At 7:34pm on Monday, September 27, I received an email from HR at the University of Newcastle that read:
"Dear Sharon ... The University has determined not to make an offer of continuing part-time or full-time employment to you [because] you have not worked a regular pattern of hours on an ongoing basis for the six-month period concluding on the assessment date, and/or the University [would have to] to provide you with duties (such as research or scholarly activities) that it doesn't need or require you to perform... Regards"
Many "casually" employed staff at the university were refreshing their Outlook inbox and checking in with each other to see who had also received the same news.
Reading the email directly addressed to me was a blow: it felt like a rejection of the time and expertise I had invested in the university since I started working there almost 20 years ago.
At the University of Newcastle, and at other universities around Australia, half or more of the workforce is employed insecurely. Some staff have been working one casual contract to another for 10 or more years.
But I am certainly not alone.
The collective disappointment of casually employed staff was palpable as they reached out to each other via social media.
The fact is that at the University of Newcastle, and at other universities around Australia, half or more of the workforce is employed insecurely.
Some staff have been working one casual contract to another for 10 or more years.
The work is there, but universities use casual employment anyway.
The possibility of conversion to either a part-time or full-time position was something many casual staff had been waiting for.
Earlier this year, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Act 2021 came into effect.
In it was a new definition of "casual employment" and rights for casual workers to convert to ongoing employment.
The act provides for conversion from casual to permanent employment.
But this legislation is not automatic. It is discretionary.
The biggest impediment to the effectiveness of this instrument is that an employer is not required to make an offer of conversion if they decide there are "reasonable grounds" not to do so.
The university's reason - "you have not worked a regular pattern of hours on an ongoing basis for the six-month period concluding on the assessment date" - is particularly galling for casual staff because that is the very nature of our employment.
Timetables change, enrolments change, research grants and needs change, there are busy periods and slow periods...
It is hardly possible to "work a regular pattern of hours" as a casual academic. But the work is always there.
A friend said to me today:
"I've worked at the uni for over 10 years teaching all levels across different disciplines.
"I finished my PhD three years ago and since then have developed an excellent research track record despite having no institutional support.
"Instead I have been on six-month contracts, often unaware of what subjects I will be teaching or how many hours.
"It's soul destroying to be working in such precarious conditions."
Others were disappointed to find themselves ineligible for conversion because doing so would require "research or scholarly activities" that the university "doesn't need or require" casual staff to perform.
Research and scholarly activities are an inherent part of academic work, core to university business and many casual academic staff already provide these for free.
The university's issue with this work is paying for it, not that it is not needed.
Indeed, it seemed that these requirements had effectively ruled out a majority of staff.
In an All-Staff Forum on September 28, Martin Sainsbury, the chief people and culture officer who was signatory to the email noted that "a small number" of staff received conversion.
He 'reassured' those who had been rejected that the decision was based on an assessment against the legislative criteria, and not the value of the work done by casual staff.
For those staff these words are hollow.
The promise of the legislation did not deliver.
The news delivered in such a way with such reasoning failed to communicate the value of their work at the university.
As one colleague said to me after the email had been received, "I'm a reject too".
.png?w=600)
