Protect Our Penalty Rates

University of Western Sydney

uws

The University of Western Sydney Branch of the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union) serves the following claims on the University of Western Sydney for a collective Agreement for Professional Staff:

Current Enterprise Bargaining Agreement

UWS Heads of Agreement

UWS Log of Claims

Update: Journey Insurance Free for Union Members

UWS Branch CPSU Contacts

Enterprise Bargaining Reports

Enterprise Bargaining Report 18 – 7 November 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 17 – 24 October 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 16 – 11 October 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 15 – 12 September 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 14 – 29 August 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 13 – 15 August 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 12 – 1 August 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 11 – 18 July 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 10 – 4 July 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 9 – 19 June 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 8 – 5 June 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 7 – 29 May 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 6 – 8 May 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 5 – 24 April 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 4 – 10 April 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 3 – 27 March 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 2 – 6 March 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 1 – 18 February 2013

Enterprise Bargaining Report 18 – 7 November 2013

The following clauses were discussed:

Managing Ill Health

The unions made a number of suggested improvements to the University’s clause on managing ill health. Most of the suggestions were agreed to by the University and the clause is close to being finalised. This was a very pro-active process. This new clause is now more focussed on the well-being of staff and has a structured process to assist staff in ill health.

Abandonment of Employment

This was an uncontroversial clause put up by the University to deal with staff who abandon their employment under certain circumstances. The University agreed to changes put forward by the unions, and this clause is now finalised.

Career Planning and Development

Improving career planning and development is a key claim by the unions, and further discussion is required.

Flex

The CPSU put forward its own version of the flex clause based on the current agreement, which had no substantive amendments. The unions also tried to extract a rationale from the University as to why, in the UWS proposed draft, it was requesting such significant changes to the current scheme because the unions had been advised overwhelmingly by members, and other staff that the current flex scheme was working well and they were not aware of any managers that wanted to restrict the flexibility of flex time. The CPSU pointed out several difficulties with the University’s changes. One example was not allowing staff to be paid overtime for time worked in the band width which would create a particular difficulty for technical staff who needed to cover teaching from 8am to 8pm. If staff could not accumulate flex time because they had reached their 7 hours maximum, nor could they be paid overtime then how did the University propose that classes would be covered? The University indicated that it would not be making changes to the Hours of Work clause, which works in concert with the flex time clause. The University’s bargaining representatives said that the University was making some additional changes to their flex time clause and they would take the union’s clause to them.

Individual Flexibility Arrangements

The NTEU put forward some changes to the University’s proposed flexible working arrangements clause, which the CPSU supported. These included concern about cashing out of leave and annualisation of salary without strict parameters.

Misconduct

The University addressed its changes to the misconduct clause. However, the unions still have concerns about the absence of the committee review process.

Position classification

The University presented its clause. The CPSU still has concern over the timing of requests and the process when a request is not” supported” by a supervisor, and the composition of the review committee.

Upcoming meetings

A number of additional meetings have been scheduled, with the following meetings agreed to before the end of the year: 19/11, 21/11, 28/11, 4/12, 12/12, 17/12 and 19/12.

On behalf of your bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 17 – 24 October 2013

The following clauses were discussed:

*Individual Flexibility Arrangement

The CPSU felt that the UWS draft had the potential to increase job insecurity.  The Unions to provide draft clause at next meeting.

*Categories of Employment

University wants a new clause similar to what was in a previous 2006 HEWRRS (Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements) Agreement.  The University was asked to seriously consider their position in respect of this clause as this is a radical change to the current entitlements.  Concerns were raised by the Union in respect of security of employment.  The University Bargaining Representatives were asked for the rationale behind the changes.

*Position Classification

The University tabled a draft clause in which they have taken most of the Unions’ suggestions on board. There are still some issues around process and the Union believes it should be more transparent with integrity.  The University Bargaining Representatives will seek further instructions from the University and will provide a re-drafted clause.

*Abandonment of Employment

An ‘in principle’ agreement has been reached.  The University Bargaining Representatives will seek further instructions from the University.

*Managing ill Health clause

The University Bargaining Representatives will provide an updated clause at the next meeting.  The Unions requested that there be more emphasis on rehabilitation and return to work in a supportive environment.  The University Bargaining Representatives did believe that it would make good sense to preserve the current process.

*Flex Leave

CPSU to provide draft clause which will reflect all the current entitlements.

All parties are aware of the importance of moving forward to reach a final agreement as soon as possible and with that in mind, will be scheduling a series of regular meetings before the end of the year.

On behalf of your bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Next Meeting:  Thursday, 7 November 2013

Top of Page 

Enterprise Bargaining Report 16 – 11 October 2013

The following clauses were discussed:

*Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clause

No further advancement of this clause.

*Redeployment and Redundancy clause

This proposed clause aims to reduce the maximum accrual of 60 weeks’ pay (for someone who has been a loyal employee for 14 years) to 40 weeks, a. blatant removal of current entitlements by 20 weeks. The University Bargaining Representatives believe the current entitlement is more than generous and 3 times the statutory entitlement, which is the legal minimum. The University has been asked to provide costings.

*Abandonment of Employment

University provided an updated clause.

*Managing Ill Health and Injury clause

This proposed clause is written in a very punitive way and treats people who have been sick for more than 20 days in a 12 month period (even if they have accrued sick leave and medical certificates) as malingerers; forces them to be assessed by a UWS Medical Practitioner, and makes no differentiation between their treatment and the management of situations where there is perceived risk to other employees or students. This clause is very disappointing and we believe, is aimed at terminating employees, rather than supporting them through illness, and rehabilitation to the workplace, and is an unfortunate illustration of the attitude that UWS appears to have taken to its employees in this bargaining round.

*Amended Career Development, Planning and Review clause

This proposed clause would remove equitable access to HDAs and made no provision for separate funding for professional staff. In the past this staff development spending has not been transparent. Most commitments in the current agreement have been removed. Also the provision for internal advertising has been removed resulting in a clause which reduces our current conditions.

