What's the score at Shoalhaven?

Details

Published: Thursday, 28 August 2014 11:57

Since our comprehensive coverage of the restructuring fiasco at Shoalhaven last month there have been some positive developments.

We reported that the Council had agreed to review the situation of those employees who they had asked to forfeit their right to a car as a condition of employment as part of a promotion, and two of our members have had their cars returned.

We also reported that the Council was considering requests for re-evaluation and they are now in the process of re-evaluating positions with staff responsibilities which, we reckon, should always have been 3/3 under the Award.

No apologies though, to the employees concerned.

Wagga Wagga stumbles with dangerous precedents

Details

Published: Thursday, 28 August 2014 11:35

One of the agreed changes in the 2014 Award was to encourage a more sympathetic approach when employees run out of sick leave. Previous Awards empowered Councils to exercise a discretion and provide more sick leave for employees (with more than ten years’ service) who, for reasons of bad health, disease or injury, needed additional sick leave. A response, to the “but for the grace of whatever, go I”.

The 2014 Award, with a variety of other improvements in the area of compassion and caring, reduced that ten-year requirement to five. Employees with chronic illness or injury are now getting more support under the Award than they ever have. An employee with a disease that threatens to end their life doesn’t need their head clouded worrying about running out of sick leave.

But all this seems to have missed Wagga Wagga. Too many concerns about establishing dangerous caring precedents.

Last year our delegate at Wagga Wagga, Stephen Cook, had surgery and chemotherapy for bowel cancer. Something he will happily tell you was a real bummer.
 
He was comforted by colleagues at work and the Mayor, Councillor Rod Kendall told him “I’d like to think we would always look after you.”

This year they discovered secondary cancers in his lung and scheduled surgery with an uncertain result and prognosis.

Before his surgery, Stephen asked the Council to exercise their discretion under the Award to provide him with additional sick leave to cover the surgery and, if he needed it, whatever may follow.
 
GM Phil Pinyon, Director Planning and Regulatory Services Andrew Krakanthorp and the HR Manager Laurie Flack thought long and hard – this really tested both their imaginations and their compassion. They were worried about establishing dangerous precedents. Like, caring and supporting.

Pinyon and Krakanthorp decided that Stephen had long service leave and annual leave credits, so he could use that first. He needed to exhaust his long service leave and run his annual leave down to eight weeks first, which would cover his surgery and recovery and most of any subsequent chemo - and then the Council would provide him with four weeks sick leave.
 
Effectively, they offered nothing.

A caring employer would be providing whatever it took to ensure that the employee could face the challenge without having to worry about whether they would have enough sick leave or not. The Mayor clearly understood that.

We emailed GM Phil Pinyon supporting Stephen’s request and pointing out that the Award doesn’t make any suggestion that employees need to work down leave they have accumulated for other purposes, before Council can exercise their discretion to provide additional sick leave.

The GM responded “I don’t intend to rise to your provocations or respond to your inaccurate presumptions and comments” and in his response to Stephen said:

It is unfortunate that Ian Robertson chose to become involved in such a confrontational and provocative way yesterday. Despite Ian’s approach and certainly not because of it, I have revised Council’s formal response to you which was previously provided by way of Andrew’s email to you dated 9th July.

You can read our exchange here and decide for yourself whether it was confrontational or provocative. Or just right.
 
But, despite the GM’s assurances, or for whatever other reason, the GM and the Director had thought again and decided that Stephen didn’t have to use all of his long service leave up, only down to a balance of four weeks. Then, when annual leave is down to eight, the Council would provide four weeks additional sick leave.
 
Again that meant that even though we didn’t have to use up all his long service leave, his annual leave and long service leave would cover most of his anticipated surgery and recuperation time. Again, offering nothing.

Annual leave and long service leave are provided to give people a break from the pressures and rigours of work, time for rest and recuperation so you can return to work recharged. Sick leave is there for when you’re sick.
 
Chemotherapy is something you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. From his last experience, Stephen reckons he will need three days sick leave per treatment, so despite the Council knocking back his application for additional leave before the surgery, he tried again.

And again, the application was rejected.

That means that the 36 or so days of leave Stephen will need for his chemotherapy will all come out of his long service leave and annual leave and he won’t get down to the minimum level required by the GM Phil Pinyon and his team to trigger the four weeks sick leave they think is sufficient to offer.

He really needs to get sicker for the Council’s extra sick leave to apply. Nice.

When asked by staff to send flowers while Stephen was in hospital, Krakanthorp said, “aaah, it’s just the bloody precedent”.
 
Wagga Wagga’s website boasts of their “excellent reputation”, their “high ethical standards” their commitment to “deal fairly, honestly and ethically” but they have refused to do what is intended by the Award, to exercise their discretion and provide additional sick leave to someone seriously in need of it.

So, GM Phil Pinion expresses his best wishes, his Group Manager Andrew Krakanthorp does too but neither of them thought it appropriate to do what others would do and provide the additional sick leave.

A couple of real bustards

Krakanthorp is also a member of the LGPA Board that resolved to oppose the provision in the 2014 Award to provide half pay sick leave for the chronically ill or injured who need it. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

If the Mayor still believes he’d like to think the Council would always look after Stephen, he had better share the compassion with the GM and Director.

We have an offer for the 2014 State Award

Details

Published: Wednesday, 27 August 2014 16:27

The three unions and LGNSW started negotiations for a new 2014 State Award in November last year. The November issue of depaNews contained our 24 point log of claims, the employers had 44, the USU 80 and LGEA, 21. Plenty to talk about.

We always preface these negotiations to manage expectations by saying that this Award has been made by agreement between the employers and the unions since late 1991. Variations have been by agreement - although there have been a number of occasions when some issues could be resolved and we all agreed to allow the Commission to determine it.

The Committee of Management has followed the negotiations over the past seven months and at our May meeting considered about 50 proposed changes in a document which, over the intervening months, only got better.

Pay claims this time were made in the context of a 2.5% pay limit for employees of the NSW Government and a view of the Government, waiting on resolution in the High Court, that increases superannuation over the next three years should also come out of that figure.

The National Wage Increase this year was 2.6%, the State Wage Increase was 2.6% and, given that this isn’t really rocket science, if we could keep 2.6% this year untouched by the further 0.25% increase in SGC from 1 July, and similar increases untouched by the 0.5% increase in the SGC from 1 July 2015 and a further 0.5% from 1 July 2016, we would be doing all right. (SGC will continue to rise by 0.5% each year until it hits 12% on 1 July 2019.)

Of course, we all got used to the idea of 3% or a bit more but circumstances change.

Despite a narky, ignorant and ill-conceived assault on the negotiations by the Local Government Poseurs Association, the LGNSW Board on Friday 6 June adopted a package of negotiated changes recommended by their industrial staff after consultation with those representing the boss in the industry.

That means pay increases this year of 2.6% from the first pay period after 1 July, 2.7% from the first pay period after 1 July 2015 and 2.8% from the first pay period after 1 July 2016.
And all these increases are independent of the increases in the Superannuation Guarantee Charge.

Our log of the claims focused on a number of issues which had been problems for us and our members over the life of the 2010 Award. We wanted to see greater commitment from councils to flexible working arrangements for parents and more of an obligation to facilitate these arrangements; we wanted improvements in the role of the consultative committee - to stop brow-beating general managers and HR people bullying employee reps into acquiescence and to oblige the Council to be more consultative on organisational restructuring; clarity about being able to take a redundancy if there is not a job available of comparable skill and accountability levels; reinforcement of the obligation on councils to consult on changes to leaseback arrangements; improvements in adoption leave; special considerations for adoption leave for kids in difficult circumstances and access to sick leave for preventative health and well-being measures. We wanted some pay options for professionals as well to accommodate market pressures and other considerations.

And we’re pretty pleased with the way the negotiations went.

As the Committee Management has been well-briefed over the past seven months, we are continuing the process we have followed for the last few awards - I make a recommendation to the Committee of Management and, in turn, a decision by the Committee of Management to accept or reject the offer (I hope) consistent with my recommendation.

The Committee has unanimously resolved to accept the offer and we now refer the detail of the offer for your information and consideration. The offer is accepted in principle but we are open, as always, to your feedback.

As a final clarification, before you start to read through the list of changes, last week the Fair Work Commission decided there should be a 3% increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage has never had an effect on the Award negotiations and the increase was actually a flat increase described as a percentage on the existing rate. It doesn’t mean that all workers covered by Federal awards receive a 3% increase. It really is irrelevant to our consideration. Don’t be confused.

There are 60 or so individual changes agreed between the unions and the employers in this package to create a new and improved 2014 Award. Remember, this is a package offer and its components are indivisible.

If you have any questions or concerns (and we’re also happy to hear from those of you who are pleased with the deal, just like we are) you can ring me or email on

Please take some time to go through the summary which appears below. It’s my summary, it’s the summary that went to the Committee on Friday and while there are changes to 39 separate clauses, some of them contain multiple changes as well. For example, the new clause 39 Workplace Change has lots.

