Bumper end of year good news issue:

 

Wagga Wagga dispute ends at last

The Daily Advertiser gets a kicking from the Press Council

Bankstown's denial of family friendly work dispute finally settled

The year is over and we're all having a break

and Bankstown wins "Worst HR in Local Government Award" again

 

 

IRC orders Wagga Wagga to publish Hurst "apology"

 

We have spent a lot of time in the Commission this year with Deputy President Grayson trying to settle issues that arose from a complaint made by local developer Peter Hurst. We started running details of this dispute in the August issue and have provided links to a number of recommendations and statements made by the Commission.

In short, we now have a new template for how aggrieved employees in local government can deal with members of the community/developers/nutters/whatever, making unsupportable, untrue and baseless allegations. We look forward to applying that template to others next year.

In this dispute Peter Hurst advised the Council through his solicitors that he was prepared to apologise to employees concerned when his allegations were all dismissed after a comprehensive investigation conducted by the Council’s Internal Auditor. Then, he changed his mind.

But before he changed his mind, we had drafted the apology we thought appropriate, it was endorsed by a meeting of our members at Wagga Wagga, the Industrial Relations Commission thought it reasonable and the General Manager agreed that it was appropriate. The General Manager wrote to Mr Hurst and asked that he agree.

Sadly he wouldn't but we still believe the apology appropriate, the Council agreed that they needed to protect the reputation of their employees to ensure that a well-publicised and widely-distributed complaint was baseless and had been dismissed, and Deputy President Grayson on 16 December ordered that the Council publish by paid advertisement in the Daily Advertiser a brief introduction and the apology sought.

The Commission's order means that the Council has 28 days in which to have the advertisement published.

As those of you who regularly receive development applications from small developers (in both senses) no one would be surprised that he called upon the developer's prerogative to change their mind.

We will publish the content of the advertisement next year. We don't want to spoil the surprise when it hits the deck in the Daily Advertiser.

Have a happy new year, Peter.

 

 

Press Council gives the Daily Advertiser a kicking

 

In the November depaNews we complained about the partial and hostile nature of media coverage of developers’ complaints in Wagga Wagga. Their hostile role encouraged baseless allegations like those of Peter Hurst and the general hysteria developed was fundamental in the Minister for Planning issuing a "Show Cause" letter to the Council threatening their planning powers.

Many of the baseless complaints, if examined like Peter Hurst's was, will also be rejected but this didn't stop the Daily Advertiser running a vendetta against the Council and staff.

The Council made a complaint to the Press Council. The first complaint was that the paper had not taken reasonable steps to ensure their reports were accurate.

"The Press Council has concluded that the first article contravened its principle that newspapers must take reasonable steps to ensure that reports are accurate. The newspaper's explanation of the figures on which it was relying was not sufficiently specific to ensure that the city council had conceded their accuracy, especially as the articles have reported strong criticism of city council staff on the basis of the figures and the city council had provided other figures appearing to support a different conclusion. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is upheld."

The second complaint was that the newspaper had failed to neutralise damage caused by "publishing harmfully inaccurate information".

The Press Council has concluded that the second article contravened its principle requiring newspapers to neutralise, so far as possible, the damage caused by publishing harmfully inaccurate information. Although sufficiently prominent, the article should have indicated clearly that the article was correcting an error by the newspaper, not merely reporting a clarification by the Wagga Council. This responsibility is especially clear in light of the harm that had been caused to city council staff. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is also upheld, notwithstanding that the city council might have helped to achieve a satisfactory resolution by agreeing to an interview after the first article."

It is a matter of considerable relief to the employees concerned that this dispute is now resolved. The Daily Advertiser has been exposed as partial and antagonistic and the advertisement required by the Press Council to be published (and published on Friday 17 December) made it abundantly clear to members of the community that the paper unfairly and inappropriately damaged the reputation of council staff and breached critical principles of the Press Council.

Have a happy new year, Daily Advertiser.

 

 

Bankstown collapses (again) on family friendly work dispute

 

It doesn't get much better than national prominence on page 3 of the Sydney Morning Herald to publicise a Council acting badly. We circulated that article to all members as encouragement to have them consider the options for flexibility available under the Award in a climate where everyone talks about family-friendly work but not everyone does something about it. And, to give Bankstown a serve too, of course.

The Bankstown dispute concluded in the Commission on 8 December. The Council collapsed - agreeing that Richard Aguiar could return to full-time hours - and implicitly acknowledging that their argument that he had consented to forfeit that right was a fantasy without any supporting information.

The Council's best argument was that Richard had agreed to the change and that it was part of a restructure. And they totally missed the irony that their best argument was a confession to two breaches of the Award. Doh!

 

If the Council had converted Richard's position from full-time to a permanent part-time position they were obliged to advise the Consultative Committee - and they failed to do so. Secondly, if the change arose from a restructure, then the Council was obliged under the Award to advise the employees affected "and the union to which they belong" of the change - and, again, they didn't. Doh!

 

 

The first dispute in 2005 was filed because the ad for the position specified part-time arrangements as an option, he raised this as his preference at the interview and it was not discouraged. But after starting work, he made the request and it was rejected. This, despite the application being consistent with commitments to family friendly working arrangements in the Award and a policy boasting that Bankstown would deliver family-flexible work. With the "assistance" of the Commission, the Council reversed their decision. That's depa 1 - Bankstown City Council nil.

