Shock horror: BPB kills off B1 and B2

 

It wasn't us, but apparently sufficient people complained to the BPB about there being different letters of the alphabet to denote accreditation levels for private certifiers and council employees, for them to do something about it in version 2 currently being canvassed in the industry. The BPB had proposed B1, B2 and B3 as designations for local government employees doing "certifying" while private certifiers operate as A1, A2 and A3.

So, B1 and B2 are dead.

Clearly we underestimated how offensive you all found the BPB. We thought the idea that you should be accredited at all sufficiently offensive and didn't really worry about the letter of the alphabet that preceded the level. We too are chastened.

The BPB has been through a process of consultation with some fairly hand-selected representatives in the industry. Members of the Department of Planning’s Local Government Planning Directors Group nominated some employees who were doing "certifying" and this group met with the BPB on 18 June. Other groups (like EDAP) were invited to consult too and depa was invited to meet with BPB Chair Sue Holiday and CEO Neil Cocks on 9 July.

The depa Committee of Management considered version 2 when it met on 3 July. Committee Member Jim Boyce from Taree had been invited to the consultation group earlier and Jim was able to take the Committee through the detail of the proposal.

What can you say? If you are going to be beaten up, then you hope that those attacking you cause the least damage. And this latest proposal is a pretty soft way of doing it.

The Committee carried a unanimous resolution identifying our historic and continuing opposition to privatising development control in principle and our opposition to the accreditation of council employees because we believe sufficient checks and balances (and importantly, no conflict of interest) exist in local government to make this all under necessary.

The resolution can be found here.

This resolution has now been forwarded to the BPB as our official response.

Version 2 is so inoffensive (in the context of those things we have asked them to reconsider) that you wonder why they would bother. It's hard to see how it provides any value at all other than achieving the policy objective of some sort of accreditation regime. And while the welcome steps to dilute the original requirements of the scheme will be welcomed by local government, the private certifiers’ lobby groups like the AIBS and the AAC (or whatever Craig Hardy's group is called) won't like it at all

Isn't it funny to watch how Government develops public policy?

We expect to meet again with the BPB after they have considered a variety of things we've asked them to think about in the Committee of Management resolution.

Two vacancies on the Committee of Management close on Friday 31 July

At the last meeting of the Committee, Vice President Steven Parrisotto succumbed to the rigours of travelling to Committee meetings from Griffith and submitted his resignation. It had been so much easier working at Leichhardt. The Committee resolved to fill the vacancy (as it is able to do under our rules) by calling for expressions of interest and then deciding to appoint a member to the vacancy. The Committee also resolved to appoint Jim Boyce as Vice President to replace Steven. Congratulations, Jim.

After the meeting, David Lemke from Wyong Council also submitted his resignation. That means that there are currently two vacancies for positions as Member of the Committee of Management. Thank you to Steven and David for their contributions.

We now call for expressions of interest for the two vacancies. The next election for the Committee of Management will be held in May 2010 so this is an opportunity for members who may have an interest in standing for the Committee to make an application, not have to go through the hassle of an election and see if you like it.

The Expression of Interest should be no more than 200 words (being able to count is important so we will cut it after the 200th word) and you should use this 200 words wisely to tell us why you are interested, what you have done as a depa representative in the past and what you have to offer the Committee.

And remember to have an e-mail to Jody (jody@depa.net.au) by 4pm on Friday 31 July.

Commission endorses depa’s super/TRP campaign that Council should pay the increased compulsory employer contribution - and now more than 100 councils are paying

When we filed the 83 Councils’ Dispute, there were six councils refusing to pay the increase and 77 refusing to respond. There were also question marks about those councils which claimed they were not affected.

When the dispute was first listed in the Industrial Relations Commission before Justice Staff, there were seven councils refusing to pay, 49 which had not responded, 49 agreeing to pay, 13 awaiting advice and 34 claiming they had no employees affected.

The Commission made a number of recommendations and when the dispute resumed on 10 June, these figures had improved to 6 which wouldn't pay, 26 which had not responded, 61 agreeing to pay, 23 awaiting advice and 36 claiming they had no employees affected.

Again, recommendations were made and when the dispute returned to the Commission on 18 June, while there were nine councils claiming they wouldn't pay, all councils had responded, 85 had agreed to pay, 15 were awaiting advice and 45 were claiming they had no employees affected.

This was a terrific result and due in no small measure to Josh Keech from the LGSA, Martin O'Connell from the LGEA and me getting on phones in the LGSA office and chasing everyone up.

Our most recent e-mail broadcast to members advised that there were nine councils refusing to pay, 4 awaiting advice and forty which claimed they had no depa members affected, scheduled for conciliation on 6 and 31 July.

And by the time we got to Justice Staff on 6 July we had 99 councils over the line and agreeing to pay. Ashfield, Blue Mountains, Liverpool, Pittwater and Randwick all attended in the Commission, digging their heels in to varying degrees and announcing their refusal to the Commission to accept their obligation that the compulsory employers’ contribution should be paid by the employer. Although all, of course, accept that if these employees were not on term contracts, then there would be no question and the employer would pay. How does that make sense? All employees on contracts are on contracts only because the Council or the Government thinks it proper. There is no choice involved for the employee.

Some councils were still considering their position and Armidale Dumeresq, Ballina, Manly, Moree Plains, Parramatta and Wyong will have their opportunity in the Commission with the bloody-minded representatives from The Hills on 31 July.

You can see the full recommendation from the Commission here but those parts of the recommendation identified at 5, 6, 7 and 8 are critical and are quoted below:

“5. The Commission notes and endorses the agreed position of the LGSA and the Unions that the obligation to pay the extra compulsory employer contribution from 1 July 2009 is an obligation which falls upon Councils and not employees.

6 The Commission further notes the agreed view of the parties regarding Category 1 employees, is that Councils must pay the increased contribution from 1 July 2007, above the notional long-term average payment as set out in the DLG standard contract.

7 In respect of Category 2 contracts involving senior staff under s332 of the Local Government Act and employees are subject of contracts which preceded the DLG standard contracts, I recommend that these employees be offered by councils, the right to move to a DLG standard contract and that this group of employees be treated as Category 1 employees.

8 In respect of Category 3 award-based employees, I recommend that the only basis upon which Councils could use part of the employee total remuneration package (“TRP) to fund part or all of the increase in employer contributions from July 2009, would be in circumstances where the Council ensures that no award entitlement or award conditions are eroded either now or in the future.”

So, the most vulnerable group is those who are award-based employees but they get a specific recommendation to look after them, recommendation 9:

“9 In respect of any negotiations with employees arising from the payment of employer superannuation contributions, councils should endeavour to treat Categories 1, 2 and 3 employees consistently, particularly where TRP's are involved.”

So, if categories 1 and 2 have the employer pay, then “consistent” treatment means councils should pay for category 3 employees too.

Ashfield, Blue Mountains, Liverpool, Pittwater and Randwick are still considering the Commission's recommendation that the increases be paid by the councils.

It is lamentable that these councils would contemplate an argument about whether they can legally avoid paying the contribution. The more important question is not so much whether they are obliged to pay at but whether they should pay it. These are all employees on contracts where they had no option to be otherwise employed and where if they were not on contracts the employer would pay without argument. More importantly, these are employees at high levels of management in the organisation who are critical to the delivery of services to the community. These are also the sort of employees that traditionally councils have accepted that they need to look after.

Which is the worst council?

The Hills is doing everything it can to frustrate the process in the Commission and to make their six employees pay. It is the only Council to reject the recommendation made by the Commission on the first hearing date that councils involved in the dispute take no steps to make the employees affected pay while ever the dispute remained live before the Commission. They ignored that recommendation entirely.

They have also twice asked for adjournments of 4 to 5 weeks to allow them to do different things. On the first occasion they wanted five weeks to seek legal advice but they didn't get the adjournment that they asked for. This didn't stop them - just like a little girl asking for a pony Christmas after Christmas, on the next occasion they wanted another 4 to 5 weeks.

They have argued that the Commission doesn't have jurisdiction (because one of the six employees is senior staff under the Act) and one afternoon we received four separate letters from them demanding a whole range of information including a copy of the LGSS Trust Deed, actuarial advice, details of who the employees are but, in the same correspondence, advice that they were going to negotiate with this mysterious group of employees and try to settle the locally - so apparently they claim they don't know who they are when they write to us but they do know who they are when they want to meet with them locally.