You can use this link to check out the clauses in which you might have more of an interest after you have checked out the summary. It’s a link to the Draft Award in its entirety.

The USU and LGEA will be doing something similar. The USU Executive has already adopted the offer in principle and will be conducting meetings around the state for their members over the next two weeks.

The President of the Industrial Relations Commission Justice Walton has listed the Award application for a hearing on 25 June. Our expectation is that there is no reason why the Commission won’t make the Award as requested by the parties and note that it is made by consent.

Consent to these significant improvements and developments from both the unions and the employers is a great achievement.

Proposed changes to the 2014 Local Government (State) Award

1. Clause 2 Statement of Intent

Adds reference to increasing productivity and financial sustainability but more importantly adds to the dotpoints of intention to “promote job security”, the words “and facilitate” so that it reads to “ensure and facilitate flexibility for work and family responsibilities” (one of our claims), encouragement of innovation and, targeting consultative committees, to “promote cooperative and open change management processes”.

2. Clause 4 Definitions

Tidies up the name of LGNSW and, significantly and to remove risks associated with councils setting up bodies to employee under the Fair Work Act and the Modern Award, defines employer as “all employees in local government or in the local government industry within NSW that are covered by clause 43, Area Incidence and Duration of this Award. Clause 4 also makes a minor changes to the definition of ordinary pay to cover hours of work flexibility agreements allowances. (See clause 19 B)

3. Clause 7 Salary System

Clarifies that salary systems may provide for progression based on employee performance and 7(xii) ensures that existing employees cannot be disadvantaged.

4. Clause 11 Payment of Employees

11(iv) requires councils to make payroll deductions for union membership where authorised in writing by the employee and may make payroll deductions for other reasons; at (v) caps the period of time councils are required to maintain salary payments to employees prevented from attending work due to bushfires are other climatic circumstances at one week; and at (vi) allows councils to recover a potential shortfall in workers comp where the insurance payment is less than the sick leave payment. This follows recent changes to workers compensation where injured workers now receive 95% of ordinary time earnings for the first 13 weeks of incapacity.

5. Clause 12 Annualised Salaries

This is a new clause that will allow councils to annualise rates of pay, penalty rates and the monetary value of various other award entitlements.

6. Clause 15 Allowances, Additional Payments and Expenses

“Disability Allowances” have been renamed “Adverse Working Conditions Allowances” and amended to remove ambiguity. Of relevance to our members, (xi) travelling allowances been amended to provide that the allowances now payable for travel in both directions when employers are required to travel to a different work location and the usual; (xv) Civil Liability Allowance clarifies and removes exposure to future underpayment claims; (xvi) provides to accredited Chartered Professional Engineers the provisions that are provided for BPB accreditation and (in response to one of our claims) BPB accreditation obligations on the employer continue “whether  employees are on paid leave and/or unpaid parental leave”.

7. Clause 16 Motor Vehicle Leaseback

B(iii) allows a Council to terminate or suspend an arrangement where the employee is demoted (provided that at least two weeks’ notice is given) and C(iv)clarifies that any variation to leaseback agreements needs to go to the Consultative Committee “before a definite decision is made”.

8. Clause 18 Hours of Work

Allows designated wages staff functions to work on weekends - not us.

9. Clause 19 Overtime

A new subclause (vi) to allow councils to direct employees to take a accrued time in lieu of overtime if they have accrued in excess of one week, or for the purposes of an annual close down.

10. Clause 19B Hours of Work Flexibility Agreements

This is a new subclause that allows councils to reach agreement with employees in Band 3 or Band 4 to incorporate an allowance “of at least 10% of the employee’s salary system rate of pay” in lieu of overtime into ordinary pay. This is a good opportunity for professionals. Nice work, Gordo.

11. Clause 19E Remote Response

Requires councils to pay on-call employees for overtime work they perform remotely responding to callouts over the phone.

12. Subclause 20A General

Needs to be read in conjunction with 21 D (i) but provides five weeks annual leave for employees who are rotating roster employees.

13. Subclause 21A Sick Leave

Provides a discretion for councils to allow employees to take sick leave at half pay under “extenuating circumstances”.

14. Subclause 21B Carers’ Leave

Removes ambiguity by deleting “days” and replacing with “weeks”. This assists part-time employees.

15. Subclause 21C Emergency Services Leave

Provides eligible employees with an entitlement of up to 5 days paid emergency services leave per year of service to participate in designated voluntary emergency management activities. This is debited from the employee sick leave balance, with some restrictions.

