Unanimous resolution at public forum
This public meeting condemns RMIT for breaching its own processes for staff probation, and for the lack of natural justice afforded to Robert Austin in the handling of his probation issue. This sacking makes a mockery of RMIT’s proclaimed values of “ethical behaviour and responsibility”, “cultural diversity” and “fairness to all”. It is yet another example of the dangerous shift to the right in Australia.
We further condemn RMIT for conceding to pressure from a conservative media that parrots the line of a government bent on curtailing academic freedom by threatening the loss of public funding to public universities. Columnists such as Andrew Bolt must not be allowed to dictate the political perspectives of academics. Universities must not be allowed to suppress such perspectives, or deter pro-student union activity by staff members. The curtailing of academic freedom sits alongside such ideological attacks as the proposed industrial relations and anti student union legislation, and 'terror laws'.
We call on RMIT Vice Chancellor Margaret Gardner to rescind the sacking of Austin forthwith, and provide a public statement reconfirming RMIT's commitment to academic freedom, proper process and the principles of natural justice.
This meeting also declares our support for future activities on this issue if the matter remains unresolved, such as:
- RMIT NTEU members holding a branch meeting in December to discuss the implications of this case for all staff;
- Students and staff sending a delegation to the VC to argue Austin's reinstatement;
- a demonstration to be held outside RMIT's Building 1 on Bowen Lane;
- an open letter to be sent to RMIT’s Globalism Institute proposing that it condemn RMIT's actions.
Moved: Natalie Zirngast, RMIT Womyn's Information and Research Officer
Carried unanimously, 30 November 2005
(around 45 present).
See video of forum
here.
Public Forum
Defend our universities - Defend Robert Austin6:00 PM Wednesday 30th November
RMIT University, Bld 22, Level 4, Room 11
Cnr Swanston and La Trobe Streets
Report on the Campaign to Defend Robert Austin and discussion of its implications. Speakers to include:
Ruth Evans - NTEU Workplace Delegate
Liz Thompson - Spanish 1 student and NTEU activist
Carmen Rosas - El Salvadorean Communiy Leader
George Papanastasiou - Victoria University Academic (International Trade)
Lisa Farrance (chair) - 2004-05 NTEU Branch Committee member
Spanish speakers welcome - Bolivian anti-privatisation activist, Claudia Bonel, will be present to translate.
Note: Case 3 noted below is the case of Robert Austin.
>>> "Jeanette Pierce" 11/24/05 12:14 pm >>>
** High Priority **
To all members
The Branch is involved in a number of cases that are raising serious concerns about the university's approach. While the Branch has always endeavored to maintain constructive relationship with the university these concerns have potential implications for all RMIT staff members and therefore cannot be just quietly tolerated. We are seeking discussions with senior management, but if we are not able to resolve our concerns members may need to consider that we take visible and public protest action and defend our interests over the coming months.
In the process of representing members the Branch has become concerned about the university's interpretation of relevant agreements and policies. The Branch is dealing with a number of cases, in which it is apparent to the Branch, that the university is more than willing to take an aggressive stand in spite of legitimate and reasonable alternatives. We are particularly concerned about members being subjected to harsher treatment based on past perceived differences with their local management or because of their Union association.
The following are real cases that illustrate our concerns;
Case 1. A staff member and Union delegate in FSG has decided to accept early separation for his own personal reasons. The Branch had expressed serious concerns that this position was targeted because of the staff members Union association. The staff member was under enormous pressure to accept the early separation and their decision in no way diminishes the Branch's concerns about the way management frustrated redeployment options and placed obstacles to every alternative suggestion that was made by the Union to avoid the redundancy.
Case 2. An academic staff member of 18 years in the School of Management who, under strong pressure, has accepted early separation as part of the university targeted 180. At the same time the School is advertising a number of similar academic positions which raises serious questions about the real reason our member has been targeted and is being pressured out of a job. In addition the School and Portfolio are insisting she leave on Dec 20th and be deprived of Christmas closedown entitlements. Agreed departure dates of Dec 31st have been widespread practice elsewhere in the university and it is appalling and mean spirited way to treat anyone. In this case the Branch asked the VC to directly intervene and ensure this long standing member has an effective departure date of Dec 31st.
