Glasgow Clyde College ballot on Terms and Conditions

Glasgow Clyde College ballot on Terms and Conditions ( Ballot closes Friday 20 June!)

The Branch EIS issued a statement along with some main discussion points from the three campus meetings!

The statement headlined members concerns over the reduction in administrative staff, the centralising of proceudres and the "culture of the organisation" as being contributing factors on a continuing increase in workload and pressure on teaching staff!

Some members suggested that stress would be more appropriate than pressure and their was disagreement with the EIS statement that these are " not diretly relevant to the issue of T&Cs". Members see them as being a major part of their Terms and Conditions!

There appears to be some discussion regarding the reduction in hours to teach a 'unit' which started at a nominal 40 hours but this has been eroded over time to 33 hours - except if class timetabled on Monday or Friday holidays where it could be even less - Importantly this also means a reduction in contact learning time for students and we see no impact assessment on this?

We are unaware as to whether a simple majority or if there is a specific requirement for acceptance!

We are also unsure on the isuue of the management's full terms and conditions offer to members.... but will update on this as soon as possible!

The Three Campus points - as issued by Branch EIS

Anniesland campus

• There were queries about the 860 hours annual maximum for teaching along with the proposed 22 hours weekly maximum, and concerns that this meant further work would be imposed on members as management treat 860 as a target to reach.  It was highlighted that the EIS had insisted on the word ‘agreement’ being added for their protection to not go over weekly maximum contact hours, but there were remaining concerns regarding how it would be enforced. 
• Workload implications were a serious concern in moving from 36 hours per SQA unit to 33 hours.  It was highlighted that the reduction in length of sessions meant a reduction in what temporary staff could earn, and that this was a detriment to them.
• There was a specific question about a conservation agreement and it was stated that this had been addressed pre-merger, and that it was understood that there would be no change.
• There were concerns about TQFE being offered with no remission.  EIS officials agreed with this and explained that in trying to get TQFE remission included in the offer there had been a delay in getting the new offer to members, but they felt they could get no further progress on this issue.
• There was concern that the pay rise had been tied in to negotiations.  It was explained that this had been carried out in the other mergers, and that there was no trade-off; pay was not discussed in any terms and conditions negotiations.  There was a reassurance that further pay negotiations would not occur in this way.

Cardonald Campus

Following the presentation, there were a series of questions and answers, the key points of which were as follows:
• Several members expressed concern at why management had offered a particular concession of 21 hours to Langside colleagues.  They felt this was divisive.  The implications of the reduction in posts (albeit it was acknowledged that the structure wasn’t part of the negotiation) along with the reduced hours to teach a unit and having to teach an additional unit demonstrated a further increase in workload for teaching staff.  It was also recognised that there would be fewer hours available particularly for those on temporary contracts or additional hours.  Members felt that the pay awards, particularly for basic grade staff, did not reflect what might be achievable given the salary levels achieved by senior management as they moved to new jobs in the merger.
• Heads of School were also concerned about their salary levels in relation to the new roles, the increase in workload and comparative salaries with those at that level in other colleges.
• Members were also keen to hold a full branch meeting so that everyone could understand how each other felt, particularly where such important issues were concerned.  It was recognised that the practicalities of organising a branch meeting in a short space of time would be very difficult, but an email would be sent out to reflect discussions.

Langside

• There was a clear perception for some members that this was a reasonable offer.  However, concerns were expressed by some SLs about the level of their pay increase compared to other groups of staff.  There was general disquiet about the pay offer when referenced to senior managers’ salaries.
• Further disquiet was expressed at the joint package of pay and terms and conditions.  It was stressed by branch officers that this was a one off agreement carried out in the unique context of harmonization.
• Workload concerns were raised with reference to changes in the structure.  SLs  particularly felt that reduced numbers of Head of School and SL posts would increase workload for SLs.  There were also concerns from SLs about a reduction in the number of SL posts increasing the certainty of displacement.  The 21 hours contact time conservation was noted.  The question was raised about where that left branch unity but it was accepted that if 22 hours was to be the baseline then conservation was the only way to avoid clear detriment to Langside staff.