And the General Manager will be arguing that I shouldn't appear for depa and that Martin O'Connell shouldn't appear in the dispute for the LGEA because we are directors on the LGSS Board and have a conflict of interest!

They will try anything to avoid accepting the view already endorsed by the Commission that the Council should pay.

This is how The Hills’ General Manager deals with all industrial disputes with depa. In 2007 we had a dispute about rates of pay for three managers with the same boring objections about jurisdiction made and where, eventually, he agreed to pay the increases claimed and this year found himself again in the Commission after a rush of blood to the head and another stupid decision.

One wonders what Dave Walker will come up with on 31 July?

The Hills is being closely pursued by Liverpool but we will know better later in August. We will have a special dishonour roll to publish in depaNews. In an industry where people's career paths are based on moving from council to council, it is handy to know precisely how councils do treat their staff in making these career path judgements.

Pittwater struggles to get it right and depa fixes a problem for everyone

Pittwater GM, Mark Ferguson

Sometimes we see people working in so many jobs it's hard to imagine how they get their primary job right.

Pittwater General Manager Mark Ferguson is a case in point. No wonder, with all the competing demands on Mark’s time that we found ourselves in dispute with Pittwater in two separate disputes. Part of the super/TRP dispute where the Council has one Category 2 and one Category 3 employee affected (the recommendation earlier makes it clear that the Council should pay the superannuation for both of them) but we discovered in the last couple of months that Pittwater has been illegally working salaried staff 38 hours a week since 1995.

It's hard to imagine how we didn't know. Certainly the USU and the LGEA knew and the Council subsequently claimed when we raised the issue with them that both those unions had endorsed these illegal arrangements and were happy for them to continue.

The story is quite simple: in 1992 a Council Agreement under the Local Government (State) Award was signed between the council and the three unions for individually named employees prepared to work three extra hours a week, bringing their total hours to 38, but at single time for those three hours. No overtime penalty would apply. We remember the agreement, it had a lifespan of three years and then lapsed. Most of the employees identified in it had left anyway.

Earlier this year the Council wrote to us about wanting to consult on whether employees would be prepared to reduce their hours or days as a cost-saving measure and, in passing, mentioned the 38 hour week. We didn't know it had continued illegally after 1995 when the agreement expired.

What this meant was that all the Council’s salaried staff were working three extra hours at single time, contrary to the provisions of the Award and therefore illegally.

We immediately wrote to ask about this, met with the Council and asked that they immediately put everyone back on the 35 hour week, leave them on their existing rate of pay even though it was effectively paying 38 hours and, if they did this quickly, we wouldn't prosecute them. They dawdled, we filed a dispute, they settled.

Our four members at Pittwater did all of the employees at Pittwater a considerable service. All salaried employees are retaining their rate of pay - which is effectively a 38 hour week rate with a three-hour reduction in working hours. What a gift.

The worst part of this dispute is that we know the Council knew that these were illegal arrangements but they continued to operate under them. We know that the General Manager Mark Ferguson is very busy - too busy to meet us when we raise this is a claim and too busy to meet with us about the superannuation/TRP dispute as well.

Mark is also the President of the Local Government Managers Association (where they are probably very impressed with his ability to work people illegally for such a long period of time) as well as the demands of his television career. No wonder he struggles to get these things right.

2009 Health and Building Surveyors Conference Reunion

It's on again. We are happy to announce that the second Reunion will be held on Friday 28 August at the Harlequin Inn, first floor, 152 Harris Street, Pyrmont. The first one was a beauty, having been associated over 25 years with health and building surveyors of all sorts, this is a function not to be missed.

It is also being organised by a long-standing member of ours and currently the General Manager at Canada Bay, Gary Sawyer. Coincidentally, Canada Bay is the only council where the General Manager and the Mayor are both depa members.

If you would like to attend (and who wouldn't!) please e-mail your acceptance for the attendance list to pagm@canadabay.nsw.gov.au.

See you there.

 

Yours etc

Ian Robertson

Secretary