NEA Bargaining Meeting 9
An extra long meeting, disputes on meeting scheduling, launch and more! 😮💨
Hello,
Following last meeting’s brevity, this meeting was jam-packed as Apple tried to make sure everyone’s voice was heard and didn’t get cut off. Continue reading for the full recap, some post-meeting updates, an update about industrial action and more!
Editor's note: Apologies for the delay in this recap, launch is incoming.
An apology for the last meeting
Apple began by acknowledging and apologising for the abrupt ending to the last bargaining meeting, assuring all bargaining representatives that this was an accident. Apple has reviewed its processes and has now assigned a meeting moderator to check no other questions are remaining before meetings are closed. Apple promised time to be put aside in today’s meeting for those that had their virtual hands up in the previous meeting to speak. Two other bargaining representatives also submitted followup questions following Monday’s meeting, and they were also invited to speak. Apple also acknowledged that many people continue to use the chat feature in WebEx but asked that if people wished to raise a formal issue to speak verbally.
ASU log of claims
Apple then moved on to the main purposed of the meeting, which was to allow the ASU to speak to their log of claims. Speaking on behalf of the ASU was Michael Robson, the ASU’s National Industrial Coordinator. Mr Robson then began to go through each point in the ASU Log of Claims pausing for any questions from other bargaining representatives. Below is a summary of those questions and the ASU’s responses:
A question was raised regarding the proposed minimum wage increase and whether it was to replace merit-based pay increases. The ASU clarified that the intention of this claim was to set a minimum and not replace Apple’s merit-based increases.
Another bargaining representative question the calculation of CPI-weighted wage increases and the difference between state consumer price indices. The ASU said that it would welcome more state-specific calculations of CPI.
Henry May, speaking for the SDA, again asked if Apple was going to hold a meeting specifically on the subject of the job role classification schedule. The ASU agreed with this sentiment. Apple said that it has taken on the feedback and it is under consideration.
A bargaining representative expressed their concern over providing leave types to specific employees to the exclusion of others in response to the ASU’s proposed gender affirmation leave. The ASU said that gender affirmation is a special circumstance that requires special leave. Another bargaining representative offered the suggestion to expand existing leave types that cover other major life events (cancer etc.) to include gender affirmation, rather than introducing a specific leave type. The ASU stated that the inclusion of gender affirmation leave was a claim that ASU members endorsed specifically.
With respect to leave entitlements and benefits, another bargaining representative encouraged Apple to go above and beyond in the NEA. Being that the EA is a public document about Apple’s minimum working conditions in Australia, they suggested that if Apple was to be bold in what it includes in the EA, it may send a message to the wider business community and other employers to do better for their employees.
RAFFWU asked for a full list of Apple’s benefits to assist in the education of its members, and the discrepancies in benefit coverage between different classes of employees. The ASU echoed this request. Apple agreed to provide a consolidated list of employee benefits, which has since been emailed to all bargaining representatives.
A bargaining representative asked that if Apple did include its various benefits in the EA, if this would prevent them from amending any benefits. The ASU said that the EA sets a minimum standard that can be augmented by policy, but if certain benefits are enshrined in the EA they can be renegotiated after the nominal expiry date has lapsed. Clauses can also be renegotiated individually before this expiry date and put to a ballot.
Followup questions from bargaining representatives
Apple then allowed the employees that were previously cut off to speak, before opening up to other bargaining representatives:
A question was raised regarding Apple’s reluctance to include other leave types in the NEA. A bargaining representative made reference to the various types of leave that Apple provides in other countries, and questioned as to why employees should trust that Apple is considering the broadening of leave types without making a solid commitment to include them in the EA. Apple responded by saying that leave entitlements do vary in different jurisdictions because of statutory obligations, menstruation leave being an example. Australia is also afforded long-service leave because of statutory obligations that other countries don’t benefit from. Apple has said that they have discussed menstruation leave with their global benefits team, but their position remains that it does not belong in the NEA. Apple acknowledged that they have found that during the bargaining process they have learnt that team haven’t known of a way to provide feedback regarding benefits, and that they will work to ensure team are aware that they can offer suggestions and feedback.
The next question was raised with respect to the removal of materials in store break rooms (again), with a bargaining representative referring to an incident occurring in their store that day. Apple’s response was that if anyone had any issues pertaining to this subject, to reach out to the ELR team so that they may be addressed.
Another allegation was made by RAFFWU that the SDA had been removing and destroying RAFFWU materials while conducting store visits.
RAFFWU then brought up the issue of meeting schedules and planning, suggesting that a schedule of meetings be planned ahead of time with more notice and set agendas. Apple has stated that meetings have been regularly scheduled every Monday in tandem with ad hoc meetings as necessary. Concern was also raised regarding the impending launch of multiple products and services over the month of September and its potential to affect the availability of bargaining representatives. Apple said that it sees the bargaining process as a priority and will work to make accommodations for all those involved. — More on this later.
