Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:46:45 GMT From: Peter ODonoghue To: workplace delegates CC: Council, Sub-Division Executives From: Peter O'Donoghue, Division Secretary Subject: public sector cuts File No: 011.20/13-17 Date: 8 May, 1996 Colleagues, You will have heard through the media that the CPSU is holding meetings of members today (in ACT) and tomorrow to inform members about the cuts to the public sector, the unwillingness of the Government to provide information about numbers and service reductions, the changes proposed to industrial legislation and to discuss how the union may respond. While most of the slashing and burning will have a marginal impact on CSIRO and our members, the changes to industrial relations will be more significant if passed by Parliament. Although our members are welcome and encouraged to attend, I don't anticipate that many will. However, they may be interested in the situation and I set out below 3 documents with which members in the APS have been provided. There is a lot of information for which I apologise, but please disburse or dispose as you see fit. Cheers, Peter. ALL APS & RELATED AGENCY MEMBERS 2 May 1996 MEMBERS TO STOP WORK CPSU National Executive has called stopwork meetings of all APS and related agency members in protest at the Government's proposals to cut APS staffing. The meetings will be held on Thursday 9 May in all States and the Northern Territory. The ACT meeting will be held Wednesday 8 May. The meetings have been called following the Federal Government's refusal to meet three union requests which were based on the pre- election promises made to our members and the Australian community. We asked them to: * reveal the number of jobs to go; * explain how the work would be done; * guarantee no compulsory redundancy. The Minister, Peter Reith continually claims these cuts are part of the Budget process and can't be quantified but we know that most Departments have already identified around 10% staff cuts, and plan to implement these cuts before July. These cuts and those planned for the future represent an appalling attack on the public sector. The Government has set up an "Audit Commission" to look at ways of cutting expenditure and it is likely to recommend further cuts when it reports in June. In addition, the Government plans to chop $8 billion from public spending through the Budget over the next two years, the most massive cuts ever envisaged and in excess of those outlined under the "Fightback" package which was so clearly rejected by the Australian community. A strong response needed The CPSU must respond. At stake are our members' jobs and the services provided to the community. It is also essential that we make the public absolutely aware of the consequences of these cuts. Our strategy must take account of these two priorities. We also recognise the differing needs amongst our members, between those who believe that the option of voluntary redundancy is their preference in these circumstances and those who want security about their future but must have an acceptable workload. The National Executive is recommending the motions detailed over the page as the first steps in this campaign. It has the following elements: * Stopwork meetings to demonstrate our opposition to cuts. * Industrial action which is service-wide and ongoing. * Strike action to be authorised in the face of any compulsory redundancies. Briefing notes for delegates will be provided and there will be full explanation of the strategy at meetings. The industrial action is to effectively drop the functions we perform to the same level as the staffing available. This can be done either by not doing the work of any unfilled positions, or by making a decision that if staff is cut by 10%, then 10% less work will be done. This provides wide scope for our delegates to decide the best application of this action in their agency, and how it can be most effective. The motion also determines that the first functions to be dropped would be those that provide assistance to Government MPs and Ministers, eg, responding to Ministerial enquires. We will also call urgent meetings to authorise strike action should any member face compulsory redundancy. This is a threshold issue for the union, and the fact that the Minister refuses to rule it out is a cynical rebuttal by the Government of its pre-election promises. Other elements of the NE recommendation are to continue to develop links with the community and other groups to build pressure on the Government. We plan public rallies, media and publicity work and organising lobbying. We'll be providing kits of information to delegates to ensure members can be involved in this work. But obviously that also means that we need to be conscious of the need to minimise inconvenience to client groups when we plan our industrial activities. This is a vital campaign and is about turning the Government back from its slash and burn approach to the public sector. Our campaign recognises that the issues are also community issues and looks to building support with many groups. National Executive asks for your support for the motions below. Motion 1 "This meeting of CPSU members: * totally rejects the Government's attacks on the public sector, including the current round of proposed cuts and future cuts arising from the Audit Commission report and through the Budget. * calls on National Executive to organise rallies and other public campaign activities with the community to protect and promote the public sector and to oppose