Case 3. The Branch is currently in dispute with the university over the university's decision not to confirm employment of a probationary academic member in the School of International and Community Studies. The Union has repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked to see the evidence on which this decision has been made. The Union vigorously defends the right to natural justice and a proper and transparent probationary process. The Branch will not accept the university's right to dismiss any member, probationary or otherwise for no clear reason or for reasons that may interfer with academic freedom. The rights of academic staff to participate and express opinions in public debates are protected under Schedule 2 clause 5.6 of our Enterprise Agreement. At this point the dispute is with the university but if the Unions concerns cannot be resolved we will have no hesitation in escalating this case to the Australian Industrial Relations Commision.
We are comitted to protect members interests, therefore if management is going to treat the new industrial climate as an invitation to disregard legitmate input from the union and to become aggressively punitive then we will be meeting with members in the new year to discuss ways of using our collective strength wherever and however it will have the most effect.
Jeanette Pierce
President
RMIT Branch NTEU
Monash Student Council resolution, 17 Nov 05
Motion #8: "This MSC defends the decision made by Dr Robert Austin to reschedule classes to allow students to attend an anti-VSU NDA and calls upon the RMIT vice chancellor to have him reinstated."
*For:* 13 *Against:* 0 *Abstentions:* 1 *Motion carried*
Andrew Bolt from the Herald-Sun and Prof Rob Watts from RMIT University debate:
"Groupthink and the University Left"Friday 25th of November - 12:30 to 2:00
RMIT University Storey Hall, Swanston St
Presented by the School of Social Science and Planning
Columnist Andrew Bolt from the Herald-Sun has recently criticised an RMIT teacher for forwarding an email to students giving them details of an upcoming environmental protest. In a later column Bolt was again critical of an academic who postponed classes so that students could go to a protest rally. What then is the role of Universities in public life? What should be the role of academics, staff and students in today's universities?
Article by Natalie Zirngast & Lisa Farrance published in Green Left Weekly, 16 November 2005. See
here.
9am Federation Square, 10am March up Swanston St and La Trobe St to 11am Exhibition Gardens. Postscript: Nearly half a million protested around the country against the IR laws. Well done!!
Formal Appeal Against Dismissal
The basis of my appeal is that RMIT has failed to properly apply its Probation Policy and Probation Procedures in relation to my employment.
Since my commencement at RMIT in February 2005, I have had four nominal supervisors: Dr Christopher Ziguras, Dr Paul Battersby, Ms Guosheng Chen and Professor Manfred Steger. Whilst there was an initial attempt to meet and develop a workplan as required under the Probation Policy, this has in fact not eventuated and I have not been assisted in developing one. To my knowledge, management offered a single unworkable meeting on theme, at the end of first semester 2005 (Chen to Austin, 27.4.05).
Despite this, the assessment and regard with which my teaching and research are held is highly favourable, as per the Probation Review Meeting Form of 28 September 2005. However, under the category of “Service” to the university, the new Head of School, Professor Steger, has sought to terminate my employment on the basis of untested and unverified allegations of a lack of collegiality, and the spurious assertion that I do not “fit”.
The probation policy obliges the supervisor to hold regular meetings to allow for feedback and to provide an opportunity to actively support staff to respond to and address any perceived concerns. This has not happened.
I have had one meeting with Christopher Ziguras in May 2005 which dealt with a number of school matters, including some complaints that I had made or supported in relation to a number of concerns within the school. Amongst the issues discussed were the validity and veracity of anonymous student complaints which were never tested or substantiated, and advice from the Program Manager of International Studies that I present Latin American Studies from 2006 in a way which does not offend business students. Faced with such an intrusion into my academic autonomy, I objected. This has evolved into an assertion of lack of collegiality.
