everyone wants their children in a safe, supportive and creative learning environment. And that means the Educators of these children need to be in teaching environments where they are able to nurture and support the development of each child’s potential. We are a strong and united team at OLV and with the support and representation of the IEU, together with the school, we have been able to have direct input into making our teaching and learning environments the best they can be.” St Andrews, traditionally a school for R-7 has responded to community demand for places at the School, by acquiring additional land and set about a major building programme. Apart from constructing extra classrooms and specialist centres, an Early Learning Centre has been developed which has now enabled a continuity of learning from the early years through to Year 7. The ELC offers 7 different learning environments all nestled within an inviting and welcoming botanic setting. The environments are modern, vibrant and well resourced and conducive to well-supported and innovative teaching and learning. IEU member and teacher at the ELC Alison Murphy says, “Early childhood is a vital period in children’s learning and development. It is important that every child has an opportunity to be the best they can be. Students do best when teachers are at their best. As a member of the IEU, I feel supported and informed regarding any educational and employment issues that may arise.” ELC Director at St Andrew’s, Cathie Egarr says, “ As a former Primary teacher and as a mother, taking this position as Director of the ELC has reinforced my belief that the early years are crucial to a child’s development. It’s been an absolute privilege to work with such a dedicated and professional team of educators in a beautiful learning environment. I have always been a part of the IEU and appreciate they are always available to provide support and information when I need it.” All of the Educators that I have met through the course of this project are passionate about their jobs, the children, education in general. ‘It’s challenging work, it’s hard work but it’s rewarding work’ is the general consensus. They are happy and relieved that Early Childhood Education is finally being formally recognised as vital and important to the whole educative process.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

The next challenge then, surely must be to lobby State and Federal Governments to commit to significant increases in funding (certainly not to cuts in funding) to firstly cover the costs involved in implementing the National Quality Reforms but also to guarantee that Educators and Co-Educators, however named, are awarded parity of wages and conditions with those of their colleagues in the rest of the school.

If you work in Early Childhood Education and want to know more about the Reforms and their potential impact or want to be more actively involved in consultations around their implementation in your school, call the IEU on 8410 0122 and ask for your Organiser.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Trivial Pursuit

A Game for Catholic Teachers Frank Bernardi Organiser As you will also have noted these are allegations. That is they have not been validated by process. As such you may naively think the teacher would be entitled to respond to the accusations and that response be considered, as part of a process that respects the ideals of natural justice and procedural fairness, before making a determination. Not so at this school.

“Outrageous!” and “ They can’t be serious!” were two of the printable spontaneous comments made when IEU organisers discussed a letter calling a member to a performance meeting at a suburban Catholic school on the basis of untested and unproven allegations of trivial incidents. The letter had all the formality and gravitas of a serious disciplinary matter but appeared to be constructed on the principle that if you can glue enough sand grains together you can build a mountain. Judge for yourselves. Some of the summarised allegations against the Year 3 teacher include:• • • • • • • •

On the first day you arrived at class only as the bell went. You failed to ensure one of your students had their lunch. You didn’t notice a student had injured himself at recess and provide appropriate care. You mispronounce a student’s name. You insist students not sneeze unless they have a tissue. A schedule for oral talks was not passed out on the same days as other Year 3 classes. Your spelling homework apparently differs from that of the other Year 3 classes. Arrangements for class talks differ in your class from those of the other Year 3 classes.

The employer argued these type of issues justified their broader concerns about performance and hence the need for the implementation of a Performance Improvement Program. The fact some of these things happen all day every day in schools appeared irrelevant. And the fact that in many schools they would not constitute an issue at all also seemed lost.

The same letter calling the teacher to the meeting to discuss & respond to the allegations also states, “I am concerned that these issues persist….” Hang on, the teacher hasn’t responded to the allegations yet! It gets worse. The same letter also states, “I therefore wish to discuss with you your response to the above concerns, and to set in place a Performance Improvement Program.” How can that be? We don’t yet know if the allegations are true or not. We don’t know if there is an acceptable context that explains what occurred. Disturbingly some allegations don’t even make clear what the “issue” is! And this is all before the teacher has uttered or written one word in response. The most unnerving component to all of this is the fact the principal has the full support of the principal consultant! Again the actions of this principal and principal’s consultant call into question the integrity of the system. After all how do you determine a Performance Improvement Plan is required when you don’t know what it must address because you haven’t validated whether there is substance to the allegations? Their inexplicable justification is that because this is an “informal process” an investigation isn’t required. Hence when the teacher asked, in writing, that four “issues” be clarified to identify what the actual issues were the principal and principal consultant didn’t reply! When the teacher emphatically denied some accusations, in writing, the principal and principal consultant didn’t reply! When the teacher responded, in writing, to some accusations with a context that reasonably explained what occurred the principal and principal consultant didn’t reply! When the teacher attended the meeting, in good faith, to discuss the “issues”, it centred instead on implementing ‘the plan’. Questions were ignored and stepping through the response to each allegation didn’t occur. It was a demeaning and degrading process.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Why? Because as employer, the principal, supported by the principal consultant, believe they have the right to unilaterally apply an in house policy to whomever they want, whenever they want, without justification. Rather than playing trivial pursuit with a career, what should have occurred? What is fair process? • • • • • •

A teacher has the right to know of ‘allegations’ as they occurred. A teacher has the right to know if ‘allegations’ are to be used against them and whether or not they are to be put on their Personnel File. A teacher has the right to receive a Notice of Meeting letter that doesn’t reflect decisions, relating to the matters involved, having been already made. A teacher has the right to know the details associated with the allegations and have clarified that which is not clear. A teacher has the right to have their responses, and other relevant information, considered when determining if there is validity to allegations made against them. When meeting with the principal and principal’s consultant a teacher has the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

