Dear members. Time for an update again.

Transcription

1 Dear members Time for an update again. LABOUR COURT The Executive shares the members concern about the delay with a judgement in this matter but we assure you that as soon as we hear, the outcome will be shared with all of you. There is nothing that one can do, we just have to wait and wait this happens with judgements of the High Court. This is a complex matter and we trust the Judge is applying his mind to the issues detailed in the various submissions. Remember this is an UKSU issue and UKSU members will benefit if we are successful. 24 DECEMBER 2015 We wrote before about the 2015 sessional dates, which, for the first time, stated the University will close only at 16:30 on 24 December. UKSU made a submission to the JCF back in February and it was eventually confirmed at the May meeting that the Executive Management had agreed for the University to close at 12:00 this day. This will serve at the next Senate meeting for confirmation seeing as Senate had previously approved for the University to close only at 16:30. The next meeting was stated to be on 13 May but there has been no notice to the University community since then confirming the time had changed, so we wait until the next JCF to hear whether Senate confirmed this. CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SERVICE PROBLEMS AND DISRUPTIONS There has still not been any response to this request. QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you again to those members who responded. It has been a long road analyzing all of the responses and the report has been submitted to the JCF agenda for the meeting scheduled 2 June See the report on JCF for further information on this meeting. The responses support what UKSU and all unions have been telling management for months and months. Now that this is documented in a survey, we hope that something will come of it. MEETING WITH THE VICE CHANCELLOR The scheduled meeting with the new Vice Chancellor did not take place as scheduled 6 March. The Executive met with him on Monday 25 May. It was a frank meeting but was certainly not long enough to fully discuss all issues. UKSU has subsequently sent a letter to him to clarify some of the points mentioned. It was interesting to hear that there was an acknowledgement of the perilous state of the University s finances. There are tough times ahead but UKSU will be there to make sure that your rights are defended. A copy of the survey report was given to Dr van Jaarsveld at this meeting. FINALISATION OF RETENCHMENT PAYOUTS It is sad to have to report that this has still not been finalised. Management refused to honour its policy and the conditions of service rights in terms of what was due to these colleagues. It was agreed to obtain a ruling from a Senior Counsel and both parties were bound, in terms of the agreement on this, by the outcome. The findings were provided to the two legal teams on 9 January 2015 and to date these people, who lost their jobs, have still not been paid what is due to them and due to them in terms of their conditions but denied unlawfully by management. The calculations are still not done in terms of

2 the SC findings that binds both parties. We have attempted without success to date to discuss the errors with management but continue to receive no response. MEMBERSHIP It is so pleasing to note that UKSU continues to grow regularly. Remember to encourage your colleagues and friends to join the largest and by far the best and most active union at UKZN. The membership application form is available on the UKSU website Remember to Like UKSU s Facebook page Staff-Union/ ?fref=ts. RETIREMENT FUND TRUSTEE ELECTIONS UKSU is proud to say that the three members of the UKSU Executive who stood for election: Raymond Parkies, Trevor Maistry and Charmaine Musto, were all elected to the UKZN RF Board. JCF There have been so many matters on the agenda of late that the meetings have not been able to deal with all. The June meeting had been set down for a full day so that these can all be concluded. UKSU s concern has been re-affirmed regarding the number of issues which should serve at JCF but do not and are approved by other structures without serving at JCF. UKSU now has two other members of the executive attending, over and above the three delegates and the Chair who attend regularly. In April the UKSU survey was an agenda item for the JCF. The section on performance management and ITM involved both academic and professional staff and the intention was to provide a short presentation on this portion and on consultation on the Senate Norms only, to the April meeting, with a further presentation on the remainder of the results at another meeting. However, the JCF resolved that only once all of the data from the entire survey had been analysed, then a full presentation should be made of the entire outcome. At this meeting, management also stated the Human Resources Development (HRD) team should be present when the presentation is given as they manage the performance management processes. With management making this statement regarding the HRD team, it indicates they did not have an objection to the submission serving at JCF. Park this thought, as it is interesting when we get to the June meeting! Those academic staff who had completed the survey are aware how long it was, so the analysis of the responses took a great deal of time. As mentioned above, recent meetings had not been able to conclude all of the matters and this submission was not dealt with in May. However, during the correction of the April minutes management stated they had a correction and the minutes were amended to add: The concerns raised by Mrs Williamson regarding the approach that had been followed by Uksu for conducting the survey were noted. At the commencement of the June meeting the Executive Management representative at JCF, stated that management objected to the UKSU survey report being an agenda item for the JCF. This was supported by the Executive Director: Human Resources, who is not a member of the JCF in terms of the Recognition Agreement. They stated their objection was due to there being no purpose for the survey, the survey was biased, the methodology was problematic, the Executive Director: Human Resources had not been approached for permission to conduct the survey, the JCF was not the Forum for this report, etc. UKSU provided information from the SA Constitution, the LRA and its Constitution regarding its right to communicate with its members and to organise its affairs independently. However, management continued to object. This is why it is said above, park this thought. This item had been on the agenda of