*Categories of Employment clause

This proposed clause removed the limits on circumstances for when fixed term positions can be used; this is a further step to job insecurity.

*Amended Flex Leave clause

This proposed clause has been completely rewritten to not only reduce the flex maximum from 14-7 hours per settlement period but it reduces all mention of “by agreement with the supervisor” to “with the supervisors’ approval”. The circumstances when one can “accrue credits” are basically overtime by stealth. Management prerogative is inserted in almost every subclause. Paid meal breaks for staff who have rosters has been removed and shift allowances and overtime are under threat in this rewrite. This clause has removed any semblance of flexibility and work life balance.

*Position Classification and Broad banding clause

This proposed clause removes the option of an employee having their position reviewed at any time and does not provide for submission of a revised and agreed position description (in the event of additional responsibilities being required by their supervisor), unless the supervisor supports it being reclassified. This is a loss of current entitlements, and unfair, as the supervisor is not trained in evaluation.

*Sick Leave

Still under negotiation;  current clause may be more beneficial.

*Misconduct/Serious Misconduct

Still under negotiation, including Research Misconduct and how it applies to Professional Staff.

All parties want to move forward and there may be the need to set additional meetings to progress clauses. Please don’t hesitate to contact your Workplace Delegate/Enterprise Bargaining Team Member for further information or to provide input.

On behalf of your bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Next Meeting:  Thursday, 24 October 2013

 Top of Page

 

Enterprise Bargaining Report 15 – 12 September 2013

The following clauses were discussed:

Sick Leave

The University provided wording to cover the taking of sick leave to attend medical appointments, which meets a request put forward by the CPSU. The CPSU believe that short absences to attend medical appointments should not count towards the five occasions of absence before a medical certificate is required to be produced. While this is now reflected in the University’s clause, they have attached a requirement that the employee provide evidence of attendance at a medical appointment. The CPSU’s initial request to have medical appointments incorporated into the sick leave provision was to remove the burden of having to supply a medical certificate for short periods of absence to attend medical appointments. This requirement to provide proof of attendance does not resolve that issue but sets up an extra layer of administration. The CPSU will be revisiting this clause to see how this can be avoided.

Leave Without Pay

The University did not agree to the Unions to request the approval of leave without pay to be based on the operational requirements of the University, rather than the work unit. The proposition put forward by the Unions is that the University is a large organisation and should be able to cover absences of leave without pay. Small organisational units may not necessarily be in the position to do so and staff in those units may be disadvantaged.

Domestic/Family Violence

Significant progress is being made on this new clause. The Unions have proposed an amended definition of violence and family, and have requested the University consider a discrete amount of leave related to specifically to this clause, not as part of personal leave. The University’s proposal requires exhausting of other leave including annual leave before it would consider approving additional leave under this clause. The CPSU prefers that annual leave is not included as this should be used for other purposes, such as refreshment and recovery from working.

Long Service Leave

The University has removed the entitlement of an employee to take LSL “at a time of their choosing”, and changed it to “will be taken, at times approved by the University” despite the 6 months’ notice of taking LSL,  in their revised clause. The Unions believe that this results in a loss of choice by staff members in the taking of LSL. It means they will only be able to take LSL when it is approved by the university, despite having accrued this over 10 years, having given 6 months’ notice, and having plans related to their personal lifestyle. We don’t believe that this is reasonable.

However, agreement has been reached with the University over the recognition of casual service prior to 2005 (in certain conditions) for the purposes of calculating LSL.

Annual Leave

The University still insists on organisational requirements being a reason for approval for the taking of annual leave, rather than by agreement with a supervisor/manager. The University has proposed a definition of concessional days, and a day-in-lieu for staff who are required to work on a concessional day. The University has also proposed additional close-down provisions (other than the current one week between Christmas and New Year). The CPSU has asked what the University will provide to staff, such as those in ITS, that are required to work within a close-down under this proposal.

Outstanding Log of Claims

The CPSU identified the clauses that had not yet been addressed under its log of claims. Although the list seems extensive, some of the matters are minor and some of them substantive changes. These include: Categories of Employment, Terms of Engagement, Meal and On-Call Allowance, Hours of Work, Workloads, Emergency Call-Out, Job Security and Outsourcing, Pay and Career Equity and Environmental Sustainability.

Next meeting

The next meeting, scheduled for Friday 27/9, will consider the misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct clauses, the Dignity and Respect clause, the Implementation Committee clause, and Organisational change, as well as trying to address the CPSU’s claims in relation to outstanding clauses.

Please don’t hesitate to contact your Workplace Delegate/Enterprise Bargaining Team Member for further information or to provide input.

On behalf of your bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

 

Enterprise Bargaining Report 14 – 29 August 2013

It was agreed to schedule dates until the 19th December.  It was noted that it was in everyone’s interest to have bargaining this finalised as soon as possible.

The agreed agenda for the meeting was:

  • Dignity and Respect
  • Misconduct
  • Career planning and development
  • Domestic violence
  • Leave
  • LWOP
  • Parental leave
  • Probation
  • Superannuation
  • Implementation Committee & Consultation

CFO Peter Pickering was in attendance to provide an overview of the University’s finances and provided a hand-out to Union representatives. Research had increased markedly over the last 2 years, the cost of on-the-ground operations were not funded from the research grants, but absorbed by the Schools. Student numbers had also increased by 20% over the last 5 years. Operating costs did not address the Summer Semester staffing issues, which are anticipated by employees

The University representatives had not yet prepared an updated Misconduct/Serious Misconduct clause and indicated the University was looking at there being a way around vexatious claims and the possibility of linking this to Unsatisfactory Performance.  There were no issues around Unsatisfactory Conduct operation and timing. Data was provided on the number of cases over the life of the agreement; there was general   concern about the average time each took to resolve (6.6 months), as this would be very stressful for an individual. The representatives were to check on whether Misconduct in research is included in the University data.  The clause will be considered further.

The Probation clause has been agreed in principle, and the University bargaining agents will forward us the redrafted agreed wording.