Despite these ‘rights’ being more about common sense and in line with Catholic values, hasn’t prevented this principal and principal consultant from ignoring them. There are cases where there is at least a prima facie case of poor performance or wrongdoing to be investigated, but fair process involves a level of discernment so that management actions are appropriate. The member and the branch of the school are to be commended for ‘sticking to their guns’ and insisting on a reasonable and justifiable approach to performance management and disciplinary matters. Teachers are individuals with their own styles and personalities. That’s what you get when you employ people instead of robots. Robots you can reprogram or bin at whim, but when dealing with humans who are responsible for other humans there is a responsibility on managers to be able to discern what is significant and to appreciate the suffering and disruption that is inflicted when they get that wrong.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Lutheran Digest Louise Firrell Organiser/Educator Negotiations for a new Enterprise Agreement for Lutheran Schools in South Australia has been a long and difficult process - and we’re not there yet! In July, after more than eighteen months of preparation, initially for an Enterprise Agreement for South Australian Lutheran Schools, then for a Single Interest Enterprise Agreement for schools in Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia we have come full circle and are about to begin negotiations for South Australia alone. The IEUWA and IEUA QNT similarly are beginning separate agreements. The Lutheran Schools Association approached the IEUA branches last year with their proposal to seek permission from the Minister of Industrial Relations to apply to Fair Work Australia to negotiate a Single Interest Enterprise Agreement for the three jurisdictions. The IEUA branches expressed willingness to participate in the process on the understanding that our members would not be disadvantaged. Each of the IEUA branches put significant time and resources into the process of consultation with members and the compilation of a log of claims which would provide a comprehensive set of conditions for all staff across the three jurisdictions. There were other challenges to be met including changes to the way staff were able to be represented in the process under the new Fair Work Act. The IEUA represents its members the same way it has previously and by default, anyone who is not a member of the Union, unless they have nominated themselves as their own bargaining agent or nominated someone else to act for them. Anyone who is nominated as a bargaining agent must have a formal authority from each of the persons that they represent to participate in the negotiations. The employers’ log of claims was given to the IEU representatives a week before negotiations were due to begin. It was a great disappointment particularly as the LSA had initiated this process. It did not express a vision for the outcomes of such a venture for staff or school communities and the detail of the claim was an exercise in ‘bottom picking’ in which the lowest provisions in each of the three jurisdictions where consistently put forward as the benchmark to be achieved for all. Of most concern was the employers’ claim that LSOs were ‘over paid’. This assertion was then the justification for a lesser percentage salary increase for LSO’s than teachers. The employers went further to suggest that the money saved by this measure would enable them to pay teachers more. Once the negotiations began the IEUA negotiating team efficiently demolished this argument which included highlighting the lower numbers of LSOs compared to teaching staff, and lower LSO salaries. While the impact of such a proposal would have little real impact on teachers’

salaries the damage done to the morale of LSOs by the employers’ position was not to be underestimated. Teaching staff stood up for their LSO colleagues, despite the employers’ attempt to pit one against the other. LSOs have been outraged at this shabby attempt to reduce their income over time and the lack of value this shows for the dedicated service that they consistently give ‘over and above’ on a daily basis. After a day and a half of negotiations with no progress on any of the IEUA’s claims, the employers abandoned the negotiations and attempted to shift responsibility for their decision to the IEUA. There was no reason for the IEUA to capriciously abandon the negotiations as was suggested by the employers. The employers’ statement that was read to the parties said that they believed the IEU expected the process to be ‘enterprise giving’. The IEUA conversely believes (as no doubt do its members), that the process should not be ‘enterprise taking’ which would see most employees worse off in some way.

The LSO Postcard Campaign In September after meeting with LSOs it was decided to run a ‘postcard campaign’ to let the LSA know how widely and deeply felt opposition to lesser salary increases for LSOs than their teaching colleagues was.

Over 400 postcards bearing the message ‘LSOs ARE WORTH IT!’ were signed and returned to the IEU to be delivered to the Director of Lutheran Education. The Next Step – Negotiations for a South Australian Lutheran Schools Enterprise Agreement After consulting with members to revise the log of claims for a SA only agreement the IEU has resumed negotiations with the employers. It is notable that the objectionable proposal for LSOs has been taken off the employers’ log of claims. One of the most significant matters now under discussion is the employers’ proposal to restructure the teachers’ classification and pay structure in line with the new National Professional Standards. Members were surveyed last term to ascertain their views. The outcome of the survey was the majority of respondents felt that as long as an acceptable salary for the equivalent of a current Step 10 teacher was agreed the new structure was acceptable. Negotiations are continuing!

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Indigenous Education Resource Pack Launch John Coop Organiser Being a citizen of a country is something we sometimes take for granted. Active citizenship is seen as an inalienable right to participate in democracy at which ever level one sees fit. We see the impact of what this means when boats of desperate people are intercepted on our shores and when thousands more are turned back from our airports. We can only imagine the torment and suffering that has pushed these people to make the hardest decision of their lives, give up their country. We appear to be the land of welcome, to some, and a beacon or model democracy, but as late as 1967 the Indigenous population was not even counted in census data, they were “non people”. Recognition of Citizenship dates to 1948, when, on Australia day, the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 came into law. Whatever the mistakes of our system of government, it is clear that we need greater insight into these matters and this is where the South Australian Education Pack, “Citizenship: Let’s Talk Recognition”, aims to help our educators get the message across to young enquiring minds in the classroom. Often, the question ‘what is citizenship?’ is raised during discussions, particularly in the humanities but not labelled as such. We can improve our conversations and engage our students in greater detail with this new resource. Not only is it set in context with an excellent historical background, it provides ‘Inquiry Questions’ that take the guesswork out of the conversation that we should be having with all our students. Pitched at three levels, Early Years, Primary and Middle School, this resource is structured to explore • • • •

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizenship Why Australian citizenship has changed over time and how citizenship is seen and currently practised How reconciliation and citizenship are connected How we can strengthen citizenship for our common future

Clearly these questions are of key importance if we are to bridge the gap between perception and knowledge. One of the most important aspects of this years’ resource is the level of collaboration involved between DECS (Debra Fairey), CESA (Geoff Aufderheide & Simon Kelly) and the AIS (Carolyn Fortune), with input from History SA (Mandy Paul). Under a steering committee of Reconciliation SA (Bill Hignett), these sometimes disparate bodies, came together to initiate this project and drive this project to fruition. The principal author, David Butler, is also very well known in education circles. The resource is fully downloadable from Reconciliation South Australia Inc. at http://www.reconciliationsa.org.au/ or by contacting (08) 8463 6382.

Steven Marshall (Parliamentary Director to Reconciliation SA Board & Member for Norwood); Elliott Johnston QC (Patron, Reconciliation SA); Professor Peter Buckskin PSM FACE (Co-Chair, Reconciliation SA); Shirley Peisley (Reconciliation Ambassador); Hon. Jay Weatherill MP, Minister for Education; Professor Lowitja O’Donoghue (Patron, Reconciliation SA); Bill Denny (Reconciliation SA Board member); Ms Frances Bedford (Parliamentary Director to Reconciliation SA Board & Member for Florey); Bill Hignett (Reconciliation SA Board member); Hon. Robyn Layton QC (Co-Chair, Reconciliation SA), Neil Gillespie (Reconciliation SA Board member).

References National Archives of Australia. http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/ fact-sheets/fs150.aspx.

