Week 13: 8th and 9th September 2026
Pre-summary context of Bargaining
This week of bargaining addressed a number of key issues of concern to NTEU members:
- Artificial Intelligence
- Change Management
- Disability and Chronic Health Conditions
- Flexible Working Arrangements
- Academic Workloads, and
- A variety of matters related to professional staff conditions (including time off in lieu [TOIL], Secondments, Professional Staff Redundancy Equalisation, Position Descriptions, and Performance Management).
Reporting on the first two items is challenging because management altered its position betwene the end of day one and the start of day two and indicated the possibility of withdrawing areas discussed at the table. More on that below…
Bargaining Summary
Bargaining on 8-9 September 2026 focused on several major issues affecting staff, including artificial intelligence (AI), change management, disability and chronic health conditions, flexible work, academic workloads, and a wide range of specific professional staff matters.
AI was a significant area of discussion. The NTEU maintained its position that enforceable protections governing AI use must be included in the Enterprise Agreement. Management initially indicated willingness to move closer to the union’s position. However, the following day, Management signalled it was reconsidering this position after the Union raised concerns about the University’s AI-related Green Paper and called for formal change-management consultation.
On change management, Management declined to engage in planned discussions, but the NTEU proceeded to present its position regardless. The Union argued that Management’s proposals would significantly weaken staff protections and reiterated support for provisions that encourage constructive consultation while retaining involuntary redundancy as a last resort.
Progress was made on matters pertaining to disability and chronic health conditions. Discussions included a disability passport, improved reporting and adjustment processes, recognition of chronic health conditions, management training, and stronger consideration of the social model of disability.
Flexible work discussions centred on concerns that requests are increasingly being rejected based on broad arguments about campus presence or team cohesion. The union sought stronger evidence-based decision making, support for collective arrangements, and greater transparency when requests are denied.
Professional staff issues included improvements to time off in lieu (TOIL) arrangements, secondments, redundancy equalisation, performance management, and position descriptions. Academic workload negotiations focused on evidence-based workload allocation, resolution of stalled workload policies, collective workload reviews, and securing at least one day free from work each week. Management remains resistant to linking workload policies directly to the time required to perform work to the expected standard.
An explanation is in order
Tuesday saw a detailed discussion of the NTEUs revised proposals around AI. Members will be aware that this has become a major issue among staff, and that the approach of the NTEU has been firm (we cannot accept Management’s proposal for no enforceable clauses in the Agreement governing the technology) but fair (we listened carefully and in good faith to Management’s views on our proposals and developed a response in line with our principles and one that would also be supportable by the CPSU).
Discussions on Tuesday pointed to the possibilities of resolving the impasse on this matter – Managment proposed bringing back a counteroffer closer to the NTEU position, including:
- supporting the reasonable, responsible and ethical use of AI;
- supporting staff in dealing with the impacts of AI;
- a “human-centred approach”;
- appropriate guardrails;
- consultation concerning the development and implementation of relevant policies; and
- consideration of AI within the broader policy framework.
This was provided as an oral briefing, not in draft clauses.
The NTEU looked forward to seeing this, but – as we have indicated before – were cautious because there have been examples where Management have given indications they were amenable to NTEU proposals, only to exclude them in their proposed drafts (Disability and Change Management being recent examples).
On Wednesday, however, Management informed the unions that Change Management would not be discussed as planned, and that they were reconsidering the elements outlined the preceding day. The reason given for this was that that morning, the NTEU sent a letter with concerns to the DVC (Education and Students) outlining concerns about the Education in the age of AI: The University of Sydney’s approach to learning, graduate capability and the student experience “green paper”. In short, the Union expressed concerns that this paper introduced the possibility of changes to work at the University of Sydney so sweeping, that they would be considered “significant effects” under the Enterprise Agreement. The Union called on Management to change the consultation process around the so-called “green paper” to be in line with the preliminary change process of the Agreement.
The NTEU notes:
- Simply because we are in Enterprise Bargaining the business-as-usual processes of the Union do not stop. Members have concerns with the proposal, and it should be flagged preliminary change, and a more structured and comprehensive process of consultation undertaken, else Management could be considered to be engaging in change by stealth.
- Management may attempt to use these tactics to pressurise the Bargaining Team, but they will not be effective.
- It is paradoxical, to say the least, that Management has argued vociferously at the table that, where they have concerns about AI, staff have the protections of the Change Management provisions – only to complain when staff … use the Change Management provisions of the Agreement to communicate concerns about AI!
Importantly, the NTEU also made the point that:
- Management does not arbitrarily control the agenda of bargaining, and so we spoke to our prepared points on change management, and
- Ironically, the NTEU position on change management provides for the type of flexibility in change that might ideally suit an emerging technology of this type.
Change is a major problem at the University of Sydney. While the clauses of the Agreement are part of this, trust and engagement will need to be earned and developed over time.
All in all, Management has missed and opportunity here to progress bargaining.
The NTEU encourages and hopes management will reconsider and come back and agree to a clause that meets everyone’s requirements.
On Change Management…
Regardless that Management indicated the discussion of change management would not occur, the NTEU presented its position on change management, namely that:
- Management’s revised clauses received the preceding week essentially reiterated its position on change (that we have previously indicated would be both “toxic” and gut protections),
- The NTEU had not only made genuine compromises on our position, but also introduced clauses we feel would allow all parties to work with to improve change and the culture of change at the University, and
- Data provided on Extended Redeployment provisions indicate a window of three months that could be agreed to bring that provision back into the Agreement (it has now expired), allowing the University to protect clauses in the Agreement that maintain the University will use involuntary redundancy as a last resort.