A further question was asked regarding additional leave types with specific reference to cultural leave for Indigenous Australians. A point was made that Australia has a unique relationship with its indigenous population and that it would behove Apple to recognise this relationship in the form of providing cultural leave benefits, and then to use this as a blueprint to provide the same benefits to other countries with significant indigenous populations. Apple advised that it is not aware of a time when a person’s request for time off for religious or cultural reasons had been declined, but if anyone was aware of a particular case, to raise it with ELR.
The subject of annual leave loading and Apple’s choice to decline its inclusion in the NEA because it claims to factor it into base rates of pay, and a request to make available Apple’s compensation policy to understand how Apple calculates its pay was raised. Apple advised that its hourly rate of pay is calculated so that employees receive what they would have otherwise received if leave loading was calculated on the 20 days of annual leave taken in a year. Apple also said that it would take note of the request for more information on compensation.
Another bargaining representative requested a member from the benefits team to join a bargaining meeting to discuss the leave types and other claims that Apple has declined but had indicated it may introduce as benefits.
Meeting schedule dispute
The ASU then returned the conversation back to the subject of how meetings are being scheduled. Mr Robson said that meetings being regularly scheduled on Mondays did not occur as a result of any agreement but rather because Apple has done so of its own will. Further concern was raised around the launch period and the impact it may have on Apple employees and their ability to engage with the bargaining process as well as union officials that consult with them. The ASU then proposed a two week pause to negotiations to allow Apple to fully consider all logs, allow Apple employees to work during the launch period, and schedule longer meetings and longer notice.
Apple said that it did not want to pause the bargaining process and would continue with its “regularly scheduled'“ meetings on Mondays. The ASU expressed its disappointment at this and mentioned that it may be subject to scrutiny by the Fair Work Commission. The SDA reiterated these concerns from the ASU. Another bargaining representative mentioned that the previous meeting (Friday Sep 2) was referred to as a “regular meeting” but pointed out that today’s meeting was being held on a Thursday. Apple reiterated that meetings have been held every Monday for the last five weeks, to which the bargaining representative noted that notice for these meetings has only been given three days in advance. Further emphasis was placed on the fact that meeting times were not agreed to between any bargaining representatives and Apple. Apple said that it would take this feedback onboard, but invited bargaining representatives to attend the next meeting next Monday.
The ASU said that it would be unavailable on Monday and asked Apple not to respond to any ASU claims in that meeting. Apple said it would like to move onto the other bargaining representatives with questions. The ASU refused, asking for commitment from Apple to scheduling meetings in advance and providing agendas. Apple refused and moved on.
Another bargaining representative raised that their store leadership have asked them repeatedly to leave the current meeting as they are “impacting the team” and asked for Apple to resolve scheduling issues with meetings to avoid this. Apple said that it would work with store leadership to make them aware of meeting times. A further bargaining representative expressed their disappointment at Apple’s response to the ASU’s request for amendments to the way meetings are planned and scheduled. Apple said that it scheduled today’s meeting to accommodate the ASU’s schedule (despite it not actually notifying the ASU it was doing so).
Post-meeting developments
Following the meeting, Apple announced that it’s next meeting had been changed to Tuesday September 13 rather than the originally planned Monday time slot to accommodate the ASU’s availability.
The ASU then sent a notice of concern to Apple expressing that it may potentially not be complying with its good-faith bargaining obligations under the Fair Work Act and put forward the following proposal:
cancel the bargaining meeting on Tuesday, 13 September 2022;
agree that no bargaining will take place in the week of 12 September 2022;
and agree to meet with the ASU and other bargaining representatives at 11:00am on Monday, 19 September 2022 for at least 3-hours.
The ASU then advised that if it did not receive a response it would take the matter to the Fair Work Commission.
Apple responded by stating that it did not agree with the ASU’s suggestion that Apple is not complying with its good faith bargaining obligations but that it did not wish to have matters the subject of a dispute before the Fair Work Commission, and agreed to do the following:
cancel the bargaining meeting on Tuesday 13 September;
in lieu of a bargaining meeting, issue the third draft of the proposed enterprise agreement and summarise the changes that have been made for the attention of the bargaining representatives; and,
hold a meeting at 11.00 am on Monday 19 September, as agreed.
RAFFWU Protected Action Ballot Order
On Friday Sept. 2, RAFFWU submitted an application for a Protected Action Ballot Order (PABO) to the Fair Work Commission. A successful Protected Action Ballot allows workers to engage in lawful protected industrial action in pursuit of a new Enterprise Agreement. Only those workers represented by RAFFWU would be authorised to consider, organise, and engage in such action if the application is granted and the ballot is successful.
RAFFWU informed all bargaining representatives, Apple, and RAFFWU’s members of its application and advised that the process would take at least three weeks. RAFFWU has consulted with its members as to what forms its potential protected industrial action may take. More information will be shared as this develops.
Coming up
Launches of multiple products and service from Apple on September 13, 16, 23, and October 7
The tenth bargaining meeting with Apple on Monday September 19
A third draft of the NEA will be issued next week.
We will continue to keep you updated on the latest bargaining meetings and any other meetings with the unions.
In solidarity,
Apple Together Australia
The small wins lead to big accomplishments. Well done.