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ History/Curriculum/F-10 http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/ SOL_CivicsCitizenship.pdf http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/index_fsrc.asp?t=EL

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

2011 IEUSA Annual Report Glen Seidel Secretary Your Union has two distinct organisational units – a SA registered Union operating in the SA jurisdiction and as the SA branch of the IEUA in the federal arena. Members get two for the price of one! The technical demarcations have always been maintained in the past, but with the transfer of state industrial relations to the federal system and various federal initiatives in education funding and accountability, the emphasis of our day to day operations has become increasingly concentrated in the federal arena rather than in the state. 2010 was an executive election year for the both units of IEU(SA). The state registered Union – IEU(SA)Inc – shares the same executive and election process as the federal branch – IEU(SA) Branch. There was a significant turnover of executive members this time, as long serving President Marg Sansom and Vice President John Blackwell took the opportunity to stand aside. We farewelled also Shirley Schubert, Stephanie Margitich and Greg Elliot and welcomed Mick Francis, Marion Ryan, Anthony Haskell, Fil Isles and John Coop. Chris Burrows and Sheryl Hoffmann were re-elected. In a second round election Jenny Gilchrist was elected President, Val Reinke – continues as Treasurer and Marlene Maney and Noel Karcher were elected as Vice Presidents. I – Glen Seidel round out the office bearers re-elected as Secretary. Departing executive members have been farewelled and acknowledged elsewhere, but it is incumbent on me to make special mention of John Blackwell who as Vice President for 10 years provided strong, decisive leadership and Marg Sansom who as President since 2002 provided balanced, dedicated and determined leadership beyond the call of duty. Membership has continued a gentle growth, partly as we gain more traction with beginning teachers and also as staff in schools are realising that under the new federal IR act they need to be members if they are to have an effective voice in determining and negotiating EA claims. The Union as a registered organisation is the bargaining representative of members - and only members! Non members now need to organise their own representation if they want any input into the process. A staff association or consultative committee isn’t recognised as a bargaining representative under the Act and cannot function as a soft-option, in-house union. Financially the year has been good with a surplus due mainly to taking some time to replace a departed staff member. The Union is in a sound position to be able to take on significant issues as we test the boundaries of the new IR regime and become active in the funding and education debates.

The response from members and branches to requests for input into the IEU(SA) submission to the federal funding review was most encouraging. The compiled submission with a generic introduction followed by the real stories from real people is a document I am proud to have been associated with. Round two of the lobbying continues as members who attended today’s Council meeting will be all too aware. Politicians need to realise that their responsibility for publicly funded education extends to the 50% of Australian students who attend a nongovernment school at some stage of their education. Another document I am proud to be associated with is the 2010 Catholic Schools EA. This document is the culmination of a long campaign made complicated by the long running DECS arbitration case and the technicalities of accommodating the 16 employers into the new federal IR structure. If members hadn’t maintained the pressure on individual employers and the system as a whole we wouldn’t have been able to negotiate such a comprehensive and beneficial outcome. The most erudite arguments at the table are doomed to failure without the vocal support of the membership. The challenge for the independent sector is make sure that no conditions from the old state awards and act are lost in the translation to federal system agreements. Modern awards do not apply to the vast majority of schools and must not be used as a basis for new agreements as they do not encompass the totality of the conditions which underpin current agreements. A sensible approach would be for the AIS and the IEU to agree a base set of conditions so that only locally important issues need be negotiated at the local level. At the moment we face great inefficiencies and frustrations rehashing the same old arguments at each worksite. The first time the IEU(SA) has really had to operate industrially on an interstate basis occurred when the Lutheran Schools Association received permission to bargain for a single interest EA covering Lutheran schools in SA, WA and NT. As it now turns out the negotiations for an interstate agreement collapsed because of the difficulties in negotiating a consistent set of wages and conditions that did not remove or minimise wages and conditions in one or more regions. SA law covers OHSW and Workcover and it is the state registered union which represents members in these areas. Legislation in these areas is in the process of being harmonised to be consistent across Australia but the process is far from complete.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Our state government funded Health & Safety project expired in 2010. After a gap of some 8 months we have been notified that we have been successful in our application for the next round of the project. Once contracts are signed we will have $93,000 pa for the next 3 years to fund Gerry Conley’s work with schools, members and employers to raise awareness of H&S Reps and OHSW in our schools. This funding was only available to state registered unions and would not have been available to IEU(SA) as a federal branch of IEUA. The IEU is also represented on the Teachers Registration Board of SA and we also provide advocacy for teachers subject to inquiries. The SA Legislative Council has been reviewing the effectiveness of the TRB for the last two years and a report is expected soon. The IEU is supportive of the TRB and its processes and has made written and oral submissions to the review. All-in-all 2010 has been an interesting and exciting year for the IEU in SA. As members start to realise that Union membership is more than a legal insurance policy, the Union becomes empowered to achieve its broad goals of collectively representing the professional and industrial interests of members.

The Union isn’t the people employed at Currie Street, nor is it the elected executive. The Union is the membership out there in their workplaces. That gives the Union much greater potential, punch and moral high-ground than relegating it to the position of third party agents or a magic wand to make unpleasant issues disappear. Without a popular and public mandate from the membership your Union is working with its hands tied. Employers know this all too well, which is why we get push-back when we are starting to be effective. Expect push-back as it is the path to developing mature and respectful working relationships with your employers. This is happening in more and more instances, but there is much more that needs to be done. It is only together that we can make a real difference. The “office” is well run with a great team of admin and organising staff committed to providing the highest level of support they can. The executive represents the diversity of the membership and takes its leadership role very seriously. The finances are sound and we can resource what we promise but we can’t deliver what we promise without the support of the worksite Reps and members. You people are the power. United we are making a difference.

Minutes 2011 AGM of IEU(SA) Inc and IEU(SA) Branch 22 June 2011, at Education Development Centre, Hindmarsh Meeting opened 6.10pm 1 Welcome. The President, Jenny Gilchrist welcomed members and advised that the meeting was quorate. 2 Apologies. 17 Apologies were received prior to the meeting. 1 extra from the floor for Bernie Donnelley. Noted 3 Minutes of previous AGM. Motion: That the minutes of the AGM of IEU(SA) Inc and IEU(SA) Branch held 2 June 2010 be accepted. Moved (D Madgen/S Hoffmann), Passed 4 Business arising from minutes. nil 5 Motions on notice. nil

8 Treasurers report. Treasurer Val Reinke delivered the treasurer’s report and presented the IEU(SA) financial statement for 2010-11 audited by Australian Independent Audit services and letters of comfort from internal auditors Michael Lucas and Marion Ryan. Motion: That the treasurers report be accepted Moved (V Reinke/J Gilchrist), Passed Motion: that the audited financial statement for 2010-11 be accepted. Moved (V Reinke/N Karcher), Passed 9 Election internal auditors. Members Robert Duke and Michael Lucas volunteered to internally audit the 2011-12 IEU(SA) financial records prior to the 2012 AGM. Elected unopposed.

