Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2567 ..


MR SPEAKER (continuing):

Ms Follett's letter of yesterday referred the issue to Mr Berry, and hoped that Mr Berry would "be able to put a position on behalf of the Government that should make substantial progress from the current positions of both parties".

A source said that the unions' complaints should be less strident by the Monday meeting, but did not elaborate further.

Ms Folletts's letter closed by saying that she looked forward to a "favourable report from the meeting". But Mr Heaney said that the Monday meting would be "a waste of time unless [Mr Berry] is given the authority to decide Treasury-related matters ... The AMEU, for one, does not have the patience to wait for Ms Follett's turn on the roster to make a decision".

Mr Heaney called on Ms Follett to convene a meeting.

------

Scrap deal, start again, unions tell Government

A proposed enterprise bargaining agreement between the ACT Government and its 22,000 employees may be scrapped after 12 months of talks and a whole new agreement negotiated, unions said yesterday.

The unions appear set to reject the Government's enterprise bargaining proposal, put in February. This sets out some very detailed changes to workplace practices in exchange for a 4.5 per cent wage rise over two years.

But the assistant secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, Maureen Sheehan, said of the proposal that "we need to tear it up and start again".

Scrapping the agreement would have no immediate effect, because it is not due to be implemented until the end of the year.

Ms Sheehan said the Government's proposal would have been very hard for employees to understand and would have locked the unions in, meaning the Government could make budget cuts, including job losses, without negotiating with the unions.

"Essentially they wanted to buy our silence," Ms Sheehan said.

The secretary of the Public Sector Union, Cath Garvan, said it was obvious that some unions would never have ratified that agreement-"we were flogging a dead horse".

The new proposal floated with the Government on Friday was for "minimal agreement".

According to Ms Sheehan, the "minimal agreement" would only include statements that productivity savings should be made in return for wage increases, and that there should be no job losses. The TLC was now working on a draft of this agreement, which the Government and unions would consider soon.

Under that broad framework, Ms Sheehan said the details about where savings could be made would be struck industry by industry, or even union by union.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .