Oh no, Richmond Valley has got it wrong again?
- Details
- Published: Monday, 14 April 2025 14:00
Richmond Valley received the prestigious award for the worst HR in local government in 2018 for creating the title of “scholar” on scholarships, when they really were trainees, with rates of pay determined by the Award. They thought calling them “scholars” meant they could be underpaid, because they weren’t trainees. We retrieved $30,000 in back pay for one member, and there were five other so-called “scholars” also owed back money. Then the GM thought it appropriate to make them pay for half their university fees, which was also a breach of the Award.
We are now involved again. This time with a member ecruited as the On-Site Sewerage Management Systems and Liquid Trade Waste Officer, on a two-year term contract. He contacted us because the two years was running out and no one was saying anything.
As term contracts are virtually prohibited in the industry, permitted only under strict conditions and regulated under clause 36 Term Contracts of the Award, and with Richmond Valley’s history, we found that the contract specified that the term contract was in accordance with this subclause “to perform the duties associated with an externally funded position where the length of the employment depends on the length of the funding”.
OSMS and Liquid Trade Waste are normal EHO/compliance functions everywhere, so this seemed odd, and the assertion there was external funding was suss. Unlike 2018, our initial questions trying to identify the “external” funder weren’t rejected out of hand by HR, in fact it was said “it looks to be incorrect as you have stated”. But then things slowed down.
We are now in dispute with Richmond Valley, with the IRC briefly dealing with the merits of the issue when it first was listed on 4 April. As so often happens, the Council retreated from their initial “external funding” assertion, saying it was a mistake by HR in the drafting of the letter of offer but they now say the term contract is appropriate “for the life of a specific task or project that has a definable work activity”. An approach as legitimate as calling trainees “scholars”.
All councils in the State regard OSMS as part of an EHO’s portfolio, and while this is a different provision of the award, it is also clearly wrong. It’s ongoing and continuous work. As to concerns about cost, there are more than 3000 OSMS in the local government area bringing in $200,000 in licensing fees, topped up by another $34,000 or so from liquid trade waste, plus pools and food shop licensing. This is clearly a continuing role with the Council receiving more in fees than the cost of providing the services.
The Commission adjourned until 28 April for the parties to confer and the Council to continue preparing a business case to make this a permanent position.
The reality is of course, if the Council wrongly placed the employee on a term contract, then they are already a continuing employee.