|
|
|
1. “Ga-Rankuwa campus” – a letter from the Medunsa Management Forum representing the stakeholders sent to Exec. Management clearly rejects the term Ga-Rankuwa campus and confirms the name Medunsa campus. The retention of the name Medunsa campus was also noted in the last Council meeting. The stakeholders on this campus would greatly appreciate all future correspondence being correctly addressed.
2. Incorrect numbers of the NEHAWU representatives – in the documentation prior to constitution as well as at the constituting meeting of JBF Mr Liebenberg clearly indicated NEHAWU – Turfloop campus qualify for four representatives while NEHAWU - Medunsa campus five representatives. Why does NEHAWU – Turfloop suddenly qualify to be increased to six while the largest Union NEHAWU (Medunsa campus) is reduced to four representatives? One is tempted to question whether these figures are based on numbers of paid up members according to the constitution of the JBF or a reflection of the support of management? These discrepancies need to be rectified in writing before the next meeting.
3. Wasting of “negotiating time” of JBF - this was to have been constituted and function to handle the harmonization of the differences in conditions of service including those raised at the CCMA in 2005, by April 2006. Now the agenda of the third JBF meeting (September 2007) still has nothing to negotiate? This is unacceptable to the staff of Medunsa Campus who have been disadvantaged for three years post-merger by not been given access the “encashment of accumulated leave days” as practiced at Turfloop, because it has been continually referred to the JBF. We want to get down to the main business of the JBF immediately, and this includes been given the full set of documents which are to be negotiated on so that we may come well prepared to negotiate meaningfully.
4. Supply a full set of documents to be handled to the representatives of the JBF at the next meeting on 4th Sept. 2007. Failing the implementation of this, put this on the Agenda.
5. Under 5. on Agenda it was agreed at the 2nd meeting that the term ‘Legal advisers or Trade Union representatives’ be used.
6. With the ‘lightweight’ Agenda as it is, it might be useful to consider saving the time and effort of all representatives if this meeting again be a “video conference” to save our bankrupt university the cost of transporting/assembling the approximately 25 members of the JBF. Funds can be used more effectively when the JBF finally gets down to business.
If negotiations are to be completed by November 2007, the JBF had better get into gear as there are only 3 months or six sessions left?
Concerned JBF Representative.
Prof Eddie Green Chairperson: MUSU
Venue: August 29th at Turfloop Campus @ 12h00
AGENDA: Leave encashment The Executive of MUSU find the serious contents of this meeting unacceptable outside the established JBF. For more than two years the Unions of Medunsa Campus have had these issues pushed off the table and referred to the JBF by Mr Liebenberg …. so why now a special meeting to be held outside the specially constituted JBF ? This is most irregular.
The MUSU executive does not support any discussion on changes of conditions of service outside the JBF and without our external Union representative being present. The MUSU executive also requires a full set of documentation prior to consultation of such serious issues.
It is our strong recommendation that the documentation be supplied to the Unions by Wednesday after as short introductory Video conference and these issues be placed on the Agenda for the JBF a mere six day later. This will also save time and money for our cash-strapped university.
No agreement on these matters will take place without consultation with the Union’s legal advisors as well as the members of the Union.
Sincerely.
Prof E D Green On behalf of the Executive of MUSU.
Can someone please explain to me why this meeting is to be held outside the JBF? (Thank your to Prof Green who’ve raised this matter in his e-mail). Why are we (JBF) not recognized/involved in this?
I’m very concerned because the points for discussion on the agenda form part of our terms and conditions of service (for ALL staff members, not just for persons belonging to a recognized Union).
Even if no definite decisions are made during the mentioned meeting, I feel (as representative of the non-aligned staff members) we should be involved in any form of discussion regarding terms and conditions of employment. I get the distinct impression that we are withheld from discussions that also have an effect on our future!
Regards
Corné van Aardt (Ms) |
|
