Professor Duncan Maskell, Vice-Chancellor
9th Floor, Raymond Priestley Building
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010 Australia

Professor Russell Goulbourne, Dean of Arts
Ground Floor, Old Arts
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010 Australia


Dear Prof. Duncan Maskell and Prof. Russell Goulbourne, 

We are writing to you in your capacity as Vice Chancellor and Head of School to try and resolve a grievance issue in the Faculty of Arts and the University itself. We are hoping that by raising this complaint with you informally, you will be in a position to consider the best outcomes in a timely way. This is consistent with s 5.4 of the University of Melbourne Student Complaints and Grievances Policy (MPF1066). We are writing to you as a united group of students in the Faculty of Arts, as well as others in support from other faculties. 

Specifically, this grievance relates to our bitter disappointment with the treatment of staff at this university. Our education is being compromised because our lecturers and tutors simply cannot perform at their best under the subpar conditions that they are currently experiencing. We fully support the industrial action that has been taken this week, and we blame management for the disruption to our tuition. 

We are raising a joint complaint under section 4.5 of the University’s Complaints and Grievances Policy (see below) as we have all been affected by the treatment of staff which led to the industrial action.

4.5. Students may raise joint complaints or grievances where more than one student has been affected, in which case the matter will be considered as one issue. In these cases, all students who have agreed to be party to the complaint or grievance must be named. If two or more complaints or grievances about the same matter are submitted independently, they may be considered jointly by agreement of all parties concerned.

 

The history of the grievance and attempts to resolve it

During the week of the 28th of September, numerous classes of ours went on strike. For many of us in the Faculty of Arts, all our classes were cancelled due to the strike action. This strike would have been completely avoidable if management had negotiated in good faith with the NTEU. Instead, management left the bargaining table thus eliminating any chance of negotiation. Currently, we believe that staff are not being treated with the respect that they deserve as hardworking members of this University.

 

We have taken previous action to submit formal individual complaints and in the responses received from the University no commitment was made to change action (Attachment 1). In the responses received, we were told that the University was negotiating with the Union in good faith, however, this cannot be the case if management were prepared to walk away from the bargaining table prior to the strike. Further, the current offers to staff do not address secure work concerns and instead offer wage increases that do keep up with inflation (Attachment 2). The demand for 80% secure work is not only reasonable but essential, as we believe it is shameful that the University does not provide its academics with secure work. Casual work on short-term contracts does not reflect the University’s respect for its staff and leaves those who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis without secure work. 

In our response to our initial complaints, we were told that our complaint did not constitute a complaint under section 4.2 of the complaints policy. However, section 4.2 reads as follows:


4.2. Students may raise complaints or grievances in relation to administrative decisions, including but not limited to:

(a) decisions by administrative staff affecting individuals or groups of students;

(b) administration of policies, procedures and rules of the University;

(c) standard of service received through the University administration; or

(d) access to resources or facilities.


We maintain that as students we are raising a complaint in relation to the administration of the University not to negotiate adequately with the NTEU. As such this has had an adverse impact on the standard of the educational service that we are receiving from our degrees. Additionally, we were told in our complaint response that the University was endeavouring to make up for education loss by providing different avenues such as keeping the LMS accessible. However, any material that is made available to students by striking teachers is a breach of the strike. Further, it is inaccurate to presume that keeping the LMS open is enough to make up for the lost lectures and tutorials. We are paying for what has been ranked as the best education in the country. However, the best education in the country is reliant on the best staff in the country. If staff are not adequately compensated and not treated fairly then they cannot provide the best education possible. Therefore, we maintain that our complaint does constitute a complaint under section 4.2, and that management is single-handedly responsible for the loss of education. 

Moreover, we were told that our complaint did not meet the grounds for a complaint under section 4.7:


4.7. Grounds for complaint or grievance include, but are not limited to:

(a) a student being affected by a decision made without sufficient consideration of facts, evidence or circumstances;

(b) a student being affected by a failure to adhere to appropriate or relevant published University policies and procedures;

(c) a penalty applied to the student being unduly harsh or inappropriate;

(d) a student being affected by improper or negligent conduct by another student or staff member; or

(e) a student being affected by unfair treatment, prejudice or bias.


However, under section 4.7(a) our complaint does meet the grounds for a complaint as a managerial decision was made not to meet all NTEU demands and to walk away from the bargaining table which led to the week long strike. This decision was clearly made without sufficient consideration of circumstances as the need for union demands to be met are due to the circumstances of immense pressures placed on staff. This has had an immense impact on us as students as we are not able to learn effectively from staff who are not treated fairly. 

Furthermore, if the University maintains their position that our complaint does not actually constitute a complaint, I urge the addressee to consider the University’s commitment to student learning conditions and the opinions and experiences of the students. We believe that the response received thus far does not demonstrate commitment to our learning experience or our entitlements as fee paying students.  

 

Therefore, as students, we wholeheartedly support the staff strikes and hold the University responsible for the lackluster education we are receiving as staff cannot teach and work in such subpar conditions. 

 

Reasons for the Determination

Our relationship as students to the University is through the staff. We know that our teachers and academic services, Stop 1 and library staff are all hardworking and dedicated individuals. They have been mistreated. Not only have they had their wages stolen from them, not only are they underpaid for marking and for overtime, but they are clearly not valued by the University. 

