LGNSW and the three unions meet about IPART recommendation 30 and protecting senior staff

Details

Published: Thursday, 25 February 2016 09:39

Local Government unions to the rescue

The beautiful romance between LGNSW and LGMA continues but if something useful is going to be done about the employment implications of IPART recommendation 30 and the importance of protecting senior staff in amalgamations, it will be done by the three local government unions negotiating with the employers’ organisation, LGNSW. More on the continuing romance, below.

Last month we reported on the romantic initiative and the development of a close relationship between the employers’ organisation LGNSW and the organisation that generally acts like one, the LGMA, or LGPA, whatever it’s called this year. The joint letter to the Minister for Local Government identified what they believed to be two major issues that should be acted upon in the interests of senior staff.

The LGM/PA saw two problems. First, if as a result of amalgamations a general manager was made redundant, then they wanted some certainty that a redundancy would be treated as a redundancy. This was a concern which nearly everyone else in the world thought went without saying. As did the second concern - if senior staff from one council transfer to another as part of Fit for the Future, then their entitlements should continue. Well, durr.

But the Minister happily acceded to the request from these strange bedfellows but has not acceded yet, to the more critical questions - like the one we asked about what happens to a GM if the council is prevented from renewing their contract during the proposal period - something which is clear from the “Guidelines” issued by the OLG. That, is a real problem that demands a response.

IPART in their “Review of reporting and compliance burdens on Local Government” draft report in January left employment largely alone, apart from recommendation 30. They recommended:

Extend the maximum periods of temporary employment from 12 months to 4 years within any continuous period of five years, similar to rule 10 of the Government Sector Employment Rules 2014.

Wow, everyone can be a temporary employee now.

This recommendation was made because “stakeholders indicated the requirements of this section created an onerous regulatory burden by being too prescriptive and reducing workforce flexibility.”

But the only “stakeholder” which has made any observation at all about the 12 and 24 month limitations on temporary appointment in section 351 is LGNSW. Everyone else was mystified about how this could be “onerous” because all it really means is that councils need to be able to count the number of months after they appointed someone temporarily. Not an impossible burden, surely.

But in the LGNSW submission to the Acts Review, LGNSW claimed that the restrictions from that provision had led to a number of industrial disputes and this, apparently by itself, was sufficient for IPART. This sounds far too easy: no examples, no evidentiary burden at all, just a couple of bald assertions without any detail. I wish we could get away with that.

But at least four or five of those industrial disputes have been with us and they have been industrial disputes filed because a Council has breached limitations within section 351. That’s right, the Council broke the law. Either no-one in those councils knew there was a limitation, or if they did, couldn’t be bothered complying with it. Like providing a further 12 months if there was a need, for example. 

More importantly, providing an opportunity to temporarily appoint people for up to 4 years will create significant damage in an industry which provided the stability and permanence that only comes from permanent, on-going employment. We have seen far too much damage in the casualisation of other industries to allow that to occur here.

In a contrary recommendation we put to the Acts Review that while 351(1) allows temporary appointments, and 351(2) limits those appointments to 12 months or 24 months if covering for parental leave, there should be a 351(3) which provides that if the Council is stupid enough to breach those restrictions in the Act, then the employee gets the job by default and is appointed to the position. A bit like squatters’ rights.

And we had much more compelling evidence that a few assertions about industrial disputes caused entirely by Council management running out of fingers or toes.

After the silly LGNSW/LGM/PA letter about the self-evident, the three unions wrote to LGNSW complaining that if issues relating to the employment conditions in local government are to be dealt with between the employers’ organisation as a party to the Award, then they need to be dealt with only with the registered unions and the parties to the industrial instruments in the industry. Apart from anything else, doing so is contrary to the objectives of the Industrial Relations Act.