The University representatives will look at the issue of medical appointments and Carer’s Leave in conjunction with Sick Leave. This clause is agreed in principle.

University representatives will provide a further draft Annual Leave clause at the next meeting. There are still outstanding issues around the concept of ‘operational requirements’. The University has agreed to replace some wording that was overly prescriptive, including a wording on “not reasonably refusing annual leave requests”

The draft Long Service Leave clause is still being considered. This is a substantive issue with the Unions waiting for a response from the University on the issue of ‘operational requirements’:

The CPSU will draft a clause to incorporate the current administrative arrangements for casual staff service recognition in the Agreement.

It has been agreed to revise the Parental Leave clause so that it is consistent with recent amendments to the Fair Work Act.

In relation to Superannuation, age related issues are being looked at in order to avoid discrimination.

A Domestic violence clause was presented by the University which recognised and included many of the issues raised in relation to family violence. This was a very welcome development and the Unions will give a further response to this.

The CPSU is still considering the Career planning & development clause as higher duties opportunities in relieving positions, broad banding to recognise increased skills, and the roles of internal secondments need to be taken into account.

The outstanding issue in the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander clause is that of numeric targets.

It was agreed that representatives would list outstanding log issues from their respective logs at the next meeting, so that we can plan how to proceed.

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 12 September 2013.

Please don’t hesitate to contact your Workplace Delegate/Enterprise Bargaining Team Member for further information or to provide input.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

 

Enterprise Bargaining Report 13 – 15 August 2013

At last week’s EB meeting the following matters were discussed:

  • Misconduct
  • Flexible hours of work scheme
  • Probation
  • Back pay

Misconduct or Serious Misconduct Clause

The University talked to its redrafted misconduct clause which is significantly different to the current clause. The University’s position is that it wants to simplify the current process, which they claim has too many levels and is too time-consuming (for both staff and the University). The unions raised concern that the University’s ‘simplification’ has removed significant important parts of the process, in particular the preliminary inquiry and Misconduct Committee. The proposed process will have an investigation, possibility for an informal resolution, followed by notification of the allegation and, only then, there is opportunity for the person whom the allegation has been made against to respond (although the University assumes that during the investigation the person against whom the allegation was made would be talked to, it is not required). The CPSU noted that the current preliminary inquiry process allows for pro-active resolution of the issue, and determination of whether the matter is misconduct or serious misconduct, or not, early in the process. The CPSU also noted that there needs to be more clarity in the EA on what misconduct, serious misconduct, unsatisfactory conduct and performance matters are, and what they are not. The CPSU asked the University to provide some further information on the numbers of allegations and the outcomes. The CPSU knows that members would not be happy with this proposal and will provide a response to the University’s proposals at a future meeting.

Flexible Hours of Work Scheme Clause

The University tabled its re-drafted clause (as it flagged at the previous meeting) and talked to its proposed changes. The University’s position is that it wants to reduce 2 flex days per month to 1, and have more management control over the accrual and taking of flex time. The CPSU indicated very strongly that these changes have raised a high level of concern amongst members, reinforcing that the current flex system works extremely well in most areas and allows the University greater flexibility in covering workload. Again the unions responded that these changes would lead to increased costs associated with increased overtime and the need for additional staff. The CPSU also raised its concerns in the context of work level increases, in terms of the recent changes resulting from increased student numbers and restructuring, and unknown changes as a result of the Summer session teaching. The CPSU has asked the University to detail what the problems are with the current process and the University has been reluctant tell us whether their position on this is a matter of principle as ‘managerial prerogative’, or in response to an actual operational problem they are trying to address.

Probation

The CPSU provided wording for the University to consider in regard to situations where assessment of suitability has not been possible due to absence of a probationer. The University will respond at the next meeting but this clause looks very close to being agreed upon.

Back Pay

The University again confirmed that there would be no back-dating of any pay rises to coincide with the former agreement – this means that the University will not be paying the pay rise that was due in May of this year. The CPSU insisted that they explain why they took this position. The negotiators advised that the University would like to see the whole outcome of the EB package – that is the overall cost of implementing the new agreement – and that this may be an incentive to agreement. The CPSU advised that any pay offer to members will be considered in terms of the time since the last EA lapsed and the end of the new one.

The University indicated that it was not closed to considering an administrative payment based on (yet to be determined) agreed terms.

Re-cap

In an effort to move towards finalising outstanding clauses, the parties recapped progress so far. Based on this discussion, the CPSU expects the following clauses will be discussed at the next EB meeting:

  • Dignity and Respect
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Employment
  • Misconduct and Serious Misconduct
  • Implementation Committee
  • Domestic Violence
  • Career Planning and Development and HDA

Members please…

  • Continue to let your colleagues know about what is happening in enterprise bargaining
  • Send an email to OPC and the University about your concerns via this link   OPC enterprise bargaining website

Finally, for your information – before this session of bargaining commenced, the NTEU noted that it was having a national day of action on 20 August 2013 and that they had advised the University.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 12 – 1 August 2013

At the recent EB meeting Susan Hudson, Director HR Strategy and Services attended at the request of the unions. The CPSU felt that having a university management representative and subject matter expert in the room allowed the discussions to flow more readily. It provided an environment where the unions did not have to explain to the University’s negotiators how things operate and the underlying principles and history of each clause discussed. Some very good ‘in principle’ discussion was had.

The Career Development clause was discussed in the context of the University’s feedback to the unions’ claim – which is a professional development fund and a staff mobility program to be established (which are complementary to the current clause) but which the University has not accepted. Susan was able to elaborate on some of the career and self- development programs already in place and funded by the University that are consistent with the current clause. The University believes that by removing some of the content of the current clause (eg the examples of what career development might be) that this removes restrictions on the opportunities for career development at the University. The CPSU’s position is that career development is an important part of its members’ relationship with the University and that is why it is strongly supporting funding and other career and self-development to be codified within the enterprise agreement. The CPSU also raised broadbanding in the context of career development within these discussions.

Susan was also able to confirm that the University is looking to purchase a new job evaluation process through tender, which will include training for nominated union staff. This allows the unions to do further work on their claims in relation to the Classification clause.