 

If staff were valued, they would be fairly compensated for their work and their jobs would be secure. Casual work demonstrates that staff are as disposable to the University as their contracts are. The current state of affairs is ridiculous. This week we have admired the strength of staff to stand up for their rights as workers. We stand by them and we give them our unwavering support. 

 

The Resolution Sought

Therefore, management must negotiate with the Union in a way that demonstrates a genuine interest in improving the work experiences of staff. This includes agreeing to the Union demands set out in Attachment 3 because “demands such as 80% secure work, a fair pay rise, and no forced redundancies are not only reasonable, but necessary to building quality education at the University.” (Attachment 3). 

Further, we believe that staff and students are owed a formal apology from the University for both the lack of fair teaching conditions and the subsequent inability of staff to deliver the best education possible. We wish for the University management to admit their full responsibility for the missed tuition, as it occurred as a result of their unwillingness to deliver upon the fair and reasonable NTEU demands. We believe that we have suffered a loss in our tuition and education and maintain that the University is responsible for this. 

 

We would appreciate acknowledgement of the receipt of this grievance within five working days of its receival.  Notification of the investigation process would be appreciated within 15 working days, as per the indicative timeline in section 5.12 of the policy.

Signatories:
 

1. Urszula Nowak (Politics and International Studies)
2. Tahlia McDonald (Politics and International Studies, Spanish and Latin American Studies)
3. Ava Wansbrough (Gender Studies)
4. Bryda Nichols
5. James Gallagher (Geography)
6. Joel Duggan
7. William Roumeliotis (Science)
8. Eva Matthews (Psychology)
9. Katherine Carpenter (Linguistics and Applied Linguistics)
10. Harriet Carpenter (Linguistics)
11. Jack Doughty (Music)
12. Stuart Pattison-White (Linguistics)
13. Eugene Soo (Politics and International Studies)
14. Adele Roeder
15. Theo Purchase (Politics and International Studies, Criminology)
16. Olivia de Aizpurua
17. Rebekah Hopkins (Media Communications, Italian)
18. Joseph Sadleir (Politics and International Studies)
19. Lucy Beltrami (English and Theatre Studies)
20. Finley Japp (English and Theatre Studies)
21. Prudence Anderson (English and Theatre Studies, Art History)
22. Molly Anders (Anthropology)
23. Geordie Kidd (Linguistics)
24. Erica Giudici (Chemistry)
25. Grace Wake
26. Hayley Marsh (Politics and International Studies, English and Theatre Studies)
27. Isaac Heap (Politics and International Studies, Economics)
28. Alessandro Rizzo (International Relations)
29. Harriet Norman (History)
30. Marlon Toner-McLachlan (Politics and International Studies)
31. Thomas Devonshire (History, Politics and International Studies)
32. Evelyn Garcia (Politics and International Studies, Linguistics)
33. Mieke Crighton (Politics and International Studies)
34. David Jeisman
35. Priyanka Hannah Mudali
36. Isabella Ioannidis (Criminology)
37. Thomas Hofer (Politics and International Studies)
38. Catherine Forge (Politics and International Studies, Media and Communications)
39. Aimee (Psychology)
40. Niamh McInerney (Politics and International Studies, Literature)
41. Josh van de Ven (Linguistics)
42. Sahana Selvendra
43. Annie Cavenett (Politics and International Studies, Media and Communications)
44. Cameron Proposch (Psychology, Politics and International Studies)
45. Caitlyn Sproston (Politics and International Studies)
46. Tyler Davey (Criminology, Politics and International Studies)
47. Annabelle Bullock (English and Theatre Studies)
48. Ildi Clemens (Politics and International Studies)
49. Mia Ruddock (History)
50. Alexander Bowering
51. Aoibheann Mcconnon-Elvins (Media and Communications, Politics and International Studies)
52. Arthue Duckworth (History)
53. Tahlia Tannous (Politics and International Studies)
54. Jocelyn Rowland
55. Amelie Sims (Psychology)
56. Lili Way (Neuroscience)
57. Emma Giddens (Politics and International Studies)
58. Ariel Zhang Yao Yong
59. Mary (Psychology)
60. Felix Clerk
61. Ishara Tilakaratna (Politics and International Studies, Economics)
62. Emma Elliott (History and Philosophy of Science)
63. Sienna Pivetta
64. Kayla Milliken, (Psychology, Criminology)
65. Claudia Cunningham (Politics and International Studies)
66. Tom Alessandrini (Politics and International Studies)
67. Jasmine Michie (Politics and International Studies, Media and Communications)
68. Alessandra Ward (Politics and International Studies)
69. Sebastian Hugh (English and Theatre Studies)
70. Melissa Hon
71. Caitlyn Clark (Psychology)
72. Shaun McMahon
73. Brendon Henry (Politics and International Studies)
74. Jesse McDougall (Psychology)
75. Melissa Zi Yun Hon (Politics and International Studies)                                                                                              

Editor's Note: This open letter was originally sent to the recipients via email and has been published by Farrago with formatting edits for visual clarity. References to "Attachments" throughout the letter refer to attached files in the original email not republished here.