16. Subclause 21D Annual Leave

Minor rewording changes to remove ambiguity for seven-day rotating roster employees.

17. Subclause 21E Long Service Leave

Clarifies that the Council may direct employees to take long service leave and also to remove the requirement that long service leave must be taken in minimums of one week.

18. Subclause 21J(ii) Adoption Leave

Increase paid adoption leave to eligible employees who will now be entitled up to 9 weeks paid leave (18 weeks at half pay) when adopting a child under 5 years of age, and four weeks paid adoption leave (eight weeks at half pay) when adopting a child between the ages of 5 and 16. This was one of our claims and the new clause also provides that if the child is between 5 and 16 and “there are special needs and reasons in the child’s life” employer cannot unreasonably refuse to provide the full nine weeks at full pay.

19. Subclause 21(iv) Family Reunion Leave

Again another of our clauses and it provides employees adopted under a “closed” adoption practice with an entitlement of up to 5 days family reunion leave from their sick leave balance to reunite with their biological parents for the first time.

20. Subclause 21K Bereavement Leave

Under the 2010 Award, employees were entitled to four days Bereavement Leave per death but not for the death of an aunt, uncle, niece or nephew. Four days will be available for “immediate family but two days for “extended family”.

21. Subclause 21L(ii) Union Training Leave

Minor amendment to clarify payment. I thought this unnecessary but apparently one part-time employee made a claim for a full-time payment.

22. Subclause 21M Leave Without Pay

Minor change for clarification.

23. Clause 22 Flexibility for Work and Family Responsibilities

One of our claims, this new provision recognises the commitment to flexibility for work and family responsibilities and the need to retain skills and experience and requires employers are “encouraged to develop and promote flexible work and leave arrangements to enable their employees to better manage their work and family responsibilities.”

24. Clause 24 Health and Wellbeing

One of our claims, cruelly described as our Anti-Fatty claim, allows councils at their discretion to provide up to 2 days paid leave per calendar year from the employee sick leave balance for the employee “to participate in a health and/or well-being activity.” “It is anticipated that the leave will be used for proactive preventative health measures, such as to allow employees to attend an annual medical/health check, dental visit and will skin cancer check” but let’s get creative. Two days is just the start.

25. Clause 26 Casual Employment

Clarifies that the loading is paid in lieu of any entitlement to long service leave and other paid leave.

26. Clause 28 Labour Hire

This is a new clause to provide “that an employee of a labour hire business shall not replace an employee of Council on a permanent basis.”

27. Clause 29 Multiple Employment

This will allow councils to employ staff in more than one position under separate contracts. There have been a number of examples of someone who is employed as a full-time employee but also on weekends or seasonally in another job and this resolves any complication.

28. Clause 31 Training and Development

This clause (ii)(c) obliges councils to provide education and training “that enhances career path development” for employees.

29. Clause 32 Consultative Committees

The addition of the words “that encourages a free and open exchange of views” in the Aim of the Committee discourages GM and HR bullies and boofheads. Again, one of our claims but really one of everyone’s.

30. Clause 33 Appointment and Promotion

Now provides a right to an internal job applicant unsuccessful in an application to request “a review of their individual education and training needs”. One of ours.

31. Clause 34 Term Contracts

Allows councils to use term contracts “to temporarily replace employees working reduced hours under flexible work and leave arrangements”, and to “perform seasonal work”, to remove any confusion.

32. Clause 37 Work, Health and Safety

Removes duplication and overlapping with the Work Health and Safety legislation and codes of practice.

33. Clause 39 Workplace Change

Provides obligations on the Council at (b)(1) if there are significant effects on employees, or that result in a reduction in the size of the workforce to notify the union to which the employees may belong “at least 28 days before the change is implemented, unless otherwise agreed”; at (b)(2) provides that notification proposed change can be given either before or after the definite decision and that the union must respond within seven days; at (b)(3) provides that notice to the union “shall not form part of any notice of termination under subclause 39 (v”); allows the Council at (i)(c) to proceed with the change with the consent of the employees where the union has been provided with the seven days’ notice; at (i)(c) to “not unreasonably refuse” a request by employed to work through the notice period and to provide that during this period “priority shall be given to activities that may enable the employee to find employment.” And at (vi) Redundancy some minor wording for clarity. One of our claims, but really everyone’s.

34. What would have been Clause 39 Competitive Tendering has been deleted.

35. Clause 40 Council Agreements

To clarify the process in circumstances in which agreements may be terminated consistent with the provisions of the on the Industrial Relations Act on enterprise agreements - where three months’ notice needs to be given after the nominal term has expired.