The University put forwards its position in regards to the flex leave clause – the 2 claims from the University are:

  • Reducing flex days per month from 2 to 1
  • Removing the management process for flex leave and incorporating greater controls in taking of flex leave into policy, including the capacity to accrue flex leave

The University indicated that the reason it was pursuing this claim is that managers have indicated that it is difficult to manage the taking of 2 days flex leave per month and that new provisions have been incorporated into the EA, such as carer’s and personal leave to deal with the concept of work life balance. Additionally the University noted that taking flex days instead of annual leave leads to an accumulation of annual leave, and increased leave liability is an additional cost to the University.

The CPSU advised the negotiators that its members are very concerned about these claims put forward by the University. The unions believe that 2 days flex leave per month allows genuine work/life balance for staff and allows the University to undertake its operations on a cost effective basis over a large number of campuses separated by distance. Reducing flex days to one a month would lead to increased costs for overtime, restrictions on the ability to cover longer operating hours, plus the need for additional staff to cover the workload, not to mention lowering staff morale. The unions believe that poor management of the taking of leave should not lead to penalising those areas and staff that work well in the flex system. While the University indicated that it may be difficult to quantify costs it undertook to provide some costings around this claim.

The University provided its claim on the probation clause which is not controversial. It is to make allowance for situations where assessment of suitability has not been possible due to absence.  The unions agreed in-principle subject to the provision of some wording suggested by the CPSU.

The University tabled its re-drafted misconduct clause which is very different to what is currently in the agreement. The CPSU requires the opportunity to consider the changes and will respond to the claims at a future meeting. Broadly the proposal deletes review processes.

The Domestic Violence clause was again discussed. The unions are not satisfied with the University’s proposal to incorporate domestic violence into the personal leave clause. The University appeared to be willing to consider the unions’ position and invited submission of some further wording on this clause.

The University tabled changes to the Dignity and Respect clause. The University proposes to use the new Fair Work Act definition of bullying within the clause and to remove the University’s commitment to training of staff and supervisors. The unions will be looking at the changes to respond at a future meeting.

The CPSU’s position on a number the matters raised in the meeting are directly related to access and equity – in career development, in work/life balance and individual responsibilities, in transparency of process, in reasonableness in the workplace – and using the enterprise agreement to address these issues for the benefit of staff and the University, and we will continue to pursue this.

In the last report, we incorrectly reported that the University said no to any back pay when actually, the negotiators had undertaken to seek the University’s position. However, we can now report that the University has definitely said no to the payment of back pay. We have corrected the last EB report to reflect this.

What can you do?

  • Talk to your colleagues about what is happening in enterprise bargaining
  • Send an email to OPC and the University about your concerns – there is an online email on the OPC enterprise bargaining website
  • Contact your delegates about any aspect of enterprise bargaining that concerns you.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 11 – 18 July 2013

At last week’s EB meeting the University provided some responses to clauses put forward by the unions over the past months.

Superannuation

The University has said no to the CPSU’s claims for superannuation to be paid during maternity leave without pay. The CPSU believes that its claims for the payment of superannuation during maternity leave without pay goes directly to redress an equity imbalance in this area, and it is consistent with the University’s record of being an employer of choice for women. The CPSU sees this as having positive effect on recruiting and retaining women. The CPSU has asked the University to provide costings on implementing this clause.

The University has also said no to the NTEU’s claims to increase the amount of superannuation paid to fixed-term and long term casual staff, and to include the current legislation relating to superannuation guarantee in the agreement (both claims were supported by the CPSU). The University is seeking advice from Unisuper Trustees on the NTEU’s claim to remove the age restrictions on superannuation. The University indicated that increasing superannuation to fixed-term and long term casuals would cost the University $32M over the proposed life of the agreement.

Parental Leave

The University said no to the CPSU’s claim for paid parental leave for casuals (on a pro-rata basis), and no to leave for grandparents assisting a child who is a new parent. Again the CPSU believes that these principles are equity based. The University has indicated it will provide costings around these clauses.

The University has also said no to the NTEU’s claims to increase the amount of paid maternity leave and to increase the amount of paid partner leave (again both these claims supported by the CPSU).

Sick Leave

The University will consider including medical appointments under the sick leave provision, subject to some scoping around the meaning of “medical appointment”. In addition apart from some minor wording changes to be done by the CPSU relating to notification timing, it appears that there is much progress on this clause.

Annual Leave/ LSL

The sticking point for the CPSU has been removing the wording that says annual leave/LSL will be “by agreement” between staff and supervisors, and making operational requirements as a significant factor in leave approvals. The University indicated that it is considering putting forward some wording to ensure that reasonableness is taken into account in approving leave.

The University has said no to the CPSU’s claim for additional annual leave for staff undertaking regular overtime. The CPSU has asked for information about the incidence of overtime.

The University asked the CPSU to provide some wording to the University about the payment of LSL to casuals, so some progress here.

Diversity, Dignity and Respect

The University has considered the claims put forward by the unions in relation to this clause. The CPSU put forward very minor modifications to increase the commitment of UWS however, this resulted in the University submitting a counter-claim which stripped back the clause – removing the definition of bullying and requiring union responsibility within the clause. However, the University is now considering some changes to wording which incorporate the Fair Work Act definition of bullying and removing the unions’ responsibility. This however, is still substandard to the current version of the clause in the CPSU’s opinion.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment

Some movement has occurred in relation this clause, and it appears to be agreed in principle.

Classification

The unions explained to the University’s negotiators the basis of its claims under the Classification clause. In particular, the issue surrounding the insecurity of positions that are research grant funded was discussed as the unions seek to ensure that these positions are correctly classified. Under the Classification clause, the CPSU also raised the matter of a clear and transparent process for Broadbanding. The CPSU has asked the University to provide bargaining representatives with an update on their current investigation of an alternative job evaluation methodology.

