QUEENSLAND INDEPENDENT EDUCATION UNION INDEPENDENT EDUCATION UNION OF AUSTRALIA – QUEENSLAND & NORTHERN TERRITORY BRANCH BRISBANE 346 TURBOT ST SPRING HILL QLD 4000 PO BOX 418 FORTITUDE VALLEY
Phone: 07 3839 7020 Fax: 07 3839 7021 Freecall: 1800 177937 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Internet: www.qieu.asn.au ABN: 45 620 218 712
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
CATHOLIC COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Improving Conditions Collectively
CHAPTER BRIEFING NO. 7 Employers ‘cherry pick’ on support for PARs Dear Colleagues Further to the chapter briefing forwarded last week, this is a more detailed report on the status of negotiations for a new PAR structure for Queensland Catholic Schools. Employee Representatives claim high moral ground Employees identified the enhancement of PAR provisions as a critical element of their claim. The employee log of claims endorsed the recommendations of the Joint Working Party, on the basis that these would establish a contemporary set of structures and complementary processes to establish and underpin contemporary middle leadership in a school - and deliver significant increases in time to do the job. Employers ‘cherry pick’ to suit themselves Employers for their part have taken a position which is intellectually inconsistent and conceptually inept. While the employers are prepared to adopt the recommended PAR structure (recognition of leadership, new unit value combining annual financial allowance and weekly time release, 5 tier structure), they are not prepared to adopt the processes essential to fairly apply and sustain those structures. The Joint Working Party recommendations set out coherent and interrelated structures and processes. Employers have clearly failed to grasp that fact and want to instead ‘cherry pick’ from the recommendations. Employers choose ‘managerial prerogative’ over integrity in operational arrangements Most notably, the employers insist on downplaying and diminishing the role of the School Consultative Committee. PAR members have identified significant problems with the existing School Consultative Committee provisions, noting with concern that its important role has been relegated to that of a ‘rubber stamp’ or ‘toothless tiger’ in the lived experience of many schools. The Joint Working Party recognised this issue, and made a specific recommendation for a clear, step-by-step process that both clarified and elevated the genuine consultative process that must occur at school level, prior to a decision being taken by the principal on the appropriate middle leadership structure.
However, the employers for their part have rejected this recommendation - and in doing so have elevated ‘managerial prerogative’ over an integrity in operational arrangements that would demonstrate commitment to real partnership with PARs and teaching staff, beyond simple platitudes. Tenure remains tenuous in Religious Institute Schools The Joint Working Party recommendation to extend the current tenure period from 2 x 3 years to 3 x 3 years was a consensus position achieved that sought to honour both employees’ desire for greater job security and employers’ wish to retain the triennium structure. Pleasingly, Diocesan employers have agreed to extending tenure arrangements in the terms above. Religious Institute employers have not. While employee representatives on the Joint Working Party had initially pursued unlimited tenure for PARs as a matter of parity with HODs in Queensland state schools, employer representatives had noted that an unlimited tenure arrangement would create a lack of synchronicity with Principals, Deputy Principals and Assistant Principals employment arrangements. Given the context of consensus and deliberation, it is particularly shameful that Religious Institute school employers have indicated rejection of the claim to extend the tenure period to 3 x 3 years. It seems that while Religious Institute school employers are quite content to share the responsibilities of providing leadership in the new middle leadership model, they are churlishly withholding the extension of similar tenure arrangements. Transitional arrangements In order for some to receive a bigger share of time release and financial allowance, it is a reality that a number of PAR positions would not continue under a new middle leadership structure. In light of this, the Joint Working Party appropriately gave serious consideration to transitional arrangements for those current PAR holders as at 1 January 2014 who may not be successful in their application to become middle leaders under the new structure: a) Teachers who have been ET4 for at least four years are eligible to apply for ET6 at any time; b) PARs who are at least ET4 can apply for ET6 in the normal intakes during 2014; c) PARs who have not yet reached ET4, but have been a PAR for at least 3 years, will be accelerated one step in the classification level. It made sense to Joint Working Party members that any such considerations should recognise and acknowledge the commitment and experience of PARs. Employers’ rejection indicates their preparedness to ignore these long standing contributions, without any fair recompense and alternate pathway. Fair-minded processes The Joint Working Party also recommended a number of straightforward, fair-minded operational processes that would support the new middle leadership model, such as: a) Collation of examples of good appraisal process to assist schools in devising a beneficial and rewarding appraisal process; b) Strengthening employers’ obligation to provide feedback to unsuccessful PAR applicants, at the employee’s request; c) Payment for acting in a middle leader role for less than 4 weeks, where the principal takes a decision to make a formal appointment in writing; d) Provision of ‘leadership’ professional development, consistent with the shifting paradigm of ‘leadership’; e) Voluntary trials of the new middle leadership model, ahead of state-wide implementation.