6 State report (IEU(SA) Inc). Secretary Glen Seidel delivered the state report. Motion: That the state report be accepted. Moved (V Reinke/A Haskell), Passed

10 Election of external auditors. Motion: That Australian Independent Audit Services be appointed to continue as external auditor for the 2011-12 financial year. Moved (V Reinke/B Bourne), Passed

7 Federal report (IEU(SA) Branch). Secretary Glen Seidel delivered the federal report. Motion: That the federal report be accepted. Moved (M Lucas/S Schubert), Passed

Meeting closed 6.35 pm Next meeting date to be advised

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Absolutely Super

Fatten Up Your Super In 2011

Bernard O’Connor NGS Super

While the most common New Year’s resolution is to lose weight and improve fitness, saving more money is up there as a close second. The most popular resolution involves improving health to gain personal satisfaction; the second involves losing immediate discretionary spending to gain longer term financial security. As you set your sights on what you hope to achieve in the new year, keep in mind that superannuation was set up to provide a tax efficient vehicle to grow your retirement savings. Albert Einstein once described compound interest as the eighth wonder of the world and one of the most powerful forces in the financial universe. Essentially compound interest refers to interest earned on interest. So an annual return of 8% on $100 brings the capital up to $108 in the first year, $116.64 in the second year and $125.97 in the third year. Imagine the effect over 30 years as the interest on the interest grows into a substantial gain! The term “salary sacrifice” refers to extra super contributions made by an employee out of his/her pre-taxed salary (called “concessional contributions” because a tax concession is received). These extra contributions, if within the cap, are taxed at 15% rather than at the employee’s marginal tax rate. So an employee on a tax rate of 38.5% will save 23.5% in tax on every dollar contributed to super up to the cap which is $25,000 annually for those under 50 and $50,000 for those over 50. These caps include the 9% employer contribution and are set to change on 1 July, 2012. The price paid for these tax “concessions” is that the funds are locked away until a condition of release is satisfied such as reaching the required age (preservation age) and/or retirement from the workforce. The combination of extra contributions via salary sacrifice plus the tax savings magnifies the benefit of compound interest in time. Obviously, the earlier the contribution, the better for the magic of compounding.

The second method of adding extra contributions to your super account comes through after-tax or “nonconcessional” contributions. This method of payment refers to money out of your pocket and attracts no contribution tax. There is a cap of $150,000 per annum for these contributions with a proviso that an “averaging” procedure can be used up to age 65. This means that an extra two years’ contributions can also be made bringing up the total to $450,000 for three years. This type of contribution often comes about as a result of the sale of property or in the case of an inheritance benefit being received. Unlike money in the bank, lump sum deposits in your super account do not require your reporting investment earnings to the ATO because the fund pays a flat 15% on all earnings. Again, this is a concessional rate when compared to a marginal tax rate of 31.5% or 38.5%. So the phrase, “Let your money work for you” takes on a new light when considered in relation to the benefits of compound interest. Money accumulated during your working life will be working hard for you in retirement and the amount saved now will determine your general level of prosperity after you stop work. The second most popular New Year’s resolution, if accomplished, could result in an enhanced life style in retirement as the interest on interest provides an income stream to replace your salary. (Important information: The information in this article is general information only and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making a financial decision, please assess the appropriateness of the information to your individual circumstances, read the Product Disclosure Statement for any product you may be thinking of acquiring and consider seeking independent advice from a licensed or appropriately authorised financial advisor.)

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Psst …

pass it on! With something this good we thought you might want to let your nearest and dearest know about it. NGS Super is open to your family and friends too, so they can enjoy the same great benefits of membership: Great insurance Strong Fund performance ‘Top 10’ Fund in Australia* Financial planning service So pass it on! It’s quick and easy to join online, or your friends or family can register their interest online and we will contact them.

Just go to www.ngssuper.com.au

How easy is that? www.ngssuper.com.au 1300 133 177 * Chant West NGS Super Pty Limited ABN 46 003 491 487. This information does not take personal circumstances into account. Applicants should read the Member Guide before joining.

NGS14301_NGS EDU Advert_0911.indd 1

27/09/11 5:03 PM

Modern awards Only Good for the Boot

Glen Seidel Secretary Modern awards are a safety net for low paid workers with little coordinated industrial muscle. They have no application to the vast majority of Australian schools where enterprise agreement making has been entrenched for decades and where government schools are generally still in their state jurisdictions. Staff should not be conned into agreeing to the pared-down, lowestcommon-denominator conditions of modern awards simply because they are ‘modern’. Whilst the 10 National Employment Standards (NES) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) cannot be undercut in any respect by awards, agreements or practice for national system employers, the applicability of modern awards in the educational services sector is much more restricted.

‘Covered by’ but not ‘apply to’ The vast majority of Australia’s school employees – both teachers and non-teachers – will find that even if the modern awards ‘cover’ their employment in this industry, the modern awards will not ‘apply’ to their employment either because they have had a formal collective agreement at some stage or they are employed by a state government which has not transferred its IR powers to the Commonwealth. For an employer to suggest that there is a requirement under the NES or modern awards to lower any existing condition of employment to the minimum safety net is dishonest. Modern awards are likely to actually ‘apply’ to the following classes of national system employees • • • • •

previously award free, non managerial staff eg those in some business colleges award dependent employees eg those whose pay and conditions were dictated only by a state or federal award employees being paid higher than the old award rate at the initiative of the employer but where that arrangement has never been formalised in either a state or federal agreement employees who have negotiated above award salary and/or conditions but have never formalised the arrangement in a state or federal collective agreement employees being paid by reference to another school’s agreement without ever being formally bound by that or any other agreement

Modern awards will not ‘apply’ even if the school’s enterprise agreement is long past its nominal expiry date. In SA there are some schools which did enter into a minimalistic enterprise agreement in order to comply with the 1996 structural

efficiency wage rises. Even if these agreements have never been rescinded or replaced it would still provide the technical grounds for the modern awards not ‘applying’. For those who will be dependent on a modern award there are complex transition provisions from the previous instrument. Modern award conditions may have different pay rates, penalty rates, allowances, classification structures and criteria. There is a system of a gradual transition to the modern award over 5 years with a 20% pa adjustment (up or down). There is also provision for take-home pay orders to be made so that no employee is financially worse off because of the new award. Under WorkChoices, collective agreements were either union or non-union agreements. The philosophical, political and technical implications of the distinction resulted in quite acrimonious stand-offs in some SA schools. Those schools which signed and have current memorandums of understanding with the union and employees would still not have the modern award ‘applying’ to their situations if they did have a previous state collective agreement.