Importantly, and possibly to save time, while the NTEU believe these are genuinely mutually beneficial improvements, we indicated that we are happy with the status quo and do not need to discuss this again if Management maintains its hard line.
Disability and Chronic Health Conditions
Concessions previously made by Management on the NTEUs proposals for improvements to Disability and Chronic Health Conditions were not included in the draft circulated for bargaining, and so a revised version was provided on the day that included some commitments to a disability passport (allowing mobility, privacy, and continuity of adjustments as staff move between roles) and localised implementation plans to support the revised Disability and Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) that is still under development (after the last DIAP expired in 2025).
This was a positive development, given how far apart the parties were previously on this matter. It also reflects our stated desire to move away from discussions of policy to discussions of elements in the Agreement.
Further movement on this matter progressed at the table, including:
- Clarifications in the Agreement about the definition of Chronic Health Conditions;
- Reporting requirements to the Joint Consultative Committee on applications for adjustments made and granted;
- Positioning the issue of the social model of disability and its consideration as a central aspect of University responses; and
- Management training.
The NTEU will take these points away into a revised version of the draft and indicated that it would be good for the parties to conclude this section in time for the end of Disability Inclusion Month.
Flexible Work
The discussion on flexible work focused particularly on clause 215 and the growing use of broad or arbitrary arguments to require staff to work on campus.
The union raised concerns about managers rejecting flexible work arrangements on grounds such as “team morale” or a general preference for staff to be physically present. There was particular concern about areas in which staff are increasingly being required to attend campus three or four days a week despite the work being capable of being performed remotely.
The Union’s position is not that all work should be remote. Rather, the concern is that general principles about teamwork or campus presence are increasingly being used to justify blanket requirements and that approvals to these arrangements had declined in recent years.
A key aspect of our position relates to the encouragement of collective flexible work arrangements, something that is common in some areas of the workplace, and the type of local response that should be encouraged and facilitate. The Union is also seeking greater information about cases when a request is denied, as these should be clearly evidence based.
Toil
Members will know there are some frustrations with TOIL, including:
- Managers unreasonably responding to requests to use TOIL; and
- The twice-annual “cut off” where TOIL is paid out, even if it has only just been accrued.
The former issue is likely to be an enforcement matter, and the latter reflects constraints of the Workday system. The parties – led by the CPSU on this matter – discussed a solution where the University would commit to implementing “rolling” TOIL retention once Workday plugins (currently under development) have been proven in the field. In the meantime, a fix to ensure at least one week is retained at the cut offs may be possible.
Secondments
Having consulted with Members on Managements proposed secondment scheme, the Union inquired whether Management is interested in changing the dynamics of this discussion from that of a “scheme” to a general section on secondments that includes both general provisions, and then the scheme as a subset.
This is because, while Management have proposed considerably revising the existing scheme, there is no recognition of secondments in general in the Agreement.
This suggestion was not rejected, and the Union will develop our response to their proposal in this way. In addition, the Union:
- Reiterated our position around access to the scheme in terms of “meeting” expectations;
- Explored the HEO level requirements proposed by management;
- Discussed the difficult tensions between conversion of people into a continuing position who are on secondments, and those who feel that this denies them opportunities to apply;
- Clarified some of the technical details proposed and looked to make them more explicit in their relationship to the scheme vs non-scheme applications; and
- Discussed the question of competitive selection.
This has provided additional information to the NTEU who will redraft the proposal in line with Members feedback.
Redundancy Equalisation for Professional Staff
Management had previously refused this proposal, but on Wednesday the NTEU explored the possibility of equalising the maximum cap for both professional and academic staff. Management did not support this proposal. In response, the NTEU has requested information on the number of professional staff who receive redundancies having served over 22 years of service, a number we consider low; this has implications for the overall cost of this proposal, which we think will be extremely modest, but provides a move towards equity between types of university staff.
CPSU matters
The CPSU discussed a number of their matters, including:
- they have withdrawn their pursuit of mental health nurses on staff;
- concerns that performance classifications are variable across the University and that areas hold “down” ratings in PP&D processes for budgetary reasons; and
- the need for all staff to have Position Descriptions and mechanisms to update these where they are missing or obsolete.
Academic Workloads
The NTEU has done a good job in reprising the clauses on this to find a “way through” Management’s resistance to improving these clauses. We provided our draft and outlined our key areas of focus:
- Evidence-based Workload Allocation Policy development based on time required to undertake the role;
- Mechanisms to resolve Workload Allocation Policies that have not progressed (given two areas of the University have policies going on 10 years old);
- The guarantee that all academic staff have one day off per week, even during “peak season”;
- Collective workload review.
We discussed the substance of these clauses, with management presenting some concerns about implementation and interpretation; the Union is still waiting on some promised alternative forms of words to consider on items #1 and #3 from management. We consider #3 resolved subject to clarification of wording for legal compliance matters, but #1 remains a key area of conflict – management will not accept the inclusion in the Agreement of a guarantee that a Workload Allocation Policy would be evidence-based, and align with the time required to do the work to the standard required by the employer. The NTEU explored this concern, in case there was a misunderstanding about “personalised workload policies”, but it appears that the evidentiary threshold is the key sticking point.
Coming up
A massive agenda for the next meeting, but one contingent on Management to some degree:
- Decasualisation (predicated on Management meeting the NTEUs requirements to bargain)
- Change management (predicated on Management moving significantly on their position)
- AI
- Academic Workloads
- Unfilled Professional Staff Roles
- Professional Staff Workloads,
- Fixed-Term Staff Job Security, and
- Schedule 1 (casual staff pay and descriptions)