36. What would have been clause 38 Award Implementation Committee

Has been deleted as this was intended to be a temporary arrangement after the making of the award in 1992.

37. Clause 42 Leave Reserved

Change includes leave reserved “to apply to vary the award to reflect possible legislative changes to parental leave and fringe benefit tax” and “apply to vary the award to allow for the taking of annual leave at either half or double pay by consent” - this requires changes to be made to the Annual Holidays Act 1944.

38. Clause 43 Area Incidence and Duration

The Award will now apply to corporations controlled by one or more councils and which are declared to be non-national system employers.

39. Rates of Pay

Increases of 2.6% from the first pay period on after 1 July 2014, with a minimum increase of $20.40; 2.7% from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2015, with a minimum increase of $21.75; and 2.8% from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2016, with a minimum increase of $23.15.

Further, that the monetary allowances in the Award be increased if expense-related allowances to reflect movements in the applicable ABS indicator, work related allowances generally with the same percentage increases as the rates of pay and tool allowances in line with the Crown Employees (Skills Trades) Award.

Okay, we liked both the images, and couldn’t decide which one we preferred.

Everyone loves the 2014 State Award - including the President of the IRC

Details

Published: Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:01

IRC President Michael Walton

It’s not unusual for the IRC to acknowledge the significance of agreement from complicated and intricate negotiations and the President of the IRC Justice Michael Walton on 16 July handed down his Reasons for Decision, identifying the real achievements of the complex negotiations that led to the making of the 2014 Award on 25 June.

We thought there were significant achievements in the Award – general improvements in conditions, clarification of things that may have been unclear to make life easier and no loss of anything, plus: increased obligations on councils to facilitate and implement flexible arrangements for employees’ family needs; better provisions on adoption leave; access to sick leave for family reunions for stolen children and other closed adoptions; an acknowledgement of the importance of health and wellbeing by providing access to sick leave for preventative health and fitness measures; a discretion for councils to provide half pay sick leave in extenuating circumstances of chronically ill or injured employees; and many more.
 
Amongst other things, the President said this:

The award established conditions of employment which struck an appropriate balance between the provision of fair conditions of employment and the maintenance of an industry which is economically sustainable and meeting its core objectives. The public interest is served by this approach because the significant contribution that the Local Government industry makes to the community of New South Wales will be enhanced by a harmonious industrial environment and the maintenance of a vibrant and stable Local Government sector.

The Award represents the latest in a succession of consent awards made in the industry since 1992. This outcome is a reflection of the maturity and sophistication of the industrial parties and their capacity to reach agreement in circumstances involving complex negotiations across an industry which is diverse in nature.

The combination of these considerations represented an overwhelming basis for the grant of the amended application and should result in congratulations being extended to the industrial parties to the award for this significant achievement.
 
So, everyone was happy, we’re mature and sophisticated, it was a significant achievement, and we can now start building on these improvements.

But, not everyone was happy …

LGMA poseurs fail to derail Award

Details

Published: Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:00

The only dissident in the exercise was the Local Government Poseurs Association which, even though not registered as either an employer organisation or an employee organisation, likes to dabble every now in both roles and again, like a true dilettante, does both badly.

Starting out as the old Town Clerks Society, then the Institute of Municipal Management, then the Local Government Managers Association and now, Local Government Professionals Association - a name which pinches “Professionals” from the name we’ve had for a decade, also pinches the same word from “Professionals Australia”, the Federal name of the LGEA but, more importantly misrepresents its role with the sole purpose of sucking in professionals.

They offer networking and training but really relish the opportunity of acting like a narky 1950’s bosses’ organisation, ignorant of the processes of negotiation and uncomprehending of the nuances and intricacies of the Industrial Relations Act.

Their new interest in professionals unfortunately doesn’t extend to the employment conditions or salaries of professionals, whether at low levels or managerial levels, as they regularly demonstrate.

They had their chance to represent employee interests when involved in the Senior Staff Contracts Working Party last year but their representatives failed to look after the interests of senior staff as employees. They opposed the paying of cash bonuses, the removal of the term requirement altogether and the proper extension of the minimum notice period.

When they sat down to develop the first Standard Contract with the LGNSW and the DLG, they weren’t really sure what role they were playing. Still, desperate for recognition and flattered by being invited to sit down with public servants of the Crown with far better protection and entitlements and the LGSA (which really is the employers’ organisation and does do mature and sophisticated) they were unrestrained by their ignorance.