The purpose of modern awards The NES and the modern awards are designed to be a nationally consistent set of underpinning conditions. Modern awards have amalgamated the multitude of state awards and federal awards into a basic safety net of conditions applicable to various industries. Between March 2008 and the end of 2009, the AIRC had reduced 1500 awards down to 122. Modern awards are important in retail, clerical and service industries where there hasn’t been a history of collective agreement making. In the educational services industry, the conditions in the modern awards are a pared-down bare bones package which would be vastly inferior to the previous state awards and the collective agreements which augmented them. Despite being a ‘modern’ construct to reflect 2009 conditions and market salary rates as determined by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), the modern award rates are about 50% off market rates. The SA Industrial Relations Commission in its long awaited arbitrated decision awarded SA government school teachers at the top of the incremental scale $79,816 in October 2010 and $83,009 in Oct 2011 whilst the modern award sets $53,495 as the top scale rate. This is less than the arbitrated SA government beginning step 1 rate of $55,665 in October 2010.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Whether or not the modern award ‘applies’ to a national system employee, it will be used as a reference point when collective enterprise agreements are being considered for approval by Fair Work Australia (the replacement body for the AIRC). An agreement must pass the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) when compared with the relevant modern award. If employees are negotiating from the base of their existing awards and agreements, it is not likely that in an overall sense a new agreement would be an inferior package to the modern awards alone. The technically demanding exercise will be to ensure that the content of underpinning state, federal or modern awards is incorporated into that agreement. Unlike the previous SA system, a federal enterprise agreement totally displaces the underpinning award rather than augment it to the point of any inconsistency.

The IEU approach in SA In practical terms one always negotiates a new collective agreement from the basis of the previous set of conditions. Claims and counter claims will be made around the particular aspects the parties wish to change. The IEU finds that members generally want improved pay, conditions and workload codification. Employers generally have fewer demands but they most often relate to ‘flexibilities’ of some description and a desire to not lead a wages break-out. Nobody ever has wanted to rewrite the system from scratch. The transition provisions of the Fair Work Act will not impact on most schools but there will be a need to make the resulting agreement inclusive of all award conditions if those conditions are to not be lost. Under WorkChoices, we needed to ‘sanitise’ any included award material of all offending Union-friendly ‘prohibited content’. That requirement has gone, as has the need to differentiate between Union and non-union agreements.

To incorporate the modern awards in their entirety risks losing conditions and benefits that have been hard won standard practices for decades. The pay and conditions in the modern awards are not the general industry standards. They are not the proper basis for building a new agreement, but with the loss of underpinning conditions not specified in the agreement it is time for the parties to invest in an ‘omnibus’ consolidated agreement. If the parties can resist the temptation to cherry-pick each and every aspect being translated from the current arrangements into a comprehensive document there is no reason why this work cannot be done centrally by the employer bodies and the Union, leaving the troops on the ground to do their normal negotiation ‘argy-bargy’ over locally significant issues. With 200 non government schools in SA, there is a limit to how much wheel-reinvention is possible and useful. The modern awards are a necessary safety net for employees in fragmented and lowly Unionised workplaces, but for everyone else when negotiating their next agreement it’s time to give modern awards the BOOT. Not everything modern is worthwhile simply because it is touted as being ‘moderne’.

References Fair Work Australia site http://www.fwa.gov.au/ Fair Work Act under the ‘legislation & regulations’ link or directly at http://www.fwa.gov.au/index. cfm?pagename=legislationfwact Modern awards under the ‘awards and award modernisation’ link or directly http://www.fwa.gov.au/ index.cfm?pagename=awardsfind#modernawards

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Domestic Violence and Employment Law Making the Case for Change

Domestic Violence Clearinghouse The Domestic Violence Clearinghouse has always understood that whilst concentrating on domestic violence clauses in enterprise agreements and state industrial awards, the majority of Australian workers are covered by the national industrial law: the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act).

• • •

Last year the Clearinghouse raised the issue of the impact of domestic violence on women’s employment as part of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws Inquiry. The ALRC recognised the importance of this issue, and adopted it for inclusion in the second stage of its inquiry: releasing an Issues Paper on Employment and Superannuation Law.

There is a clear link between domestic violence and interrupted employment for women, accordingly, we recommend that there be no minimum employment ‘qualifying’ period to access to right to request provision.

Our recent submission to the ALRC Issues Paper recommends beneficial changes to the Fair Work Act and occupational health and safety (OHS) law, to assist women experiencing domestic violence to stay in paid work and improve safety outcomes at work. Our key recommendations can be summarised as follows: • • • •

Right to Request Flexible Working Arrangements for Employees Experiencing Domestic Violence Paid Leave Entitlement for Employees Experiencing Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Included as a Specific Ground of Discrimination OHS Recognition and Protection

Flexible Working Arrangements for Employees Experiencing Domestic Violence The Fair Work Act provides employees covered by the Act with minimum ‘national employment standards’, referred as the ‘NES’. NES entitlements include things such as 38 hour working week, right to request flexible working arrangements for parents and carers of disabled and/or under school age children and ten days paid personal or carer’s leave per year plus two days of additional unpaid leave where required. These conditions cannot be excluded by an award or agreement, and any contravention of the NES will render the award or agreement invalid. The Clearinghouse recommends amending the Fair Work Act to extend the right to request flexible working arrangements to employees experiencing domestic violence. ‘Flexible working arrangements’ might include things like:

temporary or permanent changes to working times and patterns; changes to specific duties, for example to avoid potential contact with an abuser in a customer facing role or if they are a fellow employee; and/or redeployment or relocation.

Entitlement to Paid Leave for Employee Victims of Domestic Violence Although the NES currently provides minimum entitlements to carer’s leave and sick leave, these existing entitlements do not cover situations where a women needs to take time off to attend court, for example, where a protection order has been applied for. A woman experiencing domestic violence may also need to attend support services or to arrange accommodation or childcare, and these services are often only open during business hours. The Clearinghouse recommends that the NES provide a paid leave entitlement of 20 days per year for victims of domestic violence, enabling women to attend court and take other steps to ensure their safety. Again, this entitlement should not be subject to a qualifying employment period. We also recommend that employees are able to use existing carer’s leave entitlements to provide support for a friend or family member experiencing domestic violence.