LGNSW must be a bit embarrassed because the last time they had some passionate connection with the dilettantes at the LGM/PA with the OLG, they created the standard contract of employment with all of its inflexibility and unreasonableness. We now have an agreement (but not an apology, yet, for this thoughtless joint approach) that LGNSW will program a series of meetings with the unions about all of our concerns about employment protections in the current Act and things like recommendation 30.

LGNSW can’t excuse it by saying a group representing people in the industry came to them about the issue and it seemed reasonable because that lets them then do similarly with any group of people in any organisation that happens to have some people from local government as members or participants - what’s next, the Freemasons, the Knights of Templar, the Hell’s Angels?

We all accept that LGNSW has a role in giving advice to councils about performance management or sacking of the GM and advice to the GM on dealing with employment matters of those employees of the Council. But LGNSW does not have a role in representing general managers as employees - that would be far too great a conflict of interest.

On 18 February, the first meeting of the industrial parties considered a range of employment issues affecting all employees, including senior staff - recommendation 30, what to do about stopping unfair sackings of senior staff and whether there is any common view between us on the employment provisions of the Local Government Act generally. There should be, particularly in relation to preventing political sackings like the two directors at Mid-Western, last year.

(And there’s some great news for Catherine and some embarrassing news for Mid-Western below.)

Ex Planning Minister attacks extensions to exempt and complying development

Details

Published: Wednesday, 24 February 2016 14:10

Ex-Planning Minister Brad Hazzard

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning would be concerned to find that the development next door to him has been constructed which he wished he had known was going to be built, so that he could have some say in it. That is a key issue in respect of this legislation. It is about the community’s right to know what is happening in the local area.

There has to be more that satisfies local residents that they will have an ongoing say such that they can approve or not approve of a particular development on their very boundary.

The Minister should hang his head in shame. He should have been embarrassed to introduce this legislation into this House.

But the legislation will not guarantee that any development undertaken by the Minister’s next-door neighbour will suit him. In effect, the Minister has killed community consultation.

When a private certifier is ticking off the boxes for some development next door to the Minister, the Minister will acknowledge that he got it wrong.

Yes, the Hon Brad Hazzard said all these things. And they are all appropriate comments in response to the Government’s current consideration of expanding exempt and complying development to include a range of one and two storey medium density housing options.

The problem with politicians, our incapacity to trust them and our reluctance to believe them, is a crisis of our times. There is far too much evidence of this slippery and un-principled approach to policy. The quotes above were all things said by Brad Hazzard, faithfully recorded in Hansard on 17 October 1997. It was part of his vitriolic attack on then Planning Minister Craig Knowles in the second reading speech for the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Amendment) Bill 1997. A Bill which, amongst other things, introduced exempt and complying development and encouraged private certifiers. Good call, Brad.

But Planning Minister Hazzard took a different view and his White Paper released in 2013 aimed at security to developers and insecurity for neighbours and the community. See depaNews issues in August 2012 and June 2013 for more.

Now, the Government through the Department of Planning is seeking feedback on expanding complying development to various one and two story medium density housing options, including dual occupancy, Manor homes, townhouses and terraces. This despite the notoriety of problems associated with neighbours building another storey, overlooking, overshadowing and generally buggering up the amenity of your own backyard.

This will be another step in the campaign by Governments (of both persuasions) to remove the impartiality of Council inspection and compliance from the building and development process. Put it all in the hands of private certifiers and let them rip. Private certifiers paid for by the developer and the inherent conflict that exists in that flawed model.

This is not just an issue for your Council to respond to and oppose. It’s an issue deserving of a response from all of us. There is, after all, nothing wrong with looking after your own backyard.

Submissions close on 1 March.

2016 elections for the Committee of Management

Details

Published: Wednesday, 24 February 2016 12:34

We have elections every two years for the position of President, the two positions of Vice President and the six positions for members of the Committee of Management. The position of Secretary is up for election every four years.

We have one vacancy on the Committee now; long-standing Committee member Les Green reckons 14 years on the Committee is enough and is transitioning to retirement and won’t be re-contesting, and neither will Paul Reynolds. So, three positions need to be filled.

