NEA Bargaining Meeting 7🔥
Apple responds to more claims and a third draft is coming! Read more 👇
Hello,
We’re up to bargaining meeting number seven! Today’s meeting was substantial and had lots of feedback. Full details below.
Note: Apple has again indicated that monetary claims will be discussed in a future bargaining meeting.
Apple discusses its position on company policies
Apple opened the meeting by providing its views on the bargaining process and how it views the proposed EA and how it relates to company policies. Apple believes that the EA is only one part of its “competitive and great benefits”, and that its employees in Australia have always benefitted from a number of different sources: employment contracts, enterprise agreements, the NES and long service leave entitlements, and Apple policy.
Interestingly, Apple expressed that it believes that any benefits that are included in the EA cannot be changed unless a new EA is proposed. Apple has inferred that the “locked-in nature” of an EA potentially prevents any flexibility when it comes to changes in benefits. Apple asserted that due to the “flexible” nature of Apple policies it allows the company to respond to the needs of employees and “create a better experience for its employees".
Apple said that it can do more and give more than what is in the NEA, and that if in the future it does want to provide more, it believes that the most appropriate place for benefits is in Apple policy and not the NEA. Apple continued to emphasise that the NEA sets a standard that Apple cannot fall below, but fell short of acknowledging that Apple policy could be built on top of the standards set by the NEA.
Apple prefaced the next agenda item by warning that team may be disappointed by what Apple has chosen to leave out of the next draft of the NEA, to be published by the end of next week. (We echo this sentiment; prepare to be disappointed)
Responses to claims, and amendments to the NEA
Apple then proceeded to go through a list of claims that it has declined:
Requests for weekend premium pay for annual leave taken on any weekend day. — Apple believes that weekend premiums should be paid to those who work on weekends and not to those on leave.
Requests for annual leave not to be paid out after a period of time. — Apple encourages all team members to take annual leave and provides a vacation cash-out option for those that do not.
Reducing the required notice period for annual leave to three weeks. — Apple believes that a four week notice period is reasonable, but it caveats that by saying in practice it will try to accommodate any reasonable requests with three weeks notice.
Guaranteed minimum contract hours for part time employees above 15.2 hours. — Apple believes this reduces flexibility for employees; Apple again says that it will be providing 19 hours per fortnight to employees and that part time employees will have the ability to flex-up their hours as necessary.
For Part B employees, to not require advance manager approval to work overtime hours. — Apple says that approval is always necessary for working overtime hours.
Pertaining to redundancy payments: the payment of sick leave, unvested RSUs/the fair-market value of unvested RSUs. — Apple believes that its existing redundancy benefits are generous in comparison to the NES and any applicable award.
Not forcing employees to wear face masks. — Apple believes this is not relevant to the NEA, and emphasised its EHS policies.
Changing the fixed term of the EA from a nominal period of four years to less. — Apple has stated that the Fair Work Act (2009) stipulates that enterprise agreements remain in effect until a new agreement is proposed.
Requiring Apple to begin negotiations for a new EA one year before its expiry. — Apple believes this is again negated by the Fair Work Act (2009).
Backdating of any NEA changes to up to four years prior. — Apple believes this is not appropriate.
Higher public holiday premiums for Good Friday and Christmas. — Apple believes that its weekend premiums are strong as is.
TOIL allowances to reflect hours worked for part time employees rather than the 3.8 hour standard. — Apple believes that its TOIL policy is competitive as is.
Annual leave loading. — Apple has said that it factors in annual leave loading into its hourly rates of pay that it claims are comfortably above the minimum award rates.
Parking and internet allowances. — Apple is not prepared to include these benefits in the NEA.
Apple has also included some claims that it has approved or will update the NEA to reflect consideration.
Apple has said that in relation to sick leave, employees will not have to give specific reasons for absences, but will still require employees to provide supporting documentation to justify unfitness for work.
Apple has updated its draft NEA to included more inclusive gender-neutral language where possible.
New claims and feedback
Apple opened up the floor to bargaining representatives:
Issue was taken with Apple’s characterisation of its policies as being more “flexible” than an EA. It was pointed out that policy is not an explicit guarantee and that Apple can revoke policy at any time for any reason without employee approval. Apple responded by saying that it cannot recall a time when any of its benefits have changed to the detriment of its employees and that it is not their intention. Apple shared its concern that if benefits were to be included in the EA, that they would be “stuck” and employees would not be able to receive more competitive or updated benefits. Bargaining representatives rejected this response by saying that the EA would set a baseline that Apple can build upon and this does not set anything in stone but would just be a minimum. Apple said that it would provide an alternate response in a future meeting.
The subject of Apple’s rejection of all of the claims pertaining to leave was brought up specifically around Apple’s rejection of proposed gender affirmation leave and cultural leave for Indigenous Australians. It was noted that Apple begins every bargaining meeting with an acknowledgement of country and has made a specific concession to accommodate more gender-neutral language, but stopped short of implementing leave provisions for the people within these communities. Apple noted this.
A request was made for the introduction of premature birth leave.
Clarification was sought regarding the definition of overtime hours. If a part time employee chooses to take on additional work hours, this is not classified as overtime. If a part time employee is asked to work additional hours by their manager regardless of how low the employee’s scheduled hours are, then this will be classified as overtime.
A bargaining representative presented a log of claims that had largely already been raised.
Concerns were raised around the clause declination of overtime without manager approval for Part B employees in instances when AppleCare advisors unexpectedly work overtime due to long calls. Apple said it would review this again.
Requests were made for Apple to distribute the official log of claims to all employees. Apple said that all bargaining representatives can share updates with those that they represent, but was hesitant to share the log of claims to avoid creating confusion; it said it would consider this request.
In relation to specific reasons for absence from work, an issue was raised regarding an attendance tracker that leadership is required to fill out in the AHA space and how it may potentially conflict with Apple’s statements regarding sick leave.
A request was brought forward to amend the Q&A section of the People website to include the Fair Work Commission’s definition of ‘coercion’.
An allegation was made against Apple by RAFFWU pertaining to an incident of union-busting in a retail store. Apple rejected any suggestion that they have engaged in union-busting, but have merely responded to complaints from employees. RAFFWU disagreed with Apple stating that it was indeed union-busting and was was grossly inappropriate and unlawful. Apple emphasised that it has a right to visit stores and respond if employees feel threatened.
A final issue was raised by the ASU about the scheduling of bargaining meetings and that Apple schedules meetings without any consultation. The ASU highlighted that team are having to attend meetings either on their own time or while interfering with their work duties. Apple has said meetings will continue as planned.
Coming up
Apple NEA Bargaining Meeting 8 - Monday September 5 @ 11am
We will continue to keep you updated on the latest bargaining meetings and any other meetings with the unions.
In solidarity,
Apple Together Australia
Apple seems to have forgotten the actual definition of “Bargaining”. Out right rejection and refusal to consider proposals and make residuals claims about saying employees benefit greater under policy than EA is why things aren’t put into the EA, then make a claim that if they were put into the EA then employees would miss out on new policies. Like huh? Do you listen to what you say or do you just phase in and out?