This news is confusing, and there may be legal issues, but HR tells us to relax
- Details
- Published: Friday, 09 August 2024 10:47
On 1 August, the new CEO at Shoalhaven City Council, Robyn Stevens, met with three Directors and told them she was restructuring and they would be terminated under their standard contracts and paid a redundancy. She provided organisation charts and details and followed this up with a slideshow for 30 or so managers that would see the new structure implemented on 4 November, and included even more organisational structures. No imprecision, a commitment that this would happen, and will happen by 4 November.
This is very unusual timing (potentially unprecedented) for a CEO to initiate a restructure so close to an election. The community will get a chance to vote on 14 September, and the caretaker period, where councils can’t do much prior to an election, starts in a week’s time.
More importantly, section 223 of the Local Government Act makes it abundantly clear that it is the Council’s responsibility to resolve the structure, not the GM/CEO.
There are two potential breaches of the Local Government Act here - section 223 prescribing the Council’s right to determine the structure after consulting with the GM, and providing that establishing the structure is the responsibility of the Council, and section 337 requiring the Council to be consulted on the dismissal of senior staff.
In neither the meeting with the directors who will be sacked, nor with the 30 managers, did the CEO and slides acknowledge the Council’s role in determining the structure, nor in the termination of senior staff.,
A week later, on 8 August she issued an email to all staff under her signature and with the subject “Proposed change of operating structure”, proposing a new structure of four directorates, consolidated functions, and “the disestablishment” of City Development, City Lifestyles and City Futures. Clearly written by someone unfamiliar with HR practices and restructuring, the GM says “I have proposed a new structure for the organisation”. The word “proposal” and the advice that “Consultation has now commenced” made it clear this was happening, whether people liked it or not.
The Award establishes a “pre-proposal” period and a “proposal” period, with different requirements. Neither term was used to clarify how this workplace change would roll out and this put everyone on the back foot. We emailed the Council saying that we hadn’t been advised as we were required to under the Award, to receive a phone call from HR, valiantly putting to us that although not specified in the communication, it was intended to be a “pre-proposal”. With a proposal to follow…
Given that the proposal is the GM’s own, and that there are documents with organisation charts identifying what will be merged and things that might disappear, that seems odd. And it seems even more odd that in the slide showing the process, 14 October is a step identified as “Seek approval from CEO”.
And what all that means, is the CEO has designed her operational structure and is proposing it, there will be consultation and then the CEO will approve it! This only falls short of the abject stupidity at Hawkesbury last year, when a Director made a complaint against the behaviour of a member, investigated the complaint herself, and then found that it was not sustained!
We’ve been told by HR that even though it wasn’t said, it was intended to be a “pre-proposal” period, so we can all relax. It’s hard to relax when we know that there are documents already prepared, so we won’t.
The confusing email should be reissued, no one understands it, and it’s creating the sort of concern it suggests should be the subject of professional counselling, “if needed”!
The timing with the election, the apparent belief that this will be implemented by 4 November, will require a new Council - half the councillors are not seeking re-election which has significant implications for a change – to make a fundamental decision about the new structure, when they won’t have any idea about the current structure. The CEO must think she has a better hope with this Council, than the next one.
Yesterday a Notice of Motion was lodged for the next council meeting, “That the CEO be requested to withdraw any proposed changes and potential redundancies and hold the planned restructure of Directorates until after the New Council has been installed and consulted.”
Hear, hear!