Tasmanian Catholic employers — from the ridiculous to the unconscionable

The behaviour of the Tasmanian Catholic Education Office (TCEO) – which still refuses to properly bargain on a new Agreement – is descending into farce. 

Of late, they have gone to great lengths to stop Tasmanian IEU Organisers from going about their normal work, trying to prevent them from assisting members, and meeting with principals and staff in schools.

Richard Heyward (TCEO HR Manager) has made a discrimination claim against Tasmanian-based IEU Organisers, asserting that they are discriminating against him on religious grounds by speaking directly to principals without his involvement! Mr Heyward also made a Fair Work Claim stating that the IEU is wrong to identify principals ‘as, or representing the employer when it seeks to resolve disputes’ under the Agreement. Never mind that the Agreement itself defines principals as ‘the person appointed by the Employer or his/her representative to be in charge of the school’. 

Tasmanian Catholic school principals may be interested to learn that, according to the TCEO, they have no power or authority. Mr Heyward describes principals as ‘non-relevant parties’, and argues that the ‘correct identification of the employer is the employer’s designated representative which is the People Services Team of Catholic Education Tasmania…’ – in other words, himself.

We are flattered at Mr Heyward’s enthusiasm to talk to us and sad to learn that he feels left out when we communicate directly with principals. However, we will continue our long-standing practice (as required by the Agreement) of talking to the relevant principal first about any concern that comes up at their school. If a matter is likely to escalate, we involve the TCEO, and we respect principals’ rights to seek advice, support, and representation. The fact is that most concerns we raise are local matters, and easily and co-operatively resolved. Unfortunately, in our experience, when Mr Heyward gets involved things get messy and protracted – in particular, his persistent failure to respond punctually or constructively has caused principals and countless staff significant and unnecessary stress.

In another desperate attempt to prevent the IEU from going about its core business, the TCEO has also started to insist that IEU Organisers present a current Registration to Work with Vulnerable People (RWWVP) in order to set foot in a workplace. Organisers have no contact with children; their sole contacts on school visits are members of staff. If there was any doubt that this is just a hurdle thrown in the way of union representatives by the TCEO, consider this: the TCEO are also refusing to allow IEU Organisers to attend meetings at the Hobart TCEO Offices unless they show a RWWVP, despite the fact that there are no children or students at these offices!

Unfortunately, this anti-union ideological warfare is not only complicating the work of IEU Organisers, it is also continuing to derail bargaining for a new Agreement. While we continue to seek regular, constructive meetings with the TCEO, they maintain their refusal to meet for long enough to have any meaningful discussion (and never in person). We served our claim last November, and after eight months we have had three short online meetings with no real progress - when we do meet, their vocabulary seems to be largely limited to the word ‘no’. The TCEO are also desperately trying to work around the IEU and ‘negotiate’ with employees through an online portal. That way they can avoid any real discussions and maintain the imbalance: the TCEO, their lawyers and all of their resources on one side, and individual employees on the other; and they won’t even meet members in person!

All in all, it seems a pertinent time to remind the TCEO of basic Vatican II doctrines recognising unions and their crucial role in workplace relations, as well as Pope Francis’ own sentiment regarding unions:

‘Trade Unions have been an essential force for social change without which a semblance of a decent and humane society is impossible under capitalism.’ 

Originally published in The Point V12 N3