Ordinarily we struggle to find people sufficiently interested or committed for these positions. Obviously it’s something more appropriate to members who have already had a role as a delegate or member of the Consultative Committee representing our members and who see this is an extension of that commitment.

If you are interested in considering standing for election you will be required to provide a 200 word policy statement about what you can offer and if you would like to discuss what’s involved in these important roles, please ring the office and we can fill you in.

The NSW Electoral Commission will be conducting the elections and the timetable agreed with us will see letters to all financial members posted on 9 March. New officeholders will take office from 1 May.

Shoalhaven wins Worst HR in Local Government Award 2015

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 11:07

Extract from December depaNews

Shoalhaven's full nomination follows:

And the winner is...

A momentous day for Shoalhaven, for the second year in a row the team at Shoalhaven have taken out the 2015 Golden Turd.

This award goes to the HR people who drafted the commitments they don’t comply with, to the executive team and management who endorsed those policies and don’t comply with them, to the Mayor “yes, she is a lady”, Councillor Gash, who should know better and even to the “number of female staff” who, like MC Pigg “are over this sort of crap too”.

It’s not crap, it’s the modern world. It’s consistent with the commitments of the parties to the State Award and the Council’s obligations to “ensure and facilitate flexibility for work and family responsibilities”; it’s all about attracting, retaining; building good career paths; not losing good staff; establishing a reputation that will ensure the Council is an employer of choice; successfully benchmarked against other employers, and benchmarked to ensure best practice.

And if you don’t believe any of that crap, change it. Stop posturing with policies boasting things you don’t provide or someone might take you on for the lack of truth in your advertising…

Shame on Shoalhaven. Shame on you MC Pigg, and you Councillor Gash and the unidentified cohort of “female staff” who share your view that this is crap. Maybe in 2016 MC Pigg could do a little bit of feminist consciousness raising so that he feels more comfortable using the word woman than lady or female. No one says gentleman or male staff, do they.

Time to redraft those policies so you have something you can comply with - or get your act together, join the 21st century and look after your staff in 2016.

Councillor Joanna Gash and MC Pigg presenting on how to be an employer of choice

Anyone for golf?

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 09:39

The depa Union Picnic Day Golf Day, our great tradition, will be held again this year at Blackheath on Friday 11 March.

For members who have attended this day, there is no need to remind you what a good time can be had but for those of you who haven’t, the joy and the despair is both boundless and unevenly distributed. More joy than despair, more laughter and entertainment than misery and, regardless of the weather and anything else, much more fun than being at work – even for me, and you know how much fun I have.

You can start letting Margaret know you are interested now. We will close the day at 18 teams, so don’t be disappointed.

Last year it was won by four members from Bega Valley and the depa Cup was presented to them by the Council’s Mayor in a ceremony poorly recorded and inadequately photographed. This year, whoever wins is obliged to send us a picture of the presentation at their Council as soon as possible and we will put it in depaNews.

We settle our section 106 with Mid-Western

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 09:37

But, sadly, we are unable to share with you what was agreed. Covered by a Deed of Release, this settlement is confidential to the parties. That means even if you ring the two blokes pictured, they won’t tell you either. You could try...

The process of seeing the Director at a Council sacked without good reason, or any reason at all, emboldens and encourages us to relentlessly pursue the removal of the “for any other reason” capacity to sack senior staff.

Fit for the Future

Details

Published: Monday, 18 January 2016 15:56

Uh oh. I know what you’re thinking. “Did he amalgamate six councils or only five?” Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a 17 seat majority government, with the most powerful electoral mandate in the world and recommendations from an independent panel that would blow your Council clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?

A rigid template of what constitutes fitness for the future is being hammered onto the 152 local government areas and no-one really knows how things will look when the dust settles. Probably not even the Government.