Away they went, allowing the DLG to then claim employees affected by the contracts were represented, and ultimately bearing responsibility for the rigidity and unacceptability of that first Standard Contract and the continued capacity of a Council to sack good general managers as well as bad. Thanks for that. It’s beyond argument that more good general managers get sacked under the “for any other reason” provisions than bad ones for any reason.

While the President of the IRC can acknowledge the significance of the harmonious industrial relations evident in the final agreement that came from 150 varied and diverse claims, LGPA, by resolution of their Board, intervened in the relationship between employer organisations and employee organisations wanting a harder line.

LGPA President Paul Bennet wrote to the President of LGNSW on 29 April (demonstrating his own professionalism by spelling his name wrong – hey Paul, its Keith, not Keth) and then later, with their CEO as a co-signatory, to the Manager of Employee Relations - two hysterical letters with multiple factual errors (especially the first one) and levels of shock and horror rarely seen in local government correspondence.

There were three things that they wanted to derail.

The first was a proposal in the negotiations to ensure that if councils set up employment arrangements, the employees concerned remained covered by the State Award. This was one of the original claims made but they claimed it was “lodged at the last minute” which was completely untrue. They argued in favour of Councils being able to set up other arrangements to pay less than the State Award and to provide worse conditions. Nice. Given that this claim, which did find its way into the final Award, would protect employees if a number of councils set up planners or EHOs, for example, to work across a number of council areas, we are entitled to challenge their commitment to the interests of professionals.

They opposed a provision restricting labour hire to encourage proper employment conditions in the industry but they revealed the depth of their misanthropy by opposing the provision to allow a Council to provide sick leave at half pay under “extenuating circumstances” - namely for the chronically ill or injured and dying.

The letter was ill-informed, ignorant of century-long processes developed in New South Wales for industrial relations and foresaw horrific consequences. The letter, signed by CEO Annalisa Haskell and President Paul Bennett claimed “the implications for the sector are significant and precedents are potentially nasty”, for a start. Nasty? Nothing much nasty about protecting pay and conditions.

The image from the Wizard of Oz is perfect - the cowardly lion, the tin man with no heart and the scarecrow with no brain - cowardly, heartless and brainless. That will always be LGMA/LGPA for us.

Beware.

It’s not just the State Award that is committed to making councils provide family friendly and flexible work

Details

Published: Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:00

The 2014 State Award provides two significant improvements for working parents that coincide with publication by the Australian Human Rights Commission of their Supporting Working Parents: Pregnancy and Return to Work National Review.

On a weekly basis we provide advice to members dealing with councils reluctant to embrace the flexibility provided in the Award for parents returning to work - particularly mothers. It seems extraordinary that we would need to do so but two improvements in the 2014 Award will make it harder for councils to ignore their obligations.

First, the 2010 Award acknowledged the intention of the parties to the Award to “ensure flexibility for work and family responsibilities” but at many councils this didn’t happen. The 2014 Award has taken this commitment further with the addition of two simple words, with the Award now requiring that they facilitate these arrangements as well. The Award now commits the parties to the Award to “ensure and facilitate the flexibility for work and family responsibilities”, so unsympathetic, unsupportive or even hostile Councils really will have to do something.

Second, clause 22 Flexibility for Work and Family Responsibilities now provides this new wording:

“In recognition of the commitment to provide flexibility for work and family responsibilities and the need to retain skills and experience within the industry, employers are encouraged to develop and promote flexible work and leave arrangements to enable their employees to better manage their work and family responsibilities”.

We are already familiar with snide observations from supervisors and managers about accommodating what they see to be unrealistic or unreasonable requests; negativity from the same managers or supervisors when the Council’s own policy document encourages “your positive attitude towards flexible work arrangements is essential”; the reliance on obsolete policies which pre-date the Fair Work Act and its absolute requirements to respond positively to flexible working arrangements; dawdling and ignoring reasonable timeframes; expecting child care arrangements are easily found and almost instantly changed; smug reliance on assertions that the flexible working hours policy doesn’t operate concurrently with the working from home policy (even though neither policy specifies this); ignorant assertions that flexible arrangements are not available for “long-term dependent care” when the policy doesn’t mention childcare or parental responsibilities but focuses only on caring for the ill or injured - and where the Fair Work Act and the Award require otherwise; responding to a request by proposing a 50% reduction in working hours instead, with the loss of the leaseback car; arguing that working from home arrangements are not there to accommodate childcare responsibilities even though other employees at work are doing precisely that; and demanding special requirements for working parents to keep appropriate credits in their flexitime, when that doesn’t apply to people who aren’t parents; and, part-time working arrangements that require a capacity, without reasonable notice, to be available for weekend work.