And after having the Commission’s "assistance" we filed a second dispute two months later because someone in the Council thought he should be denied access to overtime because he had "family responsibilities". Thoughtful and caring? We think not, it was punitive at best. Again, the Commission was able to provide "assistance" and the Council again reversed their decision. And that’s depa 2 - Bankstown City Council nil.

And finally, the dispute settled last week, with national prominence of a Council which should know better boasting about family friendly work and not delivering it. On this occasion, the Commission’s "assistance" had the Council, for the third time, reverse their decision and allow Richard to return to full-time hours. And that makes it depa 3 - Bankstown City Council nil.

Not to be outdone, black and white can easily be said to be grey at Bankstown and General Manager Luke Nichols flew into indignant print in a "Message from General Manager” to all staff on 8 December. It's a pity he didn't choose to respond in such terms to the Herald when they pursued him for a comment prior to publication but Luke was concerned that "unfortunately the article portrayed Council in an unsympathetic light with criticism of its family friendly workplace practices." Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.

Later, he was "extremely disappointed with the incorrect portrayal of Council as not being family friendly." Well Luke, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a bloody duck.

But we can't let the imprecision of Luke’s response go unanswered. This is what he said:

"As Mr. Aguiar’s latest request could not be resolved internally it was taken to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission. The matter has been resolved with the assistance of the Commission."

And this is what he meant:

"As we couldn't agree to allow him to return to full-time work (and we had no argument to support our assertions apart from a stupid confession we may have breached the Award on two occasions) the union dragged us into the Industrial Relations Commission again and, wouldn't you know it, when depa takes us on we always act like boofheads, and they did us over again!"

And just to show how unreasonable they are, this is the final sentence we wanted included in the General Manager’s letter agreeing that Richard could return to full-time hours after, as Luke puts it, the Council had received "assistance" from the Commission:

"Bankstown regrets the treatment of Richards claims to make changes to his work to accommodate his family responsibilities and undertakes not to treat Richard any differently to other employees".

And the Council refused.

We hope all of you responsible for this shambles have a happy new year.

 

 

We are closing the office and having a break

Apart from the inspirational and benign leadership at Bankstown, we are a bit sick of dealing with the belligerent, the stupid, the venal, the punitive and the boofheads. We enjoyed dealing with the supportive, the caring, the professional and all of our members, of course, even the ones who didn't like our advice.

The office will close at noon on Thursday 24 December and Louise will be back on Tuesday 4 January to allow us to recharge our batteries to come back full of enthusiasm, resolve and fight for 2011. I need a bit longer and I’ll be back on 10 January.

We wish you all a fabulous holiday/Christmas/Xmas and a rewarding, well-paid and balanced working life in 2011.

 

 

No real surprise in 2010 HR awards

 

Dammit, we were hoping for a bit of anxiety, some doubt to keep the contestants on their toes and the bookies uncertain. What we got was Bankstown, a clear winner with daylight second. A funny state of affairs for a Council which is historically "Labor" and with an ALP Mayor.

We have had an unfortunate history with this Council. In our December 2005 issue, we ran a competition about whether there was "anywhere worse than Bankstown" and found that there wasn't.

In summarising the year we listed:

• Sacking a member who lost his licence when they could have easily accommodated other travel arrangements.

• Breaching the Award by establishing a Consultative Committee with other people not agreed to by union delegates.

• Breaching the Award by not having a Salary System that provides annual reviews or progression based on the acquisition and use of skills.

• Sacking another member for losing his licence when they could have easily accommodated other travel arrangements.

• Making changes to the organisation structure, and refusing to have a meeting of members but offering individual meetings where management can stand over individual employees.

• Refusing, unsuccessfully, to allow a member part-time work (even though they enticed him to come and work there on the basis that he could do this) to accommodate his family needs.

We excluded what used to be known as City Approvals where they had "a more benign managerial style" and we could have added the second dispute in 2005 mentioned above about the punitive approach to access to overtime but we were trying to be gracious and full of goodwill because it was the end of the year.

In 2006 were able to settle all these disputes after the intervention of the Council but in 2010 we were back in the Commission three times.

The first under section 106 for a member suspended without any good reason and eventually settled with a protective Deed of Release that doesn't allow us to say any more than the dispute was resolved. Even though we can't tell you why, we love settling disputes like this. That’s depa 1 – Bankstown City Council nil.

The second, when the Council acted unreasonably by directing a member of ours about to go on leave for six weeks to remain for another nine weeks to reduce sick leave accumulation and where the other 12 or 13 people who received a similar letter the following day were given time and an option of agreeing to something else. This was a dispute where the Commission eventually directed the Council to withdraw that direction and to properly consult with employees if they propose to change long-standing HR practices. That’s depa 2 – Bankstown City Council nil.

The third, about how they deal with the flexibility of an employee's kids growing up and wanting to return to full-time work. And that's depa 3 – Bankstown City Council nil.

We have had more disputes with Bankstown than any other council ever and we had more disputes with Bankstown this year than with any other Council. And they’ve lost the lot.

Congratulations to Bankstown City Council - we look forward to continuing our relationship with you in 2011.

 

 

What, don't you take your kids to see Santa?

The November issue invited members to send photos of their kids with Santa for a special, end-of-year, make- us-feel-good about the festive season conclusion. It was one thing on the last occasion when we asked for photos of your kids and only one member responded and sent us a picture of a really nice foal, but this time we didn't even get an animal entry.

So, reluctantly we have only one picture to publish - a young comrade who will otherwise remain anonymous.

 

Ian Robertson
Secretary