cuts, including in the ABC and plans to privatise Telstra; * calls on NE to develop action targeted at Government MPs and Ministers (eg Ministerial enquiries) based on recommendations from delegates committees in agencies; * demands that staffing is based on workload, not on an arbitrary process of cost cutting, and * determines that until there is agreement about matching workload and staffing, members will adopt strategies to manage workloads through either not performing the work of unfilled positions or reducing work consistent with the proposed staffing level. Specific strategies for individual agencies to be authorised by NE. This meeting condemns the Government for withdrawing from the clear commitment given to members prior to the federal election, that there would be no redundancies arising from their proposals. We reject any proposals for compulsory redundancies and determine that should there be any move to implement compulsory redundancy, membership meetings will be convened to authorise a 24 hour strike and other action. This meeting calls for a report back to members on the campaign within 2 weeks. Motion 2 This meeting of CPSU members approves the establishment of a fighting fund to campaign on public sector issues. This meeting calls on all members to donate to the fund. Motion 3 This meeting condemns the Government's proposed new industrial legislation which seeks to undermine existing wages and conditions and destroy the ability of workers to negotiate collectively. This meeting endorses the ACTU coordinated lobbying campaign against the legislation. Authorised by Wendy Caird, Joint National Secretary To: Branch, Section and Division Secretaries for distribution to staff National Officials and staff Briefing 3 May 1996 APS Cuts Campaign We are now in the second phase of this campaign, the deadline of 30 April having passed without the Government agreeing to supply figures for staff cuts, or the commitment to no compulsory redundancies. In fact we received no reply at all, despite a reminder letter and phone call from me. It is now clear that compulsory redundancies are being considered, Peter Reith having refused to give a commitment to the contrary. NE met on 1 May and decided to call stop work meetings of members in APS and related agencies for 9 May. The ACT is on a different schedule, with a rally on 8 May already planned and the meeting on 13 May. These will be mass meetings. The industrial strategy has the following components: stopwork meetings; work reduction strategy; ban on assistance to Ministers and Govt MPs and further meetings to authorise 24 hour strike if compulsory redundancies proceed. We are conscious of the need to keep community organisations onside so will consider the industrial action carefully. Also we have many members wanting voluntary redundancy so have to take this into account also. In addition to the industrial action, we have a strategy to organise community support. Key features are: linking with community groups, Marg Sexton is doing this and it's going well; developing kits for delegates, these will include a checklist of local activities, eg lobbying local Member, talkback radio input, linking with local groups, speaking at local forums, letters to politicians and newspapers, draft motion for workplace meetings to pass on, posters, letters to client groups, the Vision statement, facts sheets, case studies of the effect of cuts etc. A kit will also be prepared for interested other groups. We are developing further posters and a brochure of our case study family. We have ideas about public rallies and conferences. One important element will be clearly demonstrating regional effects and also specific effects on service delivery and members can be very helpful in this work. We are operating on the assumption that we will need community activity to turn back the cuts agenda, so this is work that must be ongoing. In addition we have commissioned research on the Budget and the deficit, which will help with our arguments. Telstra campaign Pier de Carlo and I spent last Monday in Parliament House with the ACTU and CEPU lobbying ALP and minor parties, well timed as the Telstra sale legislation was introduced on 2 May. It seems certain the legislation will be referred to a Senate Committee for enquiry, slowing and possibly defeating the sale. IR Legislation We are supporting the ACTU campaign against the legislation, our particular areas of concern are the proposals to strip our paid rates awards back to minima, and the proposals to exclude unions, from access to members and also from the bargaining process. Top priority is to get signatures on the petition against the legislation. The Senate may refer this to a committee process also, but we need to show community opposition to it to ensure there is minority party support for our concerns. PRD It may be that the Government considers our stopwork meetings an appropriate trigger for the cutoff of PRD, but we are well prepared, thanks to your work of conversion. C2/6/3 1 May 1996 TO: NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH/ DIVISION SECRETARIES NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL OFFICERS RE: COALITION IR LEGISLATION - THIRD REPORT Further information has been received from the ACTU relating to the Government's proposed industrial legislation. The process for drafting the legislation is going a lot slower than anticipated, and the Bill may not be tabled in Parliament until mid-May. This timing means the chances of the Government getting it through