Policies

The unions have again submitted clauses addressing the ability for unions to be involved in consultation about employment related policies. The University has said in past meetings that they believe that unions’ involvement in policy consultation is not necessary or desirable. They have declined to provide any further explanation. However, the University will be putting forward some words relating to the current process for feedback and consultation on policies.

Efficiency

The University noted that it could not commit on some clauses put forward by the unions as it will be looking at efficiencies. The CPSU noted that the implementation of the trimester/summer school is in itself an efficiency gain. The CPSU requested that the CFO be invited to brief bargaining representatives, about the University’ finances.

Pay Rates

The CPSU’s position as outlined in its log of claim is that its salary claim is dependent on a number of factors. The CPSU asked the University whether it would backdate any negotiated salary increase. The negotiators will check with the University its position in relation to back payment as the last pay increase being made in May 2012.

Flex Leave

Members have raised this as a contentious issue put forward by the University. The CPSU has asked the University to provide its rationale on its claim on reducing the number of days of flex leave at the next meeting.

What can you do?

Talk to your colleagues about what is happening in enterprise bargaining, or talk to us or your delegates about any aspect of enterprise bargaining that concerns you.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 10 – 4 July 2013

At the recent Enterprise Bargaining meeting parties started with a stock take of clauses tabled so far by all parties with a view to finalise some of those clauses that have been the subject of ongoing discussion over the last few months of bargaining. Some of these clauses require modification of wording from the unions and some of the clauses require modification or responses from the University (via their negotiators). The unions agreed to this approach to start with in order to ensure that clauses already put forward are not parked to one side without agreement but are kept on the agenda.

The lawyers bargaining for the University put forward the University’s position on the Dignity and Respect clause. Both the CPSU and the NTEU had put forward revised versions of this clause at previous meetings, looking to strengthen the University’s commitment in this area as a response to both our logs of claims. The unions used the outcomes of the MyVoice survey in which staff raised concerns in the area of bullying as evidence that this is an issue at the University. However, the University’s position did not take account of the positions put forward by either unions but started from the existing clause in the current EA.

The University has already indicated in its log of claims that it wants to simplify the EA and move some matters to policy. The CPSU expressed the view that policy is not negotiated with employees, and can be changed at any time by the University, so this offers no certainty to employees. Their revised clause proposed to remove both the definition of bullying, the training component, and the managerial role out of the EA. The CPSU and NTEU voiced concern that this would be perceived as diminishing the University’s current level of commitment to staff concerns around bullying, particularly as these points were included in this clause in the last EB round. The negotiators advised that they would seek advice from the University.

The University’s position on the matter of domestic violence was tabled. Both the unions had put forward new clauses to address this issue within the EA. The CPSU’s proposed new clause was framed under Family Violence. The University has proposed to incorporate domestic violence within the existing Personal Leave clause. Discussion centred on the matter of disclosure of sensitive personal information relating to domestic violence and the handling of such within the University. The University believes Domestic Violence should be included in policy but could make amendments to include in other leave provisions. There would need to be a clear process for staff to access this leave. The University refused to have as a separate clause but to include it as a subset of Personal Leave:

CPSU believes this ignores the fundamentals of their claim, didn’t take into account the highly confidential nature of this issue, and asked that further instructions be sought from the University.

The bargaining team is increasingly concerned that the University’s position as presented by its bargaining representatives appears to be that current entitlements should be removed from the Agreement and be in policy and that many current claims should not be in the Agreement but are more appropriate for policy. At the same time the University is refusing to consider any obligation to consult formally on policy that impacts or has a potential impact on employment conditions.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Clause is close to agreement with outstanding issues being around some wording and the allowance.

The University representatives had not received any instructions in regard to the Staff Development Fund as part of the Career Development Clause. They will seek instructions from the University for the next meeting and present a redrafted Career Planning Clause.

In regard to Career development opportunities for Professional staff, the University draft clause removes all of the currently listed ways that are available to employees, and only leaves a general statement.

The CPSU believes that conditions relevant to this clause are being stripped away: the CPSU will not accept this further diminishing of professional staff career opportunities. CPSU were unable to agree to the University’s views on the HDA clause in that it should be removed from the Agreement. This will be a massive removal of a commitment from the University and it was noted that this mechanism is important to professional staff, in that it provides a higher level of experience, maintains corporate knowledge within UWS, and is an important part of succession planning. CPSU to provide redrafted Sick Leave Clause. The University representatives would get instructions on Annual Leave, Parental Leave for Casual Employees and Grandparents Leave.

Stock take of clauses would be conducted at the next meeting.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team
Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 9 –  19 June 2013

At the recent Enterprise Bargaining Meeting:

  • Discussion was held on increasing the frequency of meetings to weekly; however, this may not be possible.  It was noted that it was in everyone’s interest to have this finalised as soon as possible.
  • UWS has not provided us with written feedback on the clauses we have previously presented, notes and agenda items are being sent the day before the meeting. All parties agreed to the forwarding of documents in a timely manner prior to meetings.
  • Clauses not yet finalised but close to completion are:
  • Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Clause: outstanding issue is around numeric targets.
  • Implementation Committee: outstanding issue is the role of consultation on new policies; parties are not sure how this can be resolved. UWS reps believe that the Implementation Committee already has a wide-enough brief, and would prefer to keep some information about restructures, secret, even although it is a publicly funded institution. The CPSU believe a new statement on “policy consultation” would allow the unions to provide comment, and facilitate the process, as it was not about making decisions, on their behalf.
  • Sick Leave Clause: CPSU to provide updated draft to the University on minor word changes, discussed, and agreed in principle, via email.
  • Organisational Change Clause: University prefers current draft. UWS reps to get instructions. Redundancy/Redeployment provisions may be simplified and should logically sit with the Organisational Change Clause. UWS reps are to get instructions. CPSU discussed the history of this clause, and the rationale behind it. The unions commented on the constant and regular change at UWS and it was noted that there is a lot of staff fatigue because of this.
  • Recognition of Prior Service Clause: Dorothy provided a letter previously received from the University and which was confirmed by the University that they still had the same view.
  • Domestic Violence Clause: University reps believe this should not be a separate category of leave as it is not a matter pertaining to the employer/employee relationship. Unions disagree. UWS reps will provide some further information and present something that addresses this part of our log of claims. UWS reps believe current processes are adequate. CPSU suggested that perhaps these matters would be better placed in the Equity and Diversity unit, who have training in confidential matters, & where no formal records needed to be kept, rather than HR. CPSU Members believe this issue needs to be recognised and supported, and all employees have access to the same provisions, not “case by case”.
  • Dignity & Respect at Work Clause: discussions around the use of the words victimisation and vilification which have specific defined meanings and UWS believes should not be included. CPSU believes that this goes to the relationship at work around bullying or racial or discriminatory bias. UWS reps are concerned that different definitions are being created and that it is not an industrial issue and serves no useful purpose being in an Enterprise Agreement. They will get instructions on a simple variation of current clause. The CPSU believes that it should be referenced in our Enterprise Agreement.

