October 7th, 2015
Dear Association Members,
In line with our policy of transparency, we would like to give you further details about staff negotiations.
Background
Until October 2014, Leadership was negotiating with the Ver.di Union. After the Tariff Commission’s (TK) rejection of the Management's 5th proposal, despite Leadership making it clear that there was no more money available, the Board and Leadership halted negotiations with Ver.di. This decision was communicated to all staff via a Staff Meeting and in writing, to Ver.di and to the Association. Since then, there has been no more communication from the Board or Leadership to Ver.di.
In October 2014, negotiations recommenced on a new Works Agreement (Betriebsvereinbarung) with the Works Council (BR). At the end of November, three members of the TK requested Leadership to consider a broader group join the negotiations. It was felt that their contribution would be valuable. Ground rules were agreed on, including no Ver.di representative be present and the aim of the sessions being an agreement on content.
- The directorate went back to the table to negotiate with the TK – the union representatives – after a petition signed by more than 100 BIS staff members requested the directorate to continue negotiating with the TK.
- Both parties agreed not to have lawyers present in order to keep the negotiating atmosphere open and trusting.
- It was clear from the beginning that the negotiations were taking place between the leadership team and the TK. The assertion that the TK only requested to join in the negotiations with the BR is untrue. The negotiations were conducted solely solely by the TK representatives and the directorate.
- The TK has ample written evidence from myriad sources (posts, emails, etc) that confirms that the directorate were entirely aware that they were negotiating a CBA with the TK.
Thereafter, Leadership, the Chair of the BR, staff representatives who were members of both the BR and the TK and the remaining TK members met in a series of staff working sessions.
- The chair of the BR was present as a consultant. She did not take part in the negotiations, nor did she inform the other BR members of the details within the negotiations. The BR lawyer was not consulted on any legal issue related to these negotiations.
- Negotiations were carried out with only the TK, in consultation with the union membership and the union lawyer.
- While it is true some members of the TK are also members of the BR, it was clear that they were wearing only their “TK hats” during negotiations. This was their clear understanding from the start. This is corroborated by the fact that other BR members were not included. Again, there is ample written evidence for this situation, such as emails signed by these members on behalf of the TK.
- TK negotiations were acknowledged publicly through the homepage of the staff intranet. Indeed, under the category of successes during the school year 2014-2015, it specifically cites: “TK meetings: improved collaboration, positive atmosphere”.
- Public communications by the director in blog posts and elsewhere acknowledge the collaboration with the TK. In a letter to all staff, the board commends the “the hard work, commitment and willingness to compromise” of the TK, and the fact that negotiations were fruitful.
- The representatives of the union and the directorate successfully completed negotiating the terms of the CBA at the end of last school year.
Our reservations are threefold:
Only staff members who are union members have a voice with a CBA
Members of the TK, who carry out the negotiations with the employer, are elected by union members. Agreements reached with the employer have to first be approved by the union members. Staff members who are not union members play no part in these negotiations. In contrast, a BR is elected by all staff members, and a Works Agreement applies to all staff members.
- In a Works Agreement, the extent of staff involvement consists of electing a BR every 4 years. The BR have co-determination regarding most elements of a Works Agreement. This, however, does not extend to negotiating salary and working hours. Beyond that, the BR members are responsible for upholding the working conditions of all staff.
- In negotiating a CBA, the TK are elected to represent the union position at the negotiating table. The agreement negotiated, a Collective Bargaining Agreement, pertains to union members, but is commonly extended to all staff. This means that all staff generally benefit from the conditions negotiated by the union on their behalf. It is up to the discretion of the management, not to the union, to extend the rights and conditions negotiated to all staff. Furthermore, union membership is perennially open to any member of staff who wishes to have the opportunity to exercise their rights in this way.
A CBA allows the union the right to negotiate on salaries
During the CBA negotiations before October 2014, Leadership and Board were repeatedly told by members of the Union and the TK that "the Union does not care about your budget". Instead, Ver.di insisted on holding out for salary increases that were well beyond anything that BIS could afford.
- It is not the policy of the union, as is cited here in a direct quotation, “[not to] care about your budget”. It would not be to the purpose of any union negotiation to make such a statement.
- The union calculated the compounded inflation that had not been applied to salaries in previous years and arrived at a purchase power loss of 15%. This formed the initial salary proposal, which was to be spread over 3 years. This same figure was calculated and requested by the BR before the union went into negotiations.