Domestic Violence Included as a Specific Ground of Discrimination The Fair Work Act protects employees from being sacked or treated adversely in their employment on the basis of attributes such as age, sex, race, religion and disability. The Clearinghouse recommends the inclusion of ‘status as a person experiencing domestic violence’ as an additional attribute protected by the Act. This is consistent with other jurisdictions such as New York, Oregon, Illinois and the Philippines who have recognised the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence in their workplace discrimination law.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

We also recommend the same specific protection on the basis of domestic violence status under federal discrimination law which applies more broadly, extending to situations outside of work such as accommodation and goods and services.

OHS Recognition and Protection Domestic violence is not automatically an OHS issue, however where it is connected with the workplace, it follows that there should be measures in place to reduce risk and ensure the safety of workers. Unfortunately, Safe Work Australia, the independent statutory agency set up by COAG in 2009 to harmonise OHS laws in Australia has neglected to include the issue of domestic violence in the workplace in its reform agenda. Under the recent proposed national OHS law (the Model Work Health and Safety Bill), employers have a general responsibility for employee workplace safety. Implicitly, it is immaterial whether or not the workplace safety risk stems from the impact of domestic violence. To assist employers in identifying and responding to domestic violence-related safety risks and to minimise the impact of domestic violence on working women, the Clearinghouse strongly recommends the inclusion of domestic violence in the national OHS reform agenda. Additionally, we recommend that: • Australian work safety agencies provide safety duty holders with educational resources and other guidance material in order to enhance understanding of family violence in the workplace context.

• •

A specific Code of Practice on domestic violence related workplace safety risks be developed to guide duty holders in identifying and responding to domestic violence related workplace risks. OHS officers, union delegates and human resources staff receive compulsory training for on domestic violence issues in the workplace. This training could potentially be incorporated in existing training modules which focus on workplace violence.

Finally, to improve safety outcomes and improve data collection on domestic violence in the workplace, acts of domestic violence directed at workers in the workplace should be included as a mandatory ‘notifiable incident’: which requires duty holders to report any act of domestic violence perpetrated in the workplace to safe work authorities.

Conclusion Any reforms should ensure that workers who are targeted by or threatened with domestic violence should not be adversely impacted as a result of disclosing family violence at work. Any reporting of domestic violence incidents and associated employee records should be kept private and confidential, unless disclosure is required by law. Failure to include acts of domestic violence as a ‘notifable incident’ perpetuates the invisibility of domestic violence as a workplace issue, potentially compromising the safety of individual staff and their co-workers and masking the magnitude of the problem, and lessening the likelihood of employees reporting. The Clearinghouse submission can be viewed online at: www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/family-violence-andcommonwealth-laws/submissions-received-alrc

Are you missing out? As a member of the IEU are you missing out because you do not have an elected IEU Branch representative? The simple answer to the question is ‘yes, you are’.

means they don’t have good communication between members which then means they may not get the best outcomes when dealing with management.

Why? Simply, the role of a Rep is to provide leadership within the branch. As we know leadership is a match of qualities to an individual, such as integrity, dedication, humility, openness, creativity, fairness, assertiveness and a sense of humour.

We can name those sites that have good Representatives. We know these branches take on issues not as individuals but as a collective because they have someone coordinating the branch. They get good outcomes because Reps are trained to undertake their role. Management know when the Rep comes to them that they are representing the needs of a group of members, they don’t necessarily know how many or who. This encourages management to ‘think twice’ about the way they intend to manage an issue.

Think about it next time you are in the lunch room, staff study, front office, laboratory, library or out in the grounds. Is there someone on staff who has these qualities and is a member of the Union? I’m sure you could find somebody that fits the criteria. If you have identified someone and you are not sure whether they are in the Union contact your organiser they should be able to help you. The impact of not having at least one IEU Representative in your school is significant. Those schools that don’t have good representation, don’t have active branches which

It only takes one member. Could that be you? Ring the IEU office to ask to speak with your organiser. Ask the organiser to contact the members at the school and call a meeting. As you have already thought about a member who has the above qualities the next step should be easy. Stop missing out and make the most of your membership today.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

ESOs and Teachers, Stronger Together Glen Seidel Secretary The IEU in SA showed its commitment to represent non-teaching staff in 1989 when it changed its name from ATIS (the Association of Teachers in Independent Schools) to ANGEE (Association of Non Government Education Employees). Since then we have unashamedly used the power of the larger group to leverage benefits for less influential groups.

The “Westminster disease” of lower increases for ESOs was contagious this year with Scotch College catching a mild dose. Management was most insistent that ESO increases should be discounted by 0.5% compared with teachers. Obviously this was the thin edge of the wedge for future years, but members standing united were able to convince management that this wasn’t a good idea.

There has been general sector-wide recognition that, notwithstanding that base rates of pay may differ, that people employed within the school community should be afforded equivalent wage increase percentages. Over time, schools which may have negotiated separate enterprise agreements for teachers and school assistants (as they were then known) have one by one agreed to roll the separate agreements into one and to also include other non-teaching staff such as grounds, maintenance, nurses, counsellors and others.

For many years Catholic and Lutheran schools as well as some significant AIS schools such as Trinity, Woodcroft, Pedare and King’s Baptist Grammar have broadened the classification scale to 6 levels instead of the award 4 levels. The top level ESO in two thirds of SA non government schools equates to the Step 10 teacher rate at that school.

There have, however, been some pockets of entrenched resistance to this egalitarian approach. Westminster School has been the most strident and consistent in its opposition to agreeing to equal pay-rises for teachers and nonteachers. The situation has now slid to the point where the ESOs now need more than double the pay rises of teachers to get back long lost relativities when compared with the rest of the sector. Westminster still insists on comparing value against the general clerical market place rather than schools. The fight continues in the current negotiations. St John’s Grammar did come up with some variable increases when it renegotiated a 2011 mid-agreement increase. Teachers received 3% to 5% and ESOs received 4%. The 2010 Catholic EA similarly agreed a variable October 2010 increase for teachers with most receiving 8%. ESOs with over 3 year’s service received 8%. Pulteney ESOs were unable to negotiate the same increases as the teachers in 2008-09. A strong campaign by Lutheran staff caused Lutheran employers to abandon their claim for lesser increases in the current negotiations.