In all of the above, employers indicated at the SBU that they were “…not prepared to accede to this recommendation.” Family-friendly flexibility The Joint Working Party recommended a provision that enabled PARs with significant caring responsibilities or transitioning to retirement to request the principal convert up to half their annual financial allowance into additional time release, subject to operational matters and scope being satisfactorily resolved. Despite employee representatives tabling a revised draft clause which addressed stated concerns, the employers’ standard SBU response remained “Catholic school employers are not prepared to accede to this recommendation.” Employee representatives argued that where a teacher has reached a PAR position, it would be short-sighted to have that person exclude themselves from continuing that professional contribution to the school community, simply because of an emerging family responsibility that can be otherwise accommodated by a provision such as this. Diocesan Primary Middle Leadership structure The current PAR structure was negotiated over twenty years ago, when the fundamental importance of Primary education was not appropriately recognised and acknowledged. While times have changed, Diocesan employers’ reticence to establish and properly fund a Primary middle leadership unfortunately has not (with the exception of the Curriculum Leader structure in Rockhampton Diocese). Employee representatives have claimed and will continue to argue for Curriculum Leader and Special Needs Leader positions in Diocesan Catholic Primary schools, particularly in light of the comparable Head of Curriculum (HOC) and Head of Special Education (HOSE) positions in place in Education Queensland Primary schools. The employer position - “…not prepared to accede to this…” Chapter action Chapters are requested to meet to consider the attached resolution by Friday, 11 May 2012. The Fax Back response sheet encourages Chapters to express concern with the lack of coherence in the employer position and reaffirm the need for alignment in structure and processes. Next steps The bottom line is that the employer response so far lacks intellectual consistency and ‘cherry picks’ the wellconsidered Joint Working Party recommendations for a contemporary leadership model. While employers have signed up for a new structure, they have failed to support it through those fair-minded and conceptually consistent operational processes that school communities deserve. After twenty years, we are now on the cusp of a new middle leadership model that attempts to come to terms with that shifting paradigm and appropriately recognises and elevates the importance of PARs to school success. What we need from employer representatives is the ‘leadership’ to make it happen with cohesion and integrity. Kind Regards
TERRY BURKE SECRETARY
Catholic Collective Bargaining (ColB7) IMPROVING CONDITIONS COLLECTIVELY
FAX BACK Fax (07) 3839 7021 Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Chapter Briefing No. 7
That the Chapter at ____________________________________________ expresses deep concern with the employer rejection of key operational recommendations that would underpin a new middle leadership structure for Queensland Catholic Schools and which provide coherence and transparency.
Further, the Chapter reaffirms the need for an alignment of both the structure and processes to provide an integrity to the provisions, and calls on our employer to reconsider their current position.
□ Not Carried
PLEASE FAX BACK TO IEUA-QNT by close of business FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2012 Fax: 3839 7021 or Email: email@example.com 4
Joint Working Party Recommendation
Shift in philosophy recognising ‘leadership’ That Senior Administration and Positions of Added Responsibility be rebadged in terms of leadership – Senior Leadership and Middle Leadership – and that Middle Leadership titles incorporate this concept.
That the following propositions be endorsed:
New unit value:
1. There are three distinct types of Middle Leadership in Catholic secondary schools – Curriculum, Pastoral and Program.
The current value of a new unit is $2,205 of annual allowance plus 1 hour of weekly release time.
2. A tiered classification system that recognises increasing complexities and responsibilities as described in Table 2 will be adopted. 3. The suggested levels of allowance and release time based on a Unit Cost concept will be accepted.
Employers’ response at the SBU
Five tier format (with complexity loading): 2
4. Positions which are classified as Tier 2 - 4 but are considered to be at the higher end of the relevant tier in terms of complexity and responsibility will be subject to a Complexity Loading equivalent to 1 Unit.
