Just about every university that has rejected the NTEU co-proposed “job protection framework” cites the “expert oversight panel” as a reason

This would examine what universities were giving-up in return for staff accepting reductions in wages and conditions to protect jobs by saving institutions money. The panel would include union representatives.

Universities suggest the panel would intrude on the governance obligations of their councils.

With a nation-wide NTEU member vote on the proposal due within days the national leadership evidently does not want this argument influencing anybody and commissioned legal advice from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, (“we fight for fair”).

Blackburn argues that university positions are “fundamentally misconceived” and based on misapprehensions of what the panel would do and how university enterprise agreements work.

“Under the framework, it remains entirely open for a university to decide not to institute any cost saving measures, or alternatively, introduce particular cost saving measures and not others, as a response to its economic circumstances,” Blackburn states.

The firm also suggests the framework addresses issues that are covered by enterprise agreements.

“We do not consider that the governance objection constitutes a legal impediment to the implementation of the framework in varied university enterprise agreements,” it concludes.

The opinion is in broad-agreement with the views of an independent industrial relations observer, writing in CMM; “claims that the deal cuts across the statutory role of councils/senates are wrong. Current EBs limit many elements of the managerial authority of governing bodies and vice chancellors (eg Higher Education Contract of Employment-style limits on the use of contracts and limits on forced redundancies) and the proposed deal is no different in principle or at law.” (CMM May 21).