As much as the Modern Awards do not apply to the vast majority of our schools (as they have an enterprise agreement which over-rides it) it is interesting to note that even here the top of the teacher incremental scale is the pay set for the top of the “general” staff (ie ESOs). Schools are an industry in their own right. For decades there have been awards in the state and federal jurisdictions covering teachers and non-teaching staff in this industry. To try to align school staff with the general clerical market, much of which is award dependent, is a mean-spirited attempt to have the lowest-paid, paid less to help the budget bottom line. This must be resisted by all members standing firm at each set of negotiations where this is attempted.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Vale Marg Devichand Louise Firrell Organiser/Educator Marg Devichand was a member of the IEUSA since 1987. She was an active workplace Rep at her school, St John Bosco, for many years. Marg was an IEU participant in the Anna Stewart Memorial Project in 2004 and was a member and Chair of the Equity Committee for six years. Marg passed away at the Mary Potter Hospice on 28 May 2011. Her colleagues and the staff at the IEU office will miss her humour and enthusiasm. We remember with great fondness an incident which encapsulates Marg’s passion for a good cause and willingness to get involved. It was the first time employees in Catholic schools had rallied over pay and conditions and this took place outside the Cathedral in the city. It also happened to be St Patrick’s Day. As the St Patrick’s Day marchers passed by the rally, Marg kept stepping off the kerb into the lines of marchers waving her placard and beckoning them to join the rally for a ‘real’ cause. As those who were privileged to know her and attended her funeral service know, the IEU was only one area of her life where she made a difference, but it is the one that we can acknowledge and celebrate.

Marg Devichand at Parliment House 2010

TEACHERS RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION If your registration expires in January 2012 you must lodge an application to renew your registration by 31 DECEMBER 2011 An application to renew your registration will be sent by post in November 2011. The onus is on you to renew your registration by the due date. Please contact the Teachers Registration Board if you have not received an application to renew your registration by 1 December 2011. Non receipt of an application to renew registration is not an excuse for allowing your registration to expire. Change of address and/or name Change of Address details must be provided in writing via: Fax - +61 8 8226 2667 Email - renewal@trb.sa.edu.au Post - PO Box 3649, Rundle Mall SA 5000

Change of Name details must be provided in writing with a certified copy of a marriage certificate, decree nisi, or deed poll via: Post - PO Box 3649, Rundle Mall SA 5000 In person - Level 6, 70 Pirie Street Adelaide SA 5000 (Faxed copies will not be accepted). EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

2011

Teachers for gender equality

5 October www.5oct.org

Education International Internationale de l’Education Internacional de la Educación Bildungsinternationale

World Teachers’ Day is celebrated in Australia on 28 October 2011 EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

United Nations Cultural Organization

Meet the Principals Bruno Sartoretto Organiser The IEU would like to thank Brian Shumacher, Principal of Cabra College for hosting the session in June this year. Along with Jane Davers, Principal of Wilderness School the session was well attended by student teachers in their final year of study and about to graduate. At the session a past participant, Clemence Schmitt an Early Career Teacher at Waldorf School joined the panel and gave her unique experience in getting a job in a non-government school. Her insight into the process was valuable and shows that being willing to do a little voluntary work in schools and having the necessary skills can pay big dividends. Once again this year both Brian and Jane were candid with the information given to the group of Student Teachers with a few Early Career teachers at the session. Both principals affirmed that the process of selecting interviewees for the teaching positions advertised was based on the needs of the school and the importance of having a balance of experienced and Early Career teachers on staff. Submitting an application for a position that indicates that an experienced teacher is sought after should not be discouraging for graduates or early career teachers because through the application to interview process principals often find gems among the applications. The dynamics of the end

of a school year can mean that teaching staff move schools leaving a position to be filled at short notice so applicants that may have missed out on the initial position applied for may be contacted for subsequent positions. This is also true of Early Career Teachers doing TRT or voluntary work at a school. As they become familiar with the school community the Principal may ask them if they are available to undertake a short term teaching contract. Participants at the session commented on the relevance of the information being delivered and were somewhat surprised with the different information that Universities provide in relation to developing a covering letter and a CV. Certainly, the principals at the session were interested in the whole person as well as the ability to undertake the job and this needed to be demonstrated concisely in the covering letter and CV if an applicant were to be successful in obtaining an interview. Further Meet the Principal Sessions are planned for 2012 around the middle of the year. If you know of any student teachers finishing their studies in 2012 ask them to join the IEU so they will be eligible to attend these sessions. Membership is free for students as is attendance at the Meet the Principal Sessions. The IEU contacts all student members with details of the sessions.

Top: Jane Danvers fourth from left and Clemence Schmitt (Early Career Teacher Walford) far right with participants at the Meet the Principal Session June 21st 2011 Above (left): Brian Schumacher (Principal at Cabra)

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

OHSW Project Safer Schools

Gerry Conley OHSW Project Officer

The “Safer Schools” Project commenced in July 2011 under the State Government’s 2011 Health and Safety Workplace Partnership Program. The Program will provide annual grants to the IEU for the next three years to actively promote, encourage and facilitate higher levels of employee participation in health and safety matters in schools, to complement the role of employers in providing safe and healthy workplaces. “Safer Schools” will build on the momentum created during the 2007 Partnership program in having Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) and Health and Safety Committees (HSCs) in non-government schools, elected and established in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation and registered with Safework SA. The Project Officer will continue to visit schools to present health and safety awareness information to staff and to encourage them to actively participate in OHS workplace consultative arrangements. National OHS legislation is expected to be introduced across Australia from early 2012 with the introduction of the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act and Regulations. This will mean a number of changes to the way workplace health and safety is managed with requirements in the way employers are to consult with staff on OHS issues being detailed in the Act. ‘Safer Schools” will provide awareness training on these new provisions to staff in schools throughout 2012. Another new initiative in the Project will be the development and delivery of skills based training to HSRs, IEU Workplace Representatives, HSC members and Consultative Committee members. The training program will be based on needs identified in annual surveys and aim in providing information and building confidence to address workplace OHS issues. The first of these surveys will be conducted in October-November 2011. Workplace bullying and harassment continues to be a major occupational hazard in non-government schools. Being a service driven workforce it is difficult for employees to recognise problems at a stage when early intervention could prevent bullying being addressed and controlled

before it becomes critical and leads to time away from work and possible workers’ compensation claims. Through the “Safer Schools” project we plan to present a series of conflict resolution workshops at various locations to assist HSRs, IEU Reps and employees in addressing bullying and harassment situations when they arise and encourage early reporting of incidents to allow for intervention and control at a non-critical stage. “Safer Schools” will also build cooperative relationships with employers and the three employer bodies, Association of Independent Schools (AISSA), the Lutheran Schools Association (LSA) and Catholic Education SA (CESA) in seeking support for HSRs and HSCs and in promoting and encouraging employee participation in OHS arrangements in schools. Employers have been asked to participate in a joint Safework SA and IEU OHS audit of the current legislative arrangements that are in place in their schools. The LSA joined with the IEU and Safework SA in promoting the audit in Lutheran schools. The audit will provide information on where HSRs are currently in place and what schools have established HSCs. It will also assist Safework SA in updating their database of HSRs and HSCs in South Australia. The results of the audit should be available by the end of the year. In an arrangement with the LSA, some of the Project time is being used to research and develop OHS procedures as part of the LSA OHSW Strategic Plan 2011- 2013.It is planned that the Project will be able to complement the role of the other employer bodies through similar arrangements over the next three years. You will be hearing more about “Safer Schools” in the future, and possibly become actively involved in the Project in some way. Whether this is as an elected HSR, nominating for a position on your school’s HSC, participating in an OHS training or promotion activity, requesting information from your employer, we hope that “Safer Schools” will encourage more of you to become involved in workplace health and safety which will not only mean a lessening of the reasonably high level of worker’s compensation claims in non-government schools but also safer, healthier and happier working environments. If you have any questions on the “Safer Schools” project please contact the Project Officer Gerry Conley at the IEU Office or at gerryc@ieusa.org.au.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Lutheran Schools Conference 2011 Tatachilla Lutheran College