And all of this while the Council boasts its commitment to doing the right thing. A glossy booklet with the General Manager smiling with the caption “A great place to work …” that promises flexibility in attracting and retaining quality staff and flexible work environments that help all staff to balance their work, family and other responsibilities, but which are clearly more honoured in their breach than their observation. And so far, we’re only talking about Penrith.

We will tell you more about Penrith in subsequent issues as we move them into 2014.

While Australia falls well below the arrangements for employing women with young children in OECD countries, less attention has been paid to making employers provide more flexible arrangements for working parents. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s Report found that much needs to be done to make workplaces more welcoming for mothers and fathers returning from parental leave, and to prevent discrimination.

The Report found that 49% of mothers had experienced discrimination during pregnancy, parental leave and their return to work, 32% suffered discrimination requesting or taking parental leave and 34% in dealing with their family responsibilities. These figures seem consistent with our experience.

In addition to the protections available in the State Award, progressive National Employment Standards are incorporated in clause 21F Parental Leave (General) and 21G Requests for Flexible Working Arrangements. Some councils still don’t understand this.

The Report also found amongst employers “confusion and uncertainty about their legal obligations, and about employee rights”. We are always happy to help the confused and the uncertain.

If you are having issues of discrimination at work because of your family responsibilities, let us know.

And if you are making a request for flexible working arrangements, here is a link to your rights through the State Award and the Fair Work Act 2009.

What’s your Council doing about the Award’s health and well-being provision?

Details

Published: Thursday, 31 July 2014 09:59

Clause 24 Health and Wellbeing is a new provision that apart from providing encouragement to councils to develop workplace health and/or wellbeing programs, allows councils to agree to provide up to 2 days paid leave each calendar year from employees’ accrued sick leave to participate in a health and/or well-being activity.

This is subject to some considerations but the critical issue is that there is a discretion for each Council to opt in, or opt out of the option, to provide the additional leave.

What’s your Council doing? This was one of our claims and we would like to keep a record of which Council is providing this as an option as part of its commitment to looking after the health and well-being of its staff - and those councils deciding to do otherwise.

We’ve already seen one draft policy from Penrith (Penrith just can’t seem to do the right thing at all these days) which proposes to restrict the provision to “medical appointments or medical treatments/screenings by medical/health practitioner”. This frustrates the intention of the clause and directs it away from fitness, healthy lifestyle activities, general exercise programs and their establishment with a trainer or in a gym and a whole range of other activities that will contribute to the well-being of an employee.

Penrith won’t be the only Council trying this on (let’s hope the employee representatives on the Consultative Committee rejects this) and we would like to know who and which Council is trying to frustrate the intention of this clause. Is it just indolent or lazy HR people or others higher up?

Please let us know. Would also like to know those councils which are embracing it and trying to do the right thing by their staff. It’s not all about bad news.

An early favourite for our 2014 HR Award

Details

Published: Thursday, 31 July 2014 09:59

Like finding a Japanese soldier on some obscure island in the Pacific, who still thinks he’s fighting the Second World War, we have found a council that looks like it didn’t properly grade its senior health and building surveyors (as they used to be known in the Health Surveyors State Award) way back in 1992.

Everywhere else (until we discovered Taree and Hastings a couple of years ago and fixed them) has had seniors as band 3 level 3 since 1992. So how does it happen that Shoalhaven have them at 3/2?

The systemic and chronic rorting of job evaluation at Shoalhaven was exposed in their current restructure. This was a process where, not only did they breach their obligations under the State Award to advise employees affected and the union to which they belong, but it was only when they tried to jam existing “seniors” into even bigger jobs, with even more staff, and still at 3/2 and no more money that the whole questionable system started to unwind.

We filed an industrial dispute which has been before the Commission on five occasions. On the first occasion the USU and the LGEA wanted to intervene because they had concerns about the process as well and this was contested by the Council - asserting that this was really only about the evaluation of one position when the dispute notification made it abundantly clear it was about much, much more. They lost that argument. We welcome the other unions. That’s 1 nil.

In the dispute proceedings Council agreed to re-evaluate the team leader jobs using 00Soft (the old Wyatt) and we then discovered they were using version 19, the 1993 version that was made obsolete when it was superseded by version 20 in 1995. Version 20 provides more reliable evaluation consistent with the skill descriptors in the Award – particularly in the professional area. As part of the dispute, despite their original defence of the superseded obsolete system, the Council has agreed to transition to version 20 from 1 January 2015. That’s 2 nil.

