C2002/1298, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 1250 (12 April 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114J MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N VT03235
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2002/1298

HEALTH SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

and

AUSTIN AND REPATRIATION MEDICATION CENTRE

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re insufficient staffing levels in
the mailroom

MELBOURNE

1.12 PM, THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 2002

PN1

MR C. HEWSTON: I appear on behalf of the Health Services Union of Australia, together with MS Z. MARKO.

PN2

MS C. SOCCIO: I appear on behalf of the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Hewston?

PN4

MR HEWSTON: Thank you, Commissioner. As you are aware, Commissioner, this dispute is regarding the reduction in staffing levels within the mailroom of the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre. Prior to the grievance arising the staffing levels in the mailroom were six full time staff across both campuses of the Austin and the Repat. This change occurred without any consultation, despite numerous attempts to engage the hospital on this issue.

PN5

The grievance arose on Wednesday, 23 May 2001, where a computer clerk position in the mailroom was left unstaffed following a staff member being injured and being off on sick leave from that date. From that date Ms Robyn Patterson, who is the mailroom manager, and Ciaro Soccio, who is here today, who is the manager of employee relations, were both approached on a number of occasions by a local representative of the HSUA, Ms Jackie Begley, who is here today, regarding this issue with concerns of workload, changes in rostering and the absence of consultation for this change.

PN6

I do believe there were quite a number of conversations where little or no response was given to the HSUA representative, other than that the issue was being looked into or being referred to another manager. On Tuesday, 16 October, the issue was raised at the sub peak consultative committee of Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, where the response was that Ms Soccio would follow up the issue with Mr Mark Petty.

PN7

On 19 October the HSUA sent a letter through to Ms Soccio regarding a number of issues, which included the staffing levels in the mailroom, and on 22 October a letter was sent to Ms Soccio to initiate formal grievance procedures as per the award. The following day, Friday, 23 October, a response was received by the HSUA from Ms Soccio, stating that:

PN8

I have referred this matter to Ms Patterson for report back, and should be in a position to provide a response in the near future.

PN9

On 21 November, again at the sub peak consultative committee, mailroom staffing was again raised as a concern. No response was received at that meeting. It was stated that Ms Begley, the shop steward, would receive a response by the end of that week, being Friday, 23 November. On 11 December the issue was again raised at the peak consultative committee, where it was stated that the WorkCover position was being filled on an ad hoc basis for the last seven months, and the mailroom manager will not permanently fill at present, and that Ms Soccio and Mr Arthur Dimble, who is the WorkCover officer, would follow up the issue and get back to us by the end of the week.

PN10

On 12 February this year the issue was again raised at the sub peak consultative committee, and no response was received. However, Mr John Richardson said he would follow up with the area manager and Mr Arthur Dimble and get back to us. That did not occur. And on 25 February Ms Begley, the shop steward, had a conversation with Ms Soccio, and was informed that the position would not be back filled, and there was a casual who would work there only when five or less staff were rostered on a Monday, or if less than four were rostered on, on any other day.

PN11

That following week a notification was sent to the Commission. On 12 March the issue was again raised at the peak consultative committee. The mailroom was addressed by Mr Richardson, who said the matter would be resolved by the Commission, as he had just received the listing that day. The following day at the sub peak consultative committee again the issue was raised to try and resolve it prior to the hearing, and no response was given.

PN12

Now, between the dates I have mentioned there were numerous conversations which were had with hospital representatives wanting more information about what was being planned for the staffing levels in the mailroom, and the response which was received by the shop stewards as well as officials from the union and the organiser for that hospital were that, similar to, we are waiting on confirmation from dot, dot, dot, whether it be another area manager or WorkCover, or an insurer. The response varied, but the gist of it was, we were waiting on something or someone before a response could be given.

PN13

The Commission will note that the date of the original grievance is quite some time ago, 23 May of last year. I hope to offer some explanation of why it has taken so long for it to end up at the Commission. When the staff member went on sick leave on the 23rd, HSUA representatives were informed by management that they did not expect this absence to be prolonged, and that that staff member was expected back at work shortly. That was a recurring theme as a response from the management of the hospital.

PN14

And from the staff perspective I understand that this was accepted in good faith, and the staff expected the levels of staffing to return to normal shortly, and that they would make do with the current staffing levels until that time, thinking that was only a short time away. When the hospital intends to return staffing levels to six, which is the normal staffing levels, we are still unclear on.

PN15

It is true that there has been some assistance to the permanent staff in the mailroom provided by a casual employee who assists in a number of areas throughout the hospital. However, HSUA maintains that the staffing levels at present have been reduced, which has altered the custom and practice of work. This staffing arrangement has been reduced without any consultation with HSUA, and we submit that this reduction in staffing levels constitutes a change in the work practice in the mailroom area, and it has had an effect on workloads, rostering, work schedules, as well as placing significant strain and disruption on the workplace due to the lack of any coordination and consultation in a process.

PN16

As well as the workload itself, it affects a number of other factors including the likelihood of injury, etcetera. HSUA has had repeated attempts to engage the Medical Centre in discussion on this issue and negotiation so that we can find a mutually agreeable solution. It is our position that the hospital is in breach of clause 9 of the Health and Allied Services Public Sector Victoria Consolidated Award 1998, as the hospital did not discuss or negotiate with the HSUA regarding the grievance.