----------------------------------------

Yes, yes, we know this is all lifted from our May issue but we still love the image and the tampering with Dirty Harry’s famous line, but the dust is settling and we know how many of NSW’s 152 councils are looking at the prospect of not being around in their current shape by the middle of the year.

75. There are 75 councils affected by 35 merger proposals. Seven councils (Auburn, Holroyd, Jerilderie, Palerang, Parramatta, The Hills and Warringah) are affected by two competing proposals each. And just so everyone knows, here are the 75 listed alphabetically:

These councils are now in the “proposal period”. The Minister for Local Government has appointed “delegates” who have been delegated with the responsibility of conducting a brief public hearing process and then making recommendations to the (as yet not reconstituted) Boundaries Commission.

It’s January, and we really would all prefer to be a little bit more relaxed (and not so rainy or unpredictable), but for the 75 councils affected, their futures are on the line.

And being January, rather than burden you with vast amounts of information, we will provide you with some links that will allow you to find out as much as you individually need.

The council boundaries review website, where you can read about the process that lies ahead and the timetable anticipated and even enter your own Council, or any other Council you may be interested in, to see how it is affected and what is proposed.

The “instrument of delegation” which, pursuant to section 745 (1) of the Local government Act delegates the role of examining and reporting on the proposals and anything else incidental to that. If you are affected, these are the people responsible for the investigation and any recommendation. 

Preparing for Change - Guidance for Councils, prepared by Premier & Cabinet and presented to councils and general managers in a session we didn’t get invited to on 7 January.

Presentation to General Managers, also prepared by Premier & Cabinet and presented to the same session on 7 January.

The Government is also keen to introduce what they’re calling “Phase 1” amendments to the Local Government Act. This paper was released on the Fit for the Future website to accompany the appointment of delegates on the establishment of the process. The Premier made it clear that he was enthusiastic about having changes to the Act prior to the establishment of any new entities arising from the Fit for the Future process.

Here is a link to those proposed amendments. The proposals only affect employment of GMs and senior staff - and then not badly. Three proposals focus on reinforcing the separation of power between councillors and the GM and ensuring that the GM is involved in decision-making on the organisation structure and proposing to remove the requirement to annually report on the conditions of employment of senior staff because everyone is now on the standard contract.

Who has the worst HR in local government in 2015?

Details

Published: Tuesday, 22 December 2015 12:16

Our special issue in December each year is always one of our most popular. Eagerly awaited, a willingness by members to back their own HR against all comers, not a lot of accolades floating in or happy stories, and an interest across the industry and elsewhere. The general interest is  well beyond our own finely-honed fascination with seeing the industry develop a commitment to positively managing staff; providing proper performance-rewards; appropriate market-based salaries; flexible and accessible leaseback car arrangements; a real commitment to flexibility for work and family purposes, and an end to the misogynist historic attitudes of the old blokes (and they’re not all blokes, as we will show) that a woman’s place is really in the home, or only at work if she can dump the kids somewhere.

We’re optimists. We want human resources people and management generally who are not antagonistic to employees. Far too often, HR people think their job is to stick it up the employees, save money, cut conditions, frustrate commitments to health and well-being, strip away cars, cheat people in job evaluations. The proper role of human resources is to recognise that employees are the most important part of the business because they are the ones who provide the services and do what the business is intended to do. There is not enough of this attitude in local government.

There is also bugger all of that attitude evident in the way the Minister for Local Government is handling the current amalgamation program. For the government, it seems it’s all about dealing with the Mayors and ignoring entirely those people responsible for providing the services. That must change.

As we head into the bold new world next year with a reduced number of councils, we can only hope that bigger councils will provide better HR management. In no other profession (sic) or occupational group is the maxim about paying peanuts and getting monkeys, more evident than HR in local government.

Read more ...

Councillors behaving badly - bans on at Parramatta

Details

Published: Friday, 18 December 2015 10:38

Pick the real tyrant

It was only a matter of time, really. Parramatta Council has never accepted the 1993 separation of powers between their role and the role of staff. It’s been more than two decades but, for a minority of the current council, they still don’t want to know.