- After months of negotiations, the management’s fifth salary proposal was imposed upon the staff and negotiations ceased at this point. When negotiations were resumed, the directorate and the TK jointly agreed that the salaries offered in the fifth salary proposal would not be renegotiated at this time; instead, salary principles and working hours would provide a focus for CBA negotiation.
Even though the Union was given the chance to check BIS figures, and see for themselves how much money there was available, they still kept pushing for more.
The European Council of Schools (ECIS) recommends that, for a school to remain healthy, staff expenses should make up 60-70% of the school budget. This includes salaries, benefits in kind, recruitment, PD, and all other staff expenses. BIS currently spends 72% of our budget on staff.
- Despite requests, the union was never given access to the full BIS budgetary figures.
- On March 23rd, the board made a presentation to the association that included the budget for 2015-2016, the notes from which can still be found on the school intranet. In a graph of operating expenses (on slide 40), they state that 69% of the budget is allocated to personnel, as opposed to the 72% stated above.
- In addition, a significant percentage of this 69% goes to the salaries of personnel in management positions, including undisclosed bonuses.
- When the TK requested details on these bonuses, they were told this was confidential information.
- The school also denied having any kind of reserve funds, but the minutes from the board meeting on 23.03.15 state that there is a reserve of 2 million euro for a technological building.
In contrast to Ver.di, the Board and Leadership do care very much about our budget.
- This statement is false. The union - comprised of BIS staff – care just as much as the board and leadership about the school budget. The union is the staff and the staff have a vital interest in the well-being of the school. The school’s security is our job security.
- The union represents staff members, some of whom have been here for more than 10 years, and who will continue to be here. The staff are affected by every financial decision the school makes.
Having a balanced budget is in the best interest of all our stakeholders, our staff, our students and – in particular – our families. After all, the Board is the custodian of the Association’s assets.
Strike Action
With a CBA, if the union is not in agreement with the employer, the only course of action, once negotiations have reached a stand-still, is to strike.
- The union has others ways of demonstrating and showing support, as evidenced this week.
- It is true that strike action is the final means of enforcement for a union. However, the union only strikes if the majority of members feel they are being treated unfairly. Going on strike is each individual’s choice.
- This could happen with or without a CBA.
- In addition, it a constitutional right of all workers, regardless of a union affiliation, to strike.
We saw first hand the effect that last year’s strike had on BIS, and we must not put BIS and all its stakeholders in the position to be affected in this way again.
- We are currently working to avoid another strike by offering peaceful protests and hoping the board will see reason.
- The directorate spent the past year negotiating a CBA with the TK in good faith. Now, the board has decided not to sign a CBA and claims that, all along, they were not working towards a CBA.
- In Dr Sorenson’s blog 19.10.15 it was stated “a school is no place for industrial action”. However staff at BIS are not civil servants, staff are employees in a private organization.
Conclusion
As has been the case since ceasing to negotiate with Ver.di in October 2014, the Board and Leadership strongly believe that a Works Agreement is the best way forward for BIS.
- Having a CBA is in the best interest of all stakeholders. Boards come and go, directors come and go, teachers come and go, and students come and go; that is the nature of an international school. A CBA provides stability and continuity throughout all staffing changes and ensures fair working conditions for all.
We feel our staff should benefit from the successful outcome of last year’s negotiations as soon as possible, and to this end we seek to codify the agreed contents as a Works Agreement with our BR.
- The currently negotiated terms cannot be signed into a Works Agreement since they were not negotiated with the BR.
- Only the TK can negotiate a CBA; a BR can only enter into discussions regarding the terms of a Works Agreement. Furthermore, the BR is not legally empowered to negotiate either salaries or working hours. The BR did not negotiate and never voted on the agreements made in recent negotiations..
- It has been described here and can be proven that negotiations were with the TK, not the BR.
This chapter needs bringing to a close so that both Leadership and Staff can focus on what we all are here for: providing the best possible education for our children.
- Union members could not agree more. It is time to bring this to a close and re-establish harmony and a good working and learning environment. The education and care of BIS students and their families is close to the heart of all staff. Union members request that the board and directorate fulfil the agreements reached at the end of last school year by enshrining these terms in a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Best regards,
BIS Board Dr. Chrissie Sorenson Marco Dahl