The Lutheran Secondary Schools Conference was held at Tatachilla Lutheran College on 2 September. The IEU provided a coffee van on the day and took the opportunity to talk to members and staff about the Union and the current Lutheran Enterprise Agreement Negotiations.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

Attack on Fijian Workers’ Rights The IEUA stands in solidarity with FTU and FTA members and all other members in Fiji as they face a continued attack on their human rights, their working rights and their rights to union association.

Background On 29 July the military regime of Fiji published a Decree that if enacted would violate international law and Fiji’s human rights obligations. The “Essential National Industries (Employment)” Decree removes all collective bargaining rights, curtails the right to strike, bans overtime payments and makes void existing collective bargaining agreements for workers in key sectors of the economy including sugar, aviation and tourism. The Decree also authorises employers in government designated enterprises to dictate working conditions while denying workers their right to a union. The Decree states that bargaining units must have at least 75 workers employed by the same employer – which means that organisations with fewer employees can not form with a union. This latest Decree follows many other anti- Democratic processes including • • • • •

The abolition of the Fijian Constitution, the High Court, Appeals Court, Supreme Court and the Public Service Appeals Board; The removal of freedom of speech through control of media; Proclamation of Public Emergency Regulations (PER) which outlaws the meetings of more than 4 people without permits, hence curtailing Trade Unions ability to meet with their members. The unfair dismissal of Tevita Koroi (President of Council of Pacific Education) from his duties as Head Teacher, for speaking in favour of Democracy at a Union meeting; The Pension and Retirement Allowance decree which removes pension allowances from any public servant deemed to speak against the regime.

Rights Denied Without their right to freedom of speech and now working rights and rights to union association, Fijian individuals and their families are vulnerable to discrimination and violence. These Decrees gives absolute powers to the Fijian regime with the rights and terms of employment of workers having been rendered meaningless. IEUA members can be left with no doubt that the military dictatorship in Fiji is not a benign regime. The regime has adopted intimidation tactics to install fear.

Union members attacked On 3 August 2011, the President of Fiji Trades Union Congress ( FTUC) President Daniel Urai and Nitin Gounder, a union organiser with the National Union of Hospitality, Catering and Tourism Union were arrested for holding a meeting with union members to prepare for a collective bargaining with hotel management. This follows the brutal bashing and harassment of FTUC General Secretary Felix Anthony and Mohammed Khalil, President of the Ba Branch of the Fiji Sugar and General Workers Union earlier this year. The harassment of trade unionists are a violation of ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

International Action The ILO has expressed grave concerns and has issued a letter to Commodore Josaia Voreque Bainimarama, warning of an international campaign to mobilize communities to condemn the actions of the Fiji regime. The IEUA is in current discussion with the Australian government and stands ready to assist our Fijian colleagues as the situation in Fiji seriously deteriorates. IEUA members are being called upon to send messages of support in solidarity to our Fijian colleagues for the protection of their working rights, safety and well being.

EdU November 2011 IEU(SA)

What’s your problem? 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.

an interactive column

was produced by an employee, and then the employing company would hold the copyright.

Dear Dorothy Our Principal has circulated a policy dealing with Intellectual Property and copyright. The policy is very brief, but did claim ownership of what I produce. As teachers we are developing and sharing materials all the time. How do I work out which is my material and which belongs to work. Hoping you can help. Signed Is-what’s-mine-theirs.

Dear Is-what’s-mine-theirs, Intellectual property is the term described in law as copyright, patents, designs, trade and other related areas. One of the objects of the term is to protect the output of human intellectual endeavour in the same way as the law protects the ownership of land and goods. Copyright, including for teachers, is simply the right to not have your original work copied or performed or adapted by others without your permission. In general terms, the author or maker of copyright material is regarded under the Copyright Act 1968 as the owner of that material, unless the material

However, proving the existence of copyright is not simple, because there is no registration procedure and no certificates to prove its existence. To prove that copyright exists it is usually necessary to prove the: • • • •

Identity of the author or maker of the copyright material Nationality or residence of that author or maker Location in which it was made Date or calendar year in which it was made.

So to the short answer is yes the employer does own whatever you develop at work however, it is then the responsibility of the owner of the copyright the employer to document it in order to prove ownership. Not so simple. Generally for a school to claim general copyright of all works created by employees is over-legalistic grandstanding and is not addressing a real issue. If one is paid to create software, textbooks or other marketable products, then expect that the ownership will rest with the employer. Copyright on day to day teaching resources should be a non issue in a sane environment. Dorothy

IEUA Supports

Please cut out and send this postcard to Fijian Prime Minister to let him know that members of the IEU in SA are outraged at the treatment of its teachers unionists and citizens.

Democra for Fiji Humancy Rights in Fiji

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

Commodore Bainimarama,

affix stamp here

Along with the 68,000 members of the Independent Education Union of Australia, I have grave concerns for the human rights and working rights of Fijian citizens. I support my Union colleagues in Fiji and call upon you to: • • • •

Cease all arbitrary detention of critics and activists and immediately drop all charges against Mr Daniel Urai, President of Fiji Trade Union Congress Repeal the Public Emergency Regulation and allow for peaceful assembly and freedom of expression Restore the industrial protections of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007 to civil servants Repeal the Essential National Industries Employment Decree and restore freedom of union association to workers in Fiji

I urge you to take these actions and return human rights and freedom to Fijian citizens. Thank you for your attention. Signed: Name --------------------------------

Prime Minister & Commodore of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces

Prime Minister & Commodore of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Josaia Voreque Bainimarama Josaia Voreque Bainimarama Prime Minister’s Office Prime Minister’s Office PO Box 2353 PO Box 2353 Government Buildings Suva Government Buildings Fiji

Suva Fiji