Councillors have wandered through the building, demanding access to people, rifling through files, checking on or advocating for issues that should be recorded as a conflict of interest, bagging staff and generally behaving like, well, a 16th-century monarch pumped up with a divine right to rule.

When Councillor Garrard was Lord Mayor in 2009, one of the first things he did after election in September was to abolish Mufti Day for those commoners employed by the Council who he may need to summon to his Mayoral Chambers/Throne Room, without notice.  Couldn’t possibly turn up other than suited and tied and demonstrating a proper level of obsequiousness. And that they bow, just that little bit more deeply and worshipfully as well.

We stress, that the overwhelming majority of current councillors at Parramatta are respectful and supportive of staff and do the right thing. We are talking about four or five boofheads.

Parramatta was the first Council to have depa members place a ban on a councillor after he had bagged members in a public meeting in 2000. Enough, was clearly enough and something had to be done about this notorious and unacceptable behaviour. And the councillor subsequently apologised.

Members put bans on again in 2009 after councillors took an unseemly interest in planning decisions affecting businesses where sex was provided, or could be provided, on premises. They treated the planning staff with contempt and demanded a number of peer reviews (all of which came back supporting the Council’s own staff) and the settlement of that dispute included a commitment by the Council for some training to improve their understanding of the separation of responsibilities in the Local Government Act - training which we hope they didn’t spend too much money on, because clearly it didn’t work.

On 18 November, the recently reinstalled Lord Mayor Paul Garrard (he’s, baaaack!) demanded entry into a staff area. Councillors should not have security clearance to gain access to floors where staff work anyway and in the move to the new building, the Executive took the opportunity of starting with good governance and behaviour and recommended the councillors be provided with security access only to their own floor and where they legitimately had business.

But the councillors, so comfortable getting their own way whenever they want it, insisted on amending the recommendation to provide them with access to the foyers of employee-only areas.

And so on 18 November, Councillor Garrard, bedecked in chains (well, almost but not the sort of chains we’d like to see him in) knocked insistently on a glass door to the staff area until the door was answered. Then, ignoring the Council’s own policy on the interaction between staff and councillors he claimed that he had complied with the policy of providing prior notice, which he hadn’t, and that he was both invited to the meeting and expected - another porky because the only people who knew he was going to be there were the developers.

Let’s be clear, councillors have no role in a pre-lodgement meeting and historically at Parramatta are only there to intimidate and bully staff on behalf of the applicant or the developer.

Read more ...

Chinese hackers embarrass LGNSW and LGMA

Details

Published: Friday, 18 December 2015 10:37

Those mischievous Chinese hackers, not happy with burrowing their way into the Pentagon or interfering with international missile systems, have now done something even more outrageous.

There is a letter dated 11 December addressed to the Local Government Minister Paul Toole being circulated in the industry purporting to be signed by both Keith Rhoades, president of LGNSW and Barry Smith, president of LGM/PA. This is not inconceivable in itself, but the subject of the letter is - the welfare of Senior Staff!

Clearly it is a hoax. The address and the name of the Minister are both correct, so this can’t be something that LGM/PA had anything to do with. The last correspondence we saw from that organisation to the Minister was addressed to Minister Tool and their last letter to Keith was addressed to Keth!

And while we’re a bit suspicious of the image chosen to accompany the letter as well, (reproduced above) what makes it even more obviously a hoax is that LGNSW is the organisation representing councillors. Councillors sack general managers who don’t deserve to be sacked, but who do get sacked for political reasons. They defend the standard contract and their ability to sack general managers for no good reason at every opportunity. So clearly there is a conflict of interest that makes this enormously improbable.

Far too many GMs with good reputations have been sacked by councillors with less than admirable reputations and every time we call for an end to standard contracts, or term contracts at all the senior staff, we have never, ever, ever, received any support from the councillors’ organisation.

Read more ...