Angry staff at Unisa have accused the university’s management of unilaterally downgrading their posts, with unclear implications both for their current earnings and future pay negotiations.
They also say that although they have been given the choice of accepting or rejecting their new status, management has not spelt out what will happen if they reject it.
This week Unisa told the Mail & Guardian no staff member’s remuneration will be reduced. However, staff who declined their new grading ”will be included in the list of the staff to be considered for phase two of the process [of placing staff in the new, merged institution]”, said Barney Erasmus, vice-principal (operations).
”This phase involves placement through job application, or discussions will be held with such employees to try and resolve the matter amicably.”
He said the letters management started sending out two weeks ago are intended ”to formally confirm placement of staff in the new post-merger structure of the university”, and that more than 3 700 academic and administrative employees will receive them.
Erasmus said that because of the merger, ”the new institution was faced with a situation where staff members who were doing the same job were on different job grades and different remuneration systems. It therefore became imperative that jobs be re-evaluated and benchmarked, so that a common baseline on grades can be established for the new institution.”
The M&G has seen one of the letters, which is dated May 25. However, the recipient, who asked not to be named, said she received it only on Wednesday last week, and was required to indicate her signed acceptance or refusal on the attached reply slip two days later.
Like other academics who spoke to the M&G, she said she had no warning of the letter and did not know the implications of accepting or declining the changed grade.
Nic Coetzee, general secretary of Unisa’s Academic and Professional Staff Association (Apsa), said the association is advising members not to sign the reply slip. ”There is widespread non-compliance regarding the acceptance forms,” Coetzee added.
Apsa’s advice is to return the form unsigned, ”and if you wish, write in your own handwriting that as you have not been consulted, nor do you know the reason or motivation for the downgrading, you cannot sign.
”In law, that is a reasonable position. No one should be coerced into possibly agreeing to suffer damages.”
He told the M&G that one clear implication of changing post grades without cutting remuneration is that ”in future wage negotiations management could well say: ‘Well, you’re already earning more than your grade dictates, so no increase for you.”’
Two senior academics complained that the move pointed to management’s lack of respect for academic staff. ”The broad issue,” said one, ”is the downgrading of academics — psychologically and socially, and now too regarding conditions of service.”
The way management has handled the process is ”par for the course”, he added. ”We’re presented with a fait accompli and asked to sign documents we know little about. As so often, we’re not given a transparent rationale. This exercise shows a radical failure of communication.”
Erasmus insisted Unisa management has ”communicated adequately”. ”Staff members were constantly informed of the exact implications of the placement process through, among others, staff assemblies, ‘frequently asked questions’ on the human resources website, and regular communiqués on the university’s internal communications system,” he said.
Erasmus was adamant that the university has complied with labour law.
But Coetzee argued that management’s aim is to get academics to agree to downgrade individually, without having to negotiate with unions.
”The tactic is to say, ‘You’re sophisticated academics, you have PhDs and so on, so make up your own minds.’ But what they’ve done is illegal — they haven’t followed due process.”