Are we there yet?

 

 

The new Local Government (State) Award gets closer

 

Commission recommends LGSA agree to our claim on accreditation

When we submitted our log of claims to the LGSA (March depaNews) no one really knew what the implications of accreditation by the BPB would be. Clearly there would be things that could be agreed straight away (like the reality that the Council would be responsible for all costs associated with accreditation) but there would be other things which remained unclear or imprecise and where it would be difficult to work out the implications.

As a reminder, item 3 on the Log read as follows:

Leave reserved or negotiated settlement if implications are clear on compensation, training commitments and logistic matters to do with the accreditation of Council staff by the BPB.

It was a relatively easy matter to reach agreement with the employers’ organisations that councils would be responsible for all costs associated with the accreditation of their staff - even though there were some councils claiming that the employees would have to pay and there had been an unhelpful survey conducted in the industry asking councils whether they intended to do so or not. We thought, and we were right, there wasn’t any doubt.

As this issue of depaNews is published to members, we are very close to a final package of changes to be formalised by the LG&SA Executives next month and then will be put to the three unions for their consideration. At this stage, everything is largely under control apart from some continuing discussions on pay increases. Things are still “without prejudice” and an emerging package and next month we will be able to reveal the lot.

We don't want to raise any unrealistic expectations - so get used to the idea that the traditional increase of something like 3.2% is likely to continue.

What we can reveal is that we confidently expect this sub-clause clause will be inserted in clause 13. Allowances, Additional Payments and Expenses:

(xv) Accreditation of council employees by the Building Professionals Board

 Where an employee is required by Council to be accredited by the Building Professionals Board under the Building Professionals Act 2005 (NSW) the Council shall:

(a) Pay all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and/or maintaining such accreditation, including the cost of accreditation fees and compulsory continued professional development training/course fees, and

(b) Grant paid leave to attend course requirements in accordance with sub-clause (iv) of clause 25, Training and Development, of this Award.

But the critical issue really is what to do about the introduction of the parallel accountability for employees who retain their responsibility to their employer but at the same time now acquire accountability, and potentially a significant level of additional risk, in accreditation to an external Government regulatory board.

Our view is that until this became clear then the obvious thing to do was to insert a "Leave Reserved" clause in the Award to ensure that we could make an application during the life of the Award when we had sufficient evidence of the impact of accreditation on council employees.

We will be meeting with the BPB next month to talk to them about those parts of the Building Professionals Act 2005 which provide the Board with a power to investigate, require those accredited to attend meetings, interrogate them, make findings and issue penalties. While the regulation in late August allowing the accreditation regime to proceed by deleting references to the fines provided under the Act, there is still a powerful armoury of penalties available to the Board after investigating, either as a result of a complaint or of the Board's own initiative, accredited council employees.

The Board can suspend the accreditation of an employee to a period of eight weeks (and continue to do so for additional eight week periods) and can reduce levels of accreditation as well. No-one knows how this will work.

The major part of the Act regulates how the Board investigates, considers and issues penalties on certifiers but is written with the assumption that certifiers are all individual operators. The Act needs to be reviewed to acknowledge the qualitative change that the Board is now dealing with employees of local government who have an obligation to their employer - and that each council will have an interest in participating in any investigation that the BPB wants to conduct about one of their employees.

Councils will be interested to see if the process they may have carried out in dealing with the issue which is the source of the problem, is accepted by the BPB as reasonable or if the BPB wants to do something more dramatic and override decisions and actions already taken by was accredited employees employers. No-one knows how this will work, nor what role there will be for the council in this process.

It is likely that the LGSA and depa will be making a joint approach to the BPB about amendments necessary to recognise this significant change but we would hope in making these approaches that we would find greater co-operation than we have experienced in the last couple of months of brawling over our claim for the Leave Reserved clause.

The LGSA just didn't want one, opposed it vigorously, claimed we could make a claim anyway (which they would then oppose and in the context of an operating award be more likely to be successful) and, consistent with the agreement between us in these negotiations, it came down to the Industrial Relations Commission to try to find a resolution.

Which the Commission did on 27 September by issuing the following recommendation:

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

GRAYSON DP

MONDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2010

IRC10/127 - NOTIFICATION UNDER S 130 BY NEW SOUTH WALES LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CLERICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, ENERGY, AIRLINES AND UTILITIES UNION OF A DISPUTE WITH SHIRES ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ORS RE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AWARD

STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION

HIS HONOUR: The Commission has reached a point with the industrial parties where on the issue associated with the Building Professionals Act 2005, the Building Professionals Amendment Act 2008 and the Building Professionals Regulations 2007, the parties in spite of commendable efforts have been unable to breach the impasse between them.

For its part, DEPA in its log of claims at point 3 in the document marked MFI 3 in the proceedings seeks "leave reserved or negotiated settlement if implications are clear on compensation, training commitments and logistic matters to do with the accreditation of Council staff" by a regulatory body known as the Building Professionals Board.

For their part, the Local Government Association and the Shires Association oppose a leave reserved clause in those particular or other terms lacking appropriate clarity.

oOo

 

We are now confident that the clause recommended by the Commission will be incorporated in the new Award when it operates from 1 November.

In our October issue we will be able to provide you full details of the finalised package.

 

 

Ian Robertson
Secretary