My first probationary meeting with Prof. Steger was held on 14 September 2005. When we were about to commence the meeting, I noticed a tape recorder on the desk behind our meeting table and asked if the meeting was being taped. I also expressed my objection: the HOS had not sought agreement from either myself or the NTEU representative present to tape the meeting. His PA was already present to take minutes. At this point, the Head of School abruptly terminated the meeting. It was later rescheduled for 28 September 2005.
The 28 September meeting saw the tabling of a memo with four points of concern. The meeting did not give me any genuine chance to respond and discuss the stated concerns in any rational way. There were again references to anonymous complaints/concerns, all of which have yet to be tested or substantiated. It was at this meeting that the infamous Bolt article was referred to as evidence of my lack of collegiality, at point 4. The meeting naturally ended on a tense note. However the formal Probationary Review Meeting Form filled out by the Head of School is not accurate, and is knowingly false in relation to what transpired.
At no stage has the Head of School attempted to develop any appropriate strategies to address perceived concerns in this process. Providing me with an EAP Pamphlet does not constitute the discussion of staff development and training needs. When the Head of School was asked for copies of materials referred to and relied upon to assert his views, these were denied on the grounds of confidentiality. The Probation Review Meeting Form of 28 September 2005 notified a final Probation Review meeting to take place in the first week of November 2005.
Two days later, in a display of less than collegiate conduct, the same Head of School and PVC Cumming disrupted a gathering of Spanish sessional staff and colleagues off campus, just after 8.30 a.m., in Druids Café. The PVC demanded my immediate return to campus, stating that he wanted an immediate meeting, without explanation; and falsely claimed that this process had been endorsed by the NTEU branch president. I refused. PVC Cumming had already intercepted and interrogated me as I entered the Café, and had evidently been pacing the pavement outside from 8.20 a.m.
Moreover, the next probation meeting was abruptly called for 12 October. There, new anonymous and untested allegations were aired, allegedly on behalf of some sessional staff. When copies of these were requested in order to clarify the exact nature of the “complaints” by the NTEU representative, they were again denied on the grounds of confidentiality. Despite this, I denied the thrust of the allegations and was attempting to present an alternative view, when the Head of School stated he was not happy with my response, and shortly afterwards that he had no alternative but to recommend termination to the PVC. The NTEU representative stated that, as a result of this, he would have no alternative but to notify an Industrial Dispute. This was done on 13 October 2005, and it is still a live dispute.
Throughout this process, management has increasingly demonised my alleged “lack of collegiality”, all under the nebulous concept of “fit”. Their approach has paid virtually no regard to my performance in relation to teaching and research, including development of a major international exchange program (see attached report) and winning five UMAP and one accompanying academic scholarships to Chile in 2006, all of which would be properly considered as service to the university.
At no stage have I had a workplan, nor have my various supervisors provided genuine support, assistance or advice in establishing me as an academic member of RMIT. Ms Chen, the nominated day-to-day supervisor, does not meet the requirements as outlined in the RMIT Enterprise Agreement 2000 (Schedule 2, Clause 10, “Academic Staff Supervision”). This in itself has caused tension, given the traditional VET focus of the Language programs and the essential contrast with a Higher Education focus. In my view, this hints at the real genesis of the major underlying and unarticulated issues in this matter, and management’s unshakeable preference for appearance over essence.
At all stages in my employment at RMIT I have been prepared to discuss all issues with my supervisors in an open and objective manner, but have been denied any genuine opportunity to do so, and have been subjected to punitive actions as a result. This, in my view, breaches a fundamental tenet of the principles of natural justice, which is a key consideration of RMIT probation procedure.
In an effort to prepare a better-informed response, I formally requested access to my complete personnel file on Monday 7 November 2005, for the following day. As per attached correspondence (Hansen to Austin and Austin to Hansen, 8 and 9 November 2005), the file provided was bereft of anything pertaining to the substantive matters in the probation process. Once again, management has denied natural justice.
To conclude, I would welcome the opportunity to be interviewed by the appeal committee in order to assist it reach an informed view of the way in which my probation has been handled by the university, and to clarify any questions committee members may have in relation to the proper application of process.
Robert Austin, BA (Hons), Dip Ed, M. Ed, Ph.D
Melbourne, 9 November 2005