PN17

The hospital also failed to acknowledge that the work should continue as per custom and practice before the grievance arose and until the grievance is determined. It is also the position of HSUA that the employers breached clause 9 of the 1999 Public Sector Enterprise Bargaining Heads of Agreement, which states, Commissioner:

PN18

The parties are committed to adequate staffing levels in order to promote an appropriate work environment for staff and ensure adequate levels of patient care. Within this context the employers agree to replace staff on planned or unplanned absences where practicable subject to operational requirements.

PN19

That clause goes on to say that:

PN20

In the event that particular staffing issues are identified at individual health care facilities, the employers agree to consult with employees and the union in relation to any matters raised under the terms of the existing consultative arrangements.

PN21

The HSUA today is seeking to gain a genuine commitment from the Medical Centre that it will comply with the provisions of both the award and the Heads of Agreement, and we are also seeking some direction from the Commission and recommendations that, as I am sure the Commission would expect, that staffing levels be returned to normal, which is six equivalent full time staff, and that consultation and negotiation should occur between the parties regarding any changes proposed by the Medical Centre in regards to any change, including staffing levels in the mailroom.

PN22

If there is a proposal, then we would request that dates be set, or dates and times be set now for when any sort of consultation should occur if the Medical Centre does, in fact, propose to alter staffing levels and the custom of practice of work in the mailroom. We would also be interested in hearing any further suggestions that the Commission might have which may assist us in resolving this dispute. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Hewston. Yes, Ms Soccio?

PN24

MS SOCCIO: If the Commission pleases. Commissioner, this dispute, as Mr Hewston indicated, arises as a result of a WorkCover issue which occurred, a WorkCover incident which occurred around 23 May 2001. The individual sustained a shoulder injury and has been off since that time. The organisation has made many attempts to have the person return, and obviously we are committed under the Workers Compensation Act to ensure that the person does return.

PN25

We obviously have processes in place for that to occur, and I am pleased to announce that the individual is due to return on 2 April, after Easter, which is the Tuesday. She was due to return on 18 March, but due to reasons I can't divulge, or I don't have the liberty to divulge, she is now starting on the 2nd. So I sense that the request to retain the six EFT can be met starting from 2 April, Commissioner, as scheduled.

PN26

In respect of back fill coverage, over that period of time a casual employee has been allocated to the mailroom, and that individual has worked a total of 90 days out of 206 days since the individual has absent on WorkCover. So the organisation has made some attempts to back fill insofar as possible. The Commission might also be interested in some statistics, in that the management has tried to back fill to above average levels when the whole six EFT have been working.

PN27

For example, in 1999, where we had no absences on account of sick leave, or extended sick leave, I should say, or WorkCover, the average working staffing level was 4.8 - sorry, 4.5 EFT per day, and this is just a normal year for us, where we covered, managed to cover ADOs, sick leave, annual leave and long service leave. The following year, 2000, the average working staffing level was between 4.8 and 4.4, where we had a bout of extended sick leave, and since May 2001 staff have been absent on some type of leave, but the average cover has been steady at 4.5.

PN28

So to suggest that there has been insufficient staffing levels is perhaps inaccurate if we look at the average from 1999 to 2002. The average is maintained, individuals have taken leave when requested, planned and unplanned leave. So we are not - the ARMC is not completely convinced that staffing levels have not been met throughout those years. Also we impress upon the Commission that over the past one and a half to two years the management has not received any customer complaints about the service or even the lack of service. Nobody has indicated that there has been a lack of service.

PN29

We impress upon the Commission also the fact that over the last two and a half years, due to the new management, new management has more actively introduced procedural changes and improvements, computerisation to eliminate double handling, which has had a significant impact on time saving, of course, and the provision of an efficient service. And as I have mentioned before, the staff continued to take planned and unplanned leave as required and as requested.

PN30

In respect of the hospital's position, Commissioner, under section 122 of the Workers Compensation Act 1985, the Commission is aware that employers have the obligation to provide suitable duties. We have got suitable duties for the person who is currently on WorkCover, and it appears that we are able to accommodate this requirement and will do so as from 2 April.

PN31

One other thing is that the management has not made any extra demands on staff to carry out all duties. They have carried out duties as normal. No other demands have been made in terms of doing extra runs or anything like that. So in answer to the recommendation sought by the HSUA that six EFT be maintained, well, that will occur from 2 April, and the casual will continue to work during the return to work program. Commissioner, I don't have anything further to add to that. If the Commission pleases.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Hewston?

PN33

MR HEWSTON: Thank you, Commissioner. There is a number of points there that have clarified some information which we are glad to hear. We are glad to hear that there are being some attempts made by the hospital to return to the normal staffing levels, being six EFT. One question that the union would have in regards to the return of a staff member from WorkCover, is what sort of modified duties are being involved in that return to work program, and how does that affect their ability to cover their full duties?

PN34

Are they able to carry out their full duties, or is there, say, a restriction on half their normal duties, and would other staff be utilised in this area to cover for that remainder of work which is not being covered by anyone on modified duties?

PN35

MS SOCCIO: Commissioner, my understanding is the individual will return to what is called suitable duties, having regard to some restrictions. So the individual will be required to carry out a number of duties, whatever they might be. I don't have all the information as to what the individual can do or cannot do, however, she will return on 2 April. And as we all know, we have an obligation to provide those suitable duties, and we can do so and we will do so. If the Commission pleases.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: If I understood you correctly, you also said that the casual will continue to work during the return to work program; is that right?

PN37

MS SOCCIO: Yes, that is correct.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: So, in fact, six EFT becomes 6.5, 6.4, whatever it may be EFT, until such time as the person coming back is able to see their way clear from a return to work program; is that right?

PN39

MS SOCCIO: That is correct. They are my instructions, that the casual will continue to be employed during the return