Classification, responsibilities, attributes and typical duties
Tier 1.1 $4,409 + 2 hrs release 2 units Tier 1.2 $6,614 + 3 hrs release 3 units Tier 2 $8,818 + 4 hrs release 4 units Tier 2.2 $11,023 + 5 hrs release 5 units Tier 3 $13,228 + 6 hrs release 6 units Tier 3.2 $15,433 + 7 hrs release 7 units Tier 4 $16,000 + 8.5 hrs release 8 units Tier 4.2 $16,000 + 10.23 hrs release 9 units Tier 5 $16,000 + 11.94 hrs release 10 units
Agreed, with caveats
a. That the non-exhaustive list of typical duties of each category of Middle Leader contained in Table 3: Curriculum Leaders in Secondary School – Responsibilities, Attributes and Duties, Table 4: Pastoral Leaders in Secondary Schools – Responsibilities, Attributes and Duties, and Table 5: Program Leaders in Secondary Schools – Responsibilities, Attributes and Duties
be accepted and Not Agreed
b. That the desired attributes described in each type of Middle Leader be adopted as relevant selection criteria in appointing teachers to Middle Leadership positions. Diocesan P – 12 schools and other non-standard variations a.
That Middle Leadership structures crossing the primary-secondary divide in Diocesan P-12 schools be
implemented where appropriate. b.
That this structure be cost neutral by employing a system of trade-offs to allow Year 6 enrolments to be counted with secondary enrolments for the purpose of determining the Units available in return for discounting from primary administrative resources.
Tenure That the current provision allowing a Middle Leader to hold a continuing position for two three-year cycles before the position is able to be advertised be modified to allow for a further cycle of three years in the role before possible advertisement, subject to satisfactory performance and continuance of the position.
Agreed by Diocesan employers 5
Sharing good Appraisal practice That examples of good appraisal practice be collected and offered to schools to assist them in devising a beneficial and rewarding appraisal process for Middle Leaders.
Not Agreed 6
School Consultative Committee That Clause 20.1 detailing the operation of the School Consultative Committee (SCC) be modified to enhance the transparency and equity of the process.
Not Agreed 7
Extra flexible hours to be given at particular pressure points a. That the SCC recommend to the Principal how and to whom the 10% flexible resource be allocated and
Not Agreed by Religious Institute employers
Agreed, with caveats 8
b. That up to half of this flexible resource may be converted to units with the agreement of the principal and the SCC.
Family-friendly option to access more release time That this flexibility to convert up to 50% of the allowance into extra release time be endorsed provided that the identified issues surrounding definitions and operational matters can be satisfactorily resolved.
Payment for acting in a Middle Leadership role for less than 4 weeks, where the principal makes a formal appointment in writing
Not Agreed, despite employee reps tabling a revised draft clause to address employersâ€™ stated concerns
Not Agreed 10
That the above wording be included at sub clause 23.2xiii in the Schedule.
Appointment process That the above wording be included at Clause 24 in the Schedule.
Transitional arrangements That previous service as a Middle Manager be recognised by means of accelerated classification progression in the circumstances detailed above. Any subsequent classification at ET5 and ET6 levels will be subject to the usual application processes.
Not Agreed 12
Timing of implementation
Agreed, with caveats
a. That the new Middle Leadership structure and provisions be implemented in 2015 (subject to acceptance in the next round of collective bargaining); b. That all previous PAR arrangements cease in all schools as at 31 December 2014; and c.
That the processes leading to decisions on new Middle Leadership structures and personnel take place in a timely fashion to allow unsuccessful applicants for positions to apply for alternative classifications in Semester 2, 2014.
Information and education a. That a joint program of explanation involving a User Guide and presentations be undertaken throughout the state prior to implementation of new structure; and Professional development on â€˜leadershipâ€™
14 Not Agreed
b. That systematic professional development activities be provided prior to implementation to enable aspirants to Middle Leadership to understand the nature of leadership and the expectations of Middle Leader roles.
a. That voluntary trials of the new structure be undertaken in 2013 and evaluated in Term 1, 2014 subject to its acceptance in the next round of collective bargaining; b. That voluntary trials take place in each diocese and in at least one RI girls and RI boys school; and c.
That Terms of Reference for such trials be negotiated between the parties prior to their commencement.
Additional new units for small to medium sized schools Employee reps on the JWP advocated for the application of an additional 5 new units (or $26,585) to the total cost of the current PAR structure in schools with student enrolment size of 550 or less.
Under consideration -
Primary Middle Leadership Structure Employee reps on the JWP advocated for an explicit industrial provision for Middle Leadership in Diocesan Primary schools, particularly in the areas of Curriculum and Special Needs. This was not resolved at the JWP, as it meant the expenditure of more money for PARs and was thus outside the terms of reference. The JWP acknowledged that it may be raised by employees through the collective bargaining process.
Not Agreed -