Back to NSW Division
Macquarie stonewalls on staff review
Posted 14 June 2012 by Genevieve Kelly (NSW Division)
There has been further coverage of Macquarie University's refusal to release the Deloitte services review to the NTEU.
Last year, Macquarie University management hired consulting firm Deloitte to conduct a review of support and administration services across the university. The stated aim of the review was to achieve ‘cost… and structural improvement’, which we know is management-speak for restructure and potential job loss.
Recommendations in the final report have so far been kept secret from staff and the Union. Members decided to persue the matter, making an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act. When this was refused, the Union referred the matter to the NSW Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC).
The Information Commissioner found 'significant errors' in management's decision to withold the report. The situation was covered in The Australian at the time, and the full findings of the OIC can be found here on our website.
NTEU members demand management release the report in question, and come clean about any plans to cut jobs. It is outrageous that a public institution is not releasing this information, and the Information Commissioner confirmed our view on this – there is no public interest reason for the decision to keep this information secret.
There are strong rumours that up to 60 support staff jobs are going. We are also hearing that staff are being bullied to take voluntary redundancy. Considering the university’s vice-chancellor [Steven Schwartz] is the highest paid in the country earning $1.1 million per annum, we think there is room for staff to stay.
Every institution needs checks and balances and Macquarie University is no different. We will continue to follow this issue through.
Comments
[ -1 ] The two points that I find most irritating are:
Like • Dislike •1. we had been told for months and months (when asking about the results of the review) - "report will be available next month" - inferring that the report would be made public.
This (now apparent) dishonesty ruins staff belief in the organisation and Management.
2. The university's poor understanding of correct process and directives (eg OIC).
If unintentional, this poorly reflects on the insitution's 'educational' quality (how can we claim to provide quality education, if the top level of management are unable to understand basics, such as the reply from OIC).
If intentional, this further disintegrates staff morale and belief in any dealings with Management.
The review report may have some suggestions that might concern staff (eg. reduction in staff numbers). This in itself would not be concern (as the uni is not bound to follow the recommendations). However the bull-headedness of the non-disclosure suggests that Management DO want to act on something/s in the report (that may concern staff).