On Thursday, 26 November, your ASU Bargaining Team met with representatives of AIA management to continue negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. Management has told us that they hope to finish discussions before the Board Meeting on 15 December. We think that’s doable, but we need your feedback on the progress of negotiations. Your local delegate or organiser will be reaching out to schedule a local members meeting between now and the next bargaining meeting on 4 December 2020.
This is an update on the outstanding issues in negotiations:
Wages: We presented the ASU claim for a 3% pay increase for each year of the agreement. Management foreshadowed they may not be able to accept this claim without significant trade-offs. We’ve asked management to respond at the next meeting and provide modelling to support their position.
We might need to consider a short-term agreement (e.g. for 1 year), so we can negotiate again when the future is more certain.
Part-time employment: we explained to management member concerns that the new words would limit the flexibility that part-timers value so highly. Management explained that they don’t believe the proposed words would affect current practices. We’ve suggested that when the EBA is put out to vote, they should make this clear in the explanatory material.
Casual conversion: we explained that management’s casual conversion clause would inadvertently expand the scope of casual employment at AIA. Management agreed with our concerns, and we are working on different wording.
Classification Structure, indicative roles and classification reviews: We have considered management’s suggested classification structure, and we don’t believe that it’s quite right yet. However, a classification structure is something that takes a lot of time. We’d need to map each role at AIA, consider their PDs and actual duties, and then compare them to the classifications in the underlying SCHDS Award. This would take a lot of time and effort, which would slow down the progress of negotiations. We certainly would not be in a position to make an in principle agreement before the 15 December board meeting.
The question for members is: should we take the time to fix the classification structure? Or should we maintain the status quo, and pursue a final deal before the end of the year.
Relocation and travel costs: We discussed members concerns about management’s changes to this section. We think we can find a way forward that doesn’t limit existing rights to reimbursement.
Annual leave at half pay: Management have listened to our concerns about the rigid nature of the leave at half pay proposal. They are considering an alternative way forward.
Purchased leave: Management has noted our concerns about the changes to the purchase leave clause. They acknowledge the proposed changes do not make sense. They will come back to us with a response at the next meeting.
‘In principle agreement’ means that both the management and ASU negotiating teams have a reached a deal they believe would be acceptable to members (for the ASU) and the board (for management). If we reach in principle agreement on 4 December, we will update you ASAP and ask for your views. If a majority of member support the deal, we’ll lock it in.
Need more information?
Contact your organiser for more information:
|NSW & ACT Services||Jan Primrose||0418 439 264|
|QLD Services||Jeremy Young||07 3844 5300|
|SA/NT||Paul Grillo||0418 841 769|
|VIC TAS||Kristy Lee Tyrell||0419 506 310|
|WA||Lisa Jackson||0417 969 502|