The next Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 3 July 2013.

Please don’t hesitate to contact your Workplace Delegate/Enterprise Bargaining Team Member for any other advice or assistance.

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 8- 5 June 2013

After the recent enterprise bargaining meeting there is quite a lot to report back to members. Please take the time to read the whole bulletin, and apologies for its length.

At the meeting, the CPSU requested the University incorporate into the agreement union consultation on policies related to employment matters. The CPSU argued that such a clause is pro-active and facilitative to avoid conflict, and we also noted that it is consistent with the approach taken at other universities.  The bargaining representatives for the University were resistant to the CPSU’s request on the basis of the mechanisms to enact such a clause, e.g. the involvement of such a committee in decision making process. This proposal was also included in the unions’ amendments to the implementation committee clause (Cl 8) which the University has rejected.

The NTEU reiterated their formal response to the University’s position on the Indigenous Australian clause (Cl 61) restating that their position is that the University move from being aspirational to being committed to achieving numerical targets. The University’s bargaining representatives indicated that the University was willing to move to a numerical target (rather than a ‘percentage of staff’ target) but were not willing to move on the wording around aspiring to meet targets. The University also indicated they would not support any increase in allowances paid for indigenous language skills. The CPSU will continue to fight for an increase in all allowances paid within the agreement.

The CPSU presented its claims on sick leave which included: -“ essential health check” as a reason to take sick leave; clarifying that sick leave of less than a whole day does not count towards the 5 occasions after which a medical certificate might be required; and paying out of sick leave upon resignation, retirement or redundancy. The University’s bargaining representatives appeared to be agreeable to the first two propositions subject to the CPSU submitting alternative wording for consideration, but rejected the last proposal outright.

The training and development clause, which was submitted to the University by the unions at the previous meeting, was talked through. The unions proposed amendments to the clause include a staff mobility register, a dedicated quarantined staff development fund (of 2% of professional staff salaries) and a staff exchange program.  The staff development fund will be used to support training and development, including backfilling of staff on training where necessary. The unions have asked for written information on the amount of funding provided to professional staff development currently.

The University’s position on parental leave and annual leave clauses were discussed and responded to by the unions. The CPSU does not agree with the University’s proposal to change the current taking of annual leave arrangements which are “By agreement between the Supervisor and an employee annual leave may be taken…” to “annual leave will be taken at times approved by the University” (as proposed by the University) as this negates the employee’s choice.  Nor does the CPSU support that “… approval of annual leave will be subject to operational requirements”. (The CPSU has the same position on similar proposals put forward by the University in relation to long service leave which were not discussed at this meeting). The University’s argument is that these changes will facilitate the taking of annual leave, for which the leave liability at UWS is quite high (according to the recently released Auditor General’s report). Both unions rejected this argument. We believe that employees at UWS always take into account their work unit’s operational requirements.

In addition, the unions asked for additional information from the University about the proposed taking of annual leave during December/January closedowns. The unions explained to the University’s bargaining representatives that, apart from the very brief closedown that currently occurs, there is no other opportunity for the University to close down because of work commitments. The bargaining representatives asked if there was an appetite for cashing out annual leave, but the CPSU indicated there wasn’t.

The CPSU supported the additional parental leave claim put forward by the NTEU in response to the University’s proposal, but will be putting forward its own claims on additional partner leave, a new provision for grandparent leave, and parental leave for casuals. The CPSU also rejected the University’s proposal to pro-rata parental leave payments for subsequent parental leave periods where a staff member returns from an initial period of parental leave at part-time.

The CPSU also submitted an alternative domestic violence clause, entitled Family Violence, however, this will be discussed at the next meeting. At the next meeting we will be scheduling further EB meetings, as the next meeting is the last of the EB meetings scheduled in February.

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 7- 29 May 2013

Last week’s bargaining meeting was delayed by discussion between the NTEU and the university’s bargaining representatives in relation to content that the NTEU had included in their member updates. There was a general discussion of why the process was going so slowly, and why no clauses had as yet been completed. So far we have commenced discussions on: the Indigenous clause;  the implementation clause; and the organisational change clause.

Also on the agenda were the career development clause, including a secondment/mobility provision; a new domestic violence clause; the dignity and respect clause, and UWS’s position on leave clauses.

We also commenced negotiations on the new domestic violence clause, which seeks to include this as matter to be taken into account, in the agreement for any employee who needs it.

We spent a considerable amount of time discussing this with the bargaining representative, who was concerned  that it was not a matter directly relating to employment, could cost the university a lot of money, and puts UWS at risk of being sued for indirect discrimination (by employees who did not get the same benefits).

The CPSU demonstrated that domestic violence had already been included in many EAs by other employers, and was accepted by the Fair Work commission as appropriate. The university, we believe is already dealing with these issues informally, so it is to everyone’s benefit if it is accepted in the EA. We requested that this clause be presented to UWS, and a written response to be given back to us.

In the afternoon we discussed the dignity and respect clause, in which a minor change had been made to the current one. The bargaining representatives claimed that the unions should be included in this clause also, as a matter of mutual responsibility.

We believe this clause is about the employer/ employee relationship, and that any other issues they believe involving union activities are covered by other legislation. We requested that this clause be taken back to UWS, and a written response be given.