Council was adamant they had properly evaluated these positions (as a general rule, councils never admit to rorting or fiddling the system) but the re-evaluation found that the positions really were 3/3. Council then had to agree that the positions would be 3/3 because it was their idea that we’d sit down and go through the evaluation. That’s 3 nil.

The upgrading led to a redundancy for one of our long-standing members John Britton (well done John and enjoy your retirement) and may well provide another. I think we can count that as 4 nil.

Then two members were offered the Team Leader positions but under the condition that access to a leaseback car would be “discretionary” and not a continuation of the condition of employment cars they had enjoyed in their current positions. This was subsequently claimed to have been a mistake, but the realisation this was a mistake was very slow in coming and while they were wondering whether it was a whether it wasn’t, they kept asserting locally that they are entitled to do this. That’s 5 nil.

And we discovered other employees who had a car as a condition of employment, when offered promotional positions, have been asked to sign away their condition of employment car for a car that can be removed with six months’ notice.

Group Director Tim Fletcher and a movable feast of HR functionaries are up to their eyeballs in this fiasco. GM Russ Pigg delegates things down the organisation so, ironically at least, he can devote some time to going along and present at a convention of the Local Government Poseurs Association about “Transformational Change – The Shoalhaven Story”. Oh Russ, you are such a wag! You have to admire self-deprecating humour. That’s a story that should be R rated.

The Council has a pay policy which prevents employees, concerned about the accuracy of the evaluation of their position, asking for the position to be re-evaluated unless there have been “significant changes” to the position. This sort of provision sets the rorted level in concrete. But on the last occasion this was argued out in the Commission, the Council agreed to re-evaluate positions of those members who wanted their positions re- valuated given the new understanding about the appropriate level for Team Leader positions. That’s 6 nil.

They also agreed to provide a list of those employees who may have been asked to sign a letter of offer including a discretionary car - something that they had refused to do before. So, that’s 7 nil.

And on every single issue, the Council dawdles, obfuscates and then precious and sensitive people in management get distressed about the tone of emails the union sends to its members. Poor little loves.

In particular, they didn’t like us saying this:

• rorting the job evaluation system to keep positions out of 3/3

• we’ve sprung them and remedied the issue

• chronic rorting of job evaluation, trying to forcibly redeploy people into positions without giving the opportunity of taking a redundancy

• for trying to cheat (two members’ names deleted) out of their rights to a car and being sprung

• and robbing who knows how many people of their rights to a condition of employment car in taking another promotional position.

Funny, they never objected on any of the occasions when precisely that sort of language was used in the Commission. What do you think? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Shoalhaven has made itself an unbackable favourite. The award can sit alongside the GM’s Certificate of Appreciation from LGPA for his “Transformational Change- The Shoalhaven Story” presentation.

Shock, horror, more bad news on the quality of private certifiers

Details

Published: Thursday, 31 July 2014 09:59

The shortcomings of the private certification system continue.

The ACT Auditor-General Maxine Cooper has conducted an investigation into development assessments and made observations about “potentially improper” relationships between builders and certifiers. Oh no, another “we told you so” moment.

“Dr Cooper has called for more auditing of certifiers’ decisions, more training for certifiers and a public register of demerit points against them”, according to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by authoritative local government editor Harvey Grennan on 22 July. The Herald reports that the Auditor-General’s office conducted seven case studies and “found that two dwellings should have been subject to a full development application and three others gave rise to consideration of disciplinary action against certifiers.”

Dr Cooper criticised the inadequacy of penalties against certifiers and prominent authority on construction liability and certification, Kim Lovegrove, Melbourne solicitor and partner in a building and planning law firm Lovegrove Smith and Cotton, observed that “the Auditor-General has hit on a number of serious issues which extend beyond ACT borders.”

“Last year my colleague Stephen Smith called for a number of reforms to private certification more generally, including not only mandatory auditing and continuing professional development for certifiers, independent peer review, more oversight powers and higher penalties but also a regulated floor on certifier fees to ensure these cannot drop to a level which would compromise professional standards”, Professor Lovegrove said.

The Herald observes “the Canberra findings mirror some of those of the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in a draft report on local government compliance and enforcement released in May. This found inadequate penalties being imposed. Disciplinary action was taken against only 1% of all accredited certifiers and 0.1% received more than a fine and a reprimand. No action was taken on 72% of all complaints.”

There have been no adverse findings against accredited council employees.

Farooq gets Farooqed

Details

Published: Monday, 28 April 2014 12:18

GM Farooq Portelli and Mayor Ned Mannoun in happier times