3 two previous JCF meetings and management in April had stated the HRD team must be present for the report on the survey now suddenly they are objecting to it even serving at JCF at all and requesting it be removed from the agenda. Apart from UKSU s independence to communicate with its members, the Recognition Agreement details what matters serve at JCF. The Chair asked management to raise their objections during the discussion following the presentation but they remained steadfast of the view that the item should not serve at JCF at all. The two parties then caucused separately and each with the chair. The union consensus was that management had clearly indicated that they do not participate in JCF in good faith. The unions also jointly raised their objection to the number of HR staff members who now regularly attend JCF for its entirety and who participate in all debates, not just on matters for which they are there to report or discuss. After the management caucus and management-chair caucus, management reported that it was prepared to allow the agenda item. However, as management had been unwavering in their objections, even after the Chair had suggested that the issues be raised during the presentation, they continued to object and refused to accept that as a way forward. It was thus very clear to the unions that there could be no meaningful engagement with the report and resolved to declare a dispute. The written dispute has now been lodged and will be dealt with in terms of the dispute resolution mechanism in the Recognition Agreement. The meeting was then obviously abandoned. RECENT CHANGES TO LABOUR LEGISLATION Recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act (LRA), the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) are now in effect. We already have some member cases that are being dealt with where the University has not conformed. Obviously they claim to have complied but this is being challenged where we disagree. The amended LRA was effective 1 January 2015 for new contracts but where any contracts were already in place, then it is effective three months after, i.e. 1 April. Some of the changes are: The changes in terms of TES staff, fixed term contracts and part time employees are only applicable to those employees earning below the threshold, currently R One change is regarding what is termed Temporary Employment Services (TES) or more commonly labour brokers. The employee does work for the client but is paid by the employment service provider. A TES employee may now only work for the TES s client for a period not exceeding three months, as a substitute for an employee who is temporarily absent or in a category of work where the service is determined to be a temporary service. After three months these TES employees are deemed employees of the client and are regarded as indefinite employees of the client for the purposes of the LRA, except when working as substitutes for temporarily absent employees or in a temporary service. Once deemed to be an employee they may not be treated less favourably than the other employees of the client who are performing the same or similar work. There is a list of justifiable reasons where this does not become the case. These relate to seniority, experience or length of service / merit / the quality or quantity of work / other criteria of a similar nature. The client and TES are now jointly and severally liable for contraventions in terms of the LRA, once the three month period has expired. Such would relate to terms and conditions of employment. Thus the employee can now institute any proceedings in terms of any dismissal or unfair labour practices against the client or the TES, or both; LRA s21(12) extends the workplace of TES employees in that it allows trade unions to exercise organisational rights at either the TES work place or the client;

4 Staff on fixed term appointments, who earn below the threshold, are further protected with these amendments. Fixed term contracts are restricted to three months unless the work is limited or of definite duration or there is some justifiable reason for fixing the term for a period longer than three months. If there is no justifiable reason for fixing the term at longer than three months or there are repeated contracts for longer periods, then the contract is deemed to be of indefinite duration. The justifiable reasons for fixing the term beyond three months, include: Replacing another employee who is temporarily absent; A temporary increase in the volume of work, not expected to exceed 12 months; A student or recent graduate, employed specifically to be trained or gain experience for entering a job or profession; To work exclusively on a specified project that has a limited or defined duration if such contract extends beyond 24 months the employee is entitled to severance pay unless alternative employment with the same or similar terms is offered prior to expiry of the current contract; A non-citizen with a work permit for a defined period; Seasonal work; Employed in terms of an official public works scheme or similar public job creation scheme; Externally funded employees, funded for a limited period; Employees who have reached the normal or agreed retirement age. Where the contract is fixed, the employee must have a contract in place and this must give the justification for the term. The employees, where there is a justifiable reason to fix the term, may not be treated less favourably than permanent employees who are performing the same or similar work. There can be justifiable reasons to not treat them the same, which are: seniority, experience or length of service / merit / the quality or quantity of work / other criteria of a similar nature / any other criteria that is not prohibited by the Employment Equity Act s6(1). All fixed term employees must be provided with equal access as permanent employees to apply for any vacancies. The changes affecting part time employees are applicable only where the employee works for less than 24 hours in a month. This is also only applicable after three months of employment. Part time employees cannot be treated less favourably than any other employee doing the same or similar work. The same justifications apply as mentioned above. Part time employees must be given the same opportunity as full time employees in terms of access to training, skills development and the opportunity to apply for vacancies. There are also some changes to automatically unfair dismissals and when an employer tries to amend terms and conditions of employment pursuant to a restructuring. The amendments to the EEA are also now effective. These deal with unfair discrimination, either directly or indirectly against employees in any employment policy or practice, including remuneration. The listed prohibited grounds include: race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture language, birth (as before) and now added on any other arbitrary ground. However, it is not unfair to discriminate when taking affirmative action measures. An earnings or conditions differentiation based on any of the grounds listed or any other arbitrary ground is unfair discrimination, unless the employer can show that the difference is based on fair

5 criteria, e.g. experience, skill, responsibility. The employee has to show the link to the discriminatory ground/s. The employee has to prove (1) whether the work concerned is of equal value and (2) whether there is a difference in terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration. Then the employee has to prove this difference constitutes unfair discrimination (link to a ground). Same work means the work is identical or interchangeable. Substantially the same work means the work is sufficiently similar that the employees being compared can be reasonably be considered to be performing the same job, if their work is not identical or interchangeable. Same value work is in a different job but where the respective work is given the same value after a proper assessment, e.g. same Peromnes grade. Most of the BCEA changes are regarding sectoral determinations where there are vulnerable workers. On the issue of items required to do one s work with, e.g. uniforms, employees must provide such and employees can only be made to pay for such where the purchase is through a scheme in which the employee will derive financial benefit or the price of the goods, products or services provided by the scheme are fair and reasonable. The Employment Services Act states it is: To provide for public employment services; to provide for the establishment of schemes to promote the employment of young work seekers and other vulnerable persons; to provide for schemes to assist employees in distressed companies to retain employment; to facilitate the employment of foreign nationals in a manner that is consistent with the objects of this Act and the Immigration Act, 2002; to provide for the registration and regulation of private employment agencies; to provide for the establishment of the Employment Services Board; to provide for the establishment of Productivity South Africa; to provide for the establishment of Supported Employment Enterprises. Regards UKSU Executive