LEAVE

The UWS proposed draft leave clauses were looked at.

Annual leave: the main changes proposed by the University to this clause was the removal of the “agreement” of an employee about when the leave would be taken, to be replaced by the University” will direct an employee”, this was unacceptable to us. Another change was that UWS could direct staff to take leave at any time to suit its operational requirements. This was unacceptable to us. We pointed out that employees have a work life balance that includes taking holidays with their families and following their interests, while taking into account our work areas and peak periods, as we always do.

LSL: the main change proposed by the University was that the employee would be granted LSL by UWS only if it did not disrupt operational requirements, this was despite the University being given 6 months’ notice. This was unacceptable to us.

We commenced discussion on the Implementation committee clause, but ran out of time. The next bargaining meeting is scheduled for 5 June.

Please feel free to contact your bargaining team with concerns:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Scott Pendlebury
Huy Tran
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 6 – 8 May 2013

Your CPSU Bargaining Team met again with the lawyers from Maddocks, who are bargaining on behalf of the University and with the NTEU representatives on Wednesday 8 May 2013 as part of the scheduled EB meetings. In the morning session, the NTEU and the lawyers discussed academic workloads, with the CPSU Branch President, Kathy Kyle in attendance. The balance of the CPSU bargaining team attended the afternoon session.

In the afternoon session, Kathy strongly noted the CPSU’s concern and frustration about the lack of progression in finalising and coming to agreement on any clause so far discussed. The University has still not got back to the Unions on the proposed changes to the Implementation Committee (Clause 8) and Organisational Change (Clause 49). This lack of progress is disappointing given the Unions are putting forward suggestions without getting anything back from the University. The lawyers were able to advise what the University was still actively considering in relation to these clauses (but not what they have agreed to), and what the University would not consider. The primary point of disagreement between the Unions and the University is the role of the Implementation Committee in relation to both these clauses.

We also talked to the Unions’ proposed changes to the Career Planning and Development clause (Clause 49) as a preliminary for the next meeting, expanding on the issues raised as a direct response to members’ concerns in this area and our log of claims.

It has been agreed that the next few meetings will be dedicated to professional staff issues. On the program for the next meeting are the Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy (Clause 61), the Implementation Committee (Clause 8), Organisational Change (Clause 49), and Career Planning and Development (Clause 41). In addition, the lawyers have indicated that they will put forward the University’s position in relation to the leave clauses (including annual, long service leave, and parental leave). Each party has also agreed to bring to the table a clause in which the proposed changes are minor and which may be dealt with expediently in order to gain momentum on agreement.

And, still there is no resolution to the matters raised from the first meeting regarding resourcing of employees representing you on the CPSU bargaining team which we will continue to follow-up.

The next meeting is scheduled for 22 May 2013. Please feel free to contact the bargaining team or your delegate if you have any questions.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 5 – 24 April 2013

A meeting was held on 24 April 2013 as part of the scheduled EB meetings. Your CPSU Bargaining Team met again with the lawyers from Maddocks who are bargaining on behalf of the University, and with the NTEU representatives. This combined meeting was shorter than usual due to the NTEU and the lawyers discussing academic workloads in the morning.

We talked to the Implementation Committee clause, to which proposed changes were submitted to the lawyers at the last meeting. They were not able to provide any instructions from University management.

We also spoke to the Organisational Change clause. Each union tabled changes (as submitted within their respective logs of claims) for the purposes of discussion only, and so that the lawyers could seek further instruction from the University before we finalise a formal draft. The CPSU’s changes are: improved information within the change proposal, providing input into the process at the Implementation Committee level, and incorporating the definition of “substantially the same work” to ensure that staff undergoing restructures, will remain in the same position in the new structure, when their duties are unchanged.

As part of the discussion around organisational change, the outcomes of the MyVoice survey were raised to provide context and to illustrate ongoing concerns from members about the University’s handling of change.

The discussion and outcomes are moving slowly with the lawyers having to seek input from University management at every turn. Still, there is no resolution the matters raised from the first meeting regarding resourcing of employees representing you on the CPSU bargaining team which we continue to pursue.

The next meeting is scheduled for 8 May 2013. Please feel free to contact the bargaining team or your delegate if you have any questions.

On behalf of the CPSU bargaining team:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 4 – 10 April 2013

On 10th April 2013, your CPSU Bargaining Team met again with the lawyers from Maddock’s who are bargaining on behalf of the University, and with the NTEU representatives.

Before bargaining commenced, the University’s bargaining representatives raised issues in regard to correspondence it had with the NTEU, in regard to waiving rights its members had. Both Unions stated that they would not waive any rights, and were prepared to continue to bargain in good faith.

The CPSU introduced an alternate employee representative Huy Tran, who was in attendance today replacing Tanya Rubin who was unable to attend. Lorraine Fordham gave her apologies.

The University’s bargaining representatives replied to our request for resourcing of employees engaged in bargaining, to have a pool car and a replacement for time release. The related concerns about insurance coverage whilst travelling is still not clarified to the Unions’ satisfaction. This resourcing was again rejected on the grounds that we were not “employee representatives”, despite the fact that for every Enterprise Agreement we have negotiated in the past, UWS have provided this to employees who are involved in negotiations.

The Unions agreed that this was an important issue and reflected on the mindset that seems to have replaced the goodwill of the past bargaining teams. We had been assured by UWS that bargaining would not be carried out in a “legalistic way”, but that remains to be seen. Further action will be taken by the CPSU about this issue.

The claim for indigenous employment was considered. Some controversial changes suggested by UWS were withdrawn, but a major sticking point in relation to specific numeric targets for indigenous employment remains. A joint union clause will be put forward as a final draft next meeting.

General discussions took place about the Implementation Committee clause. A major concern for the CPSU is to ensure that UWS supports training in the application of the Enterprise Agreement for Managers and Supervisors. The University’s bargaining representatives stated that the clause needed to be made briefer. The CPSU is of the view that the Enterprise Agreement must ensure that our entitlements are clearly expressed in all circumstances. The CPSU will present a draft clause to be considered for its next meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for 24 April 2013.