both Houses before the end of the first session are fairly remote, and unions will have more time to build our campaign against the legislation. Material is now available on the following aspects of the proposed legislation: Objects of Act The statement of purpose at the start of the Industrial Relations Act is completely changed, with strong emphasis on achieving macro-economic objectives, the direct employer/ employee relationship, enabling agreements to be made either as provided for under the Act or otherwise, restricting awards to a safety-net of minimum standards, and making arbitration available only as a last resort. There is no reference to basic principles expressed in the current Objects, such as protecting standards through awards, meeting international obligations for labour standards, prevention and elimination of discrimination, access to arbitration where necessary, and encouraging the formation and development of representative organisations. These changes merely reflect the detailed provisions which undermine collective processes and the role of the Industrial Relations Commission. Award System All awards are to be explicitly confined to a minimum safety-net, with the deletion of the existing concepts of maintaining relevance, taking into account employee interests, giving employees prompt access to fair conditions, and the need for stable relativities and skill-based career paths. A list of "allowable award matters" sets out exhaustively the pay and conditions issues which the IRC can insert into awards, although dispute findings, conciliation, consent arbitration, and certified agreements can still cover the full range of industrial matters as at present. The list is classifications, ordinary hours, minimum hourly pay rate, trainee rates, piece rates, annual leave, long service leave, sick leave, family/ compassionate leave, public holidays, allowances and loadings, overtime rates, penalty rates, redundancy pay, notice of termination, stand- down provisions, jury service, mode of employment, dispute-settling procedure, and matters incidental to the above. There will be, no doubt, some scope for clever argument about what can be included under these headings [giving meaning to "incidental to" could well become a lawyer's feast!], but outside of this list, the IRC will have no jurisdiction for award-making or arbitration. The IRC will be required to establish principles for dealing with all award matters. The fast-tracking provisions which currently assist workers from some States to achieve Federal award coverage will be repealed. In a situation where workers subject to a State award seek Federal coverage, the onus of argument will be reversed and the union will have to demonstrate public interest that a Federal award should be made, including evidence that it has "a substantial proportion of the employees" in its membership. This will affect all areas of CPSU coverage where members are seeking a first award. It will also remove the ability of unions to have awards made binding employers solely on the basis of constitutional coverage. A period of 18 months will be allowed for the parties to all existing awards to bring them into line with the minimum model. For paid rates awards, the conversion process will involve the expression of pay rates in two components - a minimum rate, and the balance of the current award rate as a supplementary rate which will be eroded over time. However, the treatment of conditions in this context remains unclear. After this period, any award provisions beyond allowable matters will automatically cease to have effect, and the IRC must vary it to bring it into line with the model. Minimum Standards Certified agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements will have to comply with a new no-disadvantage test, based on certain specified pay and conditions standards. These are spelt out in the legislation either directly or by reference to the relevant award or statute for the employees in question. The matters are pay [including ordinary time, overtime, penalties and loadings], annual leave, personal leave [which embraces sick, carer's and bereavement leave], parental leave, long service leave, equal pay and jury service. Most of the conditions are not specified at award standard, and the personal leave provision is framed to allow for Tweed Valley style buyouts in agreements. The nature of this narrower test means that outside of this list, any or no standards can apply for employment conditions under agreements. Australian Workplace Agreements AWA's will be able to be made in all areas of Commonwealth employment, including the Australian Public Service. They have to comply only with the specified minimum standards [see above], but wholly displace awards and prescribed laws for their period of operation. An AWA has effect under the Act only when filed with the Employment Advocate, but may be signed by the parties any time prior, including before an employee commences work. This will no doubt facilitate employer duress to accept the terms of an AWA a pre-condition for employment. In a small but important concession from its policy position, the Government now intends that where a certified agreement is operating, an employer cannot make AWA's inconsistent with the collective agreement. In this situation, unions would obviously seek a provision in a certified agreement specifically precluding the making of any AWA's. Otherwise, the door could still be open for employers to attempt to buy workers out of collective bargaining.