Telstra has made claims in a letter posted on the internal Yammer ‘social media’ site that are once again misleading staff who are voting on the EA.
Telstra claims that statements in the CWU bulletin implying that you can be reassigned to an unsuitable job against your will and you can be denied a redundancy payout if you refused are incorrect.
Clearly the written words about what is suitable, and what is not, is open to debate – but where is that debate resolved?
Telstra EA, Section 8. Redundancy, clause 40.1, says:
“40.1(a) Telstra may appoint an employee to..…another suitable role…..
40.1(e) Telstra retains the discretion about who is selected..…for appointment to another role..…”
Section 9. Placement Period, clauses 49.4, 50.1 and 50.3 says:
“49.4 If you are appointed to another suitable role by Telstra, you will not be entitled to a retrenchment benefit…..”
then
“50.01 If you have been appointed to a new role…..you can request a review of the suitability of the role after 3 months, and no longer than 4 months…”
and
“50.3…..you can request a review under Telstra’s internal resolution process…..
You are appealing to Telstra HR against a Telstra Manager’s decision.
Your full entitlement here is only to make a request, Telstra decides what happens next.
Telstra, on Yammer, go on to say that the CWU assertion that an employee in the ‘Job Family’ whose performance is rated satisfactory, and gets only 1.5% increase (i.e. less than the cost of living), is untrue. They don’t disagree that the 1.5% rise is entirely possible.
Appendix A says:
A1.3 “Provided your performance was at a satisfactory level…..you will receive at least a 1.5% increase in fixed remuneration.”
Telstra’s Yammer posting then goes on to say more:
“…..regardless of how highly you may be positioned in your remuneration range, you could still receive at least a 1.5%…..”
We rest our case.
In terms of the Job Family ‘merit matrix’, yes Telstra ‘consults’ with the unions, but it is not a negotiated and agreed matrix. Telstra again decides at its discretion.
Finally with the number of employees on expired AWAs and ITEAs voting in the ballot that are not on the EA, you would think they wouldn’t bother with their argument the CWU is wrong – wouldn’t you?
The claim that Telstra makes on Yammer is that our assertion that well over half are not in fact currently on the EA is misleading. Well Telstra, what is the real number of expired AWAs and ITEAs who are voting?
5.3. Relationship with AWAs and ITEAs
“a) if you are:
- i) employed on an AWA or an ITEA in a Band 2 role or below, and
- ii) not a qualified legal practitioner in Telstra’s Legal Services business unit then you are covered by this Agreement but it does not apply to you.
- b) This means that your AWA/ITEA will continue to set your terms and conditions unless it is terminated which you can choose to do at any time.
Whatever the number why are they voting in your EA?
For Telstra to post such complicated and misleading counter arguments on Yammer seems to indicate they are worried about getting their ‘yes’ vote campaign accepted.