Bargaining Team Members:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Huy Tran

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 3 – 27 March 2013

Your CPSU representatives met with the lawyers appointed by the University to bargain for them, and representatives for the NTEU on Wednesday 27 March. There was a delay in starting due to the resolution of issues between the NTEU and the University about the conduct of bargaining.

Once bargaining commenced, the first item discussed after a symbolic acknowledgement of country, was the Indigenous Australian employment clause. While there appeared to be agreement on terminology changes, the sticking point was the commitment to targets and the mechanisms to achieve those targets. The discussion on these points is ongoing. There was no opportunity for negotiation because the lawyers said that they were not able to change the position the University had given, and they still had to refer a number of matters back to the steering committee.

The matter of resourcing of CPSU representatives is also not resolved. The CPSU received, late the night before the bargaining meeting, a response to its communication to the University in December, on this matter. The University is still refusing to support employees  in an appropriate way including not paying for the costs of travel to meetings, or to backfill them when at meetings and there has been no clarification of whether these employees are covered by the University?s workers compensation while doing so. This under-resourcing of staff bargaining on behalf of other staff seems imbalanced given the cost to the University of hiring specialist employment lawyers to bargain on their behalf. The University’s bargaining representatives have again been asked to go back to the University steering committee to ask them to reconsider and clarify the problematic resourcing issues in the light of the CPSU’s submissions.

What continues to concern your CPSU bargaining representatives is the lack of engagement between the University’s management and the bargaining process. There is no staff member representing University management?s view. The use of external lawyers to bargain is unprecedented in the University sector.

Some progress was made, however, towards the end of the meeting, with parties identifying a number of clauses where no change appeared to be required at this stage. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday 10 April, with discussion to be on the Implementation Committee, Organisational Change and Career Development and Secondment – all points that we raised in our log of claims.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the bargaining team or your delegates.

Bargaining Team Members:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 2 – 6 March 2013

On 6 March 2013, your CPSU Bargaining Team met again with NTEU representatives and the lawyers from Maddock’s that are bargaining on behalf of the University.

Despite the CPSU seeking clarification on bargaining protocols in December last year, the University has not yet resolved issues related to resourcing EB – including costs incurred by CPSU members to travel to EB meetings; carry-over of preparation time by CPSU members from one EB meeting to another if not fully used; and not allowing the CPSU to contact UWS employees via University email regarding bargaining.

At the meeting, your CPSU Bargaining Team asked for clarification of some of the University’s log of claims because of the controversial nature of those claims. The lawyers bargaining for the University were unable to respond to this straightforward request. The reasons given were that the reasons should be evident; that the reasons were known but would not be discussed at this point; or that matters had to be referred  back to management for advice. The next EB meeting will be held on Wednesday 27 March and the agreed agenda includes indigenous employment and welcome to country; a clause-by-clause analysis of the current agreement; consideration of clauses relating to organisational change and leave; and terms of reference for the Implementation Committee.

As always, your CPSU bargaining team and delegates welcome your feedback into the process so please feel free to contact us.

Tanya Rubin for your Bargaining Team

Bargaining Team Members:

Kathy Kyle
Lorraine Fordham
Tanya Rubin
Dorothy Molyneux

Top of Page

Enterprise Bargaining Report 1 – 18 February 2013

The CPSU Bargaining Team met with UWS and NTEU representatives on 18 February 2013 to commence enterprise bargaining. This meeting was the first chance for your union representatives to meet the external solicitors from Maddocks law firm, who will be bargaining on behalf of the University. At the meeting, the parties discussed a number of protocols and matters regarding the procedures for bargaining, and determined an agreed schedule of meetings.

All parties presented their log of claims. The CPSU, of course, presented the log of claims circulated to, and endorsed by members last week. The University’s log of claims is now available on the University’s website www.uws.edu.au/enterprisebargaining. All members are urged to view the University’s log of claims and to draw it to the attention of their colleagues.  There are clearly a number of items that the University would like to introduce that will erode your current entitlements. Although the parties have not yet responded to each other’s log of claims, we will not allow any diminishing of your hard won conditions.

The next meeting is to be held on Wednesday 6 March to finalise protocols and procedural matters, including the order in which issues will appear on the rolling agenda for negotiation, with the first meeting for negotiations set for Wednesday 27 March. The meetings will continue fortnightly.

As always, the CPSU bargaining team, or your delegates welcome your feedback into the process especially the matters you believe should be prioritised for discussion.

Tanya Rubin for the Bargaining Team

Top of Page

UWS Contacts:

UWS CPSU Branch President

Kathy Kyle
Campbelltown
4620 3530 

k.kyle@uws.edu.au

UWS CPSU Branch Vice President

Lorraine Fordham
Kingswood
4736 0667

L.Fordham@uws.edu.au

UWS CPSU Branch Women’s Officer

Tanya Rubin
Penrith (Werrington North)
9678 7836

t.rubin@uws.edu.au

UWS CPSU Branch Committee Members

Kellie McNamara
Campbelltown
4620 3530

k.mcnamara@uws.edu.au

Jean-Marc Maulguet
Campbelltown
4620 3187

j.maulguet@uws.edu.au

Huy Tran
Penrith (Kingswood)
4736 0906

h.tran@uws.edu.au

Michael Reolon
Hawkesbury
9678 7624

m.reolon@uws.edu.au

Malcolm Tiddy
UWS College
9852 4322

m.tiddy@uws.edu.au

Rachel Polanskis
Penrith (Werrington North)
9678 7291

r.polanskis@uws.edu.au

Scott Pendlebury
Penrith (Kingswood)
4736 0801

s.pendlebury@uws.edu.au

Carmel Votano
Campbelltown
4620 3013

c.votano@uws.edu.au

For more information about your branch Check out your dedicated website here. 

Top of Page
 PSAMSCLogoSmall


 PSA-Journey-Insurance-icon-July-2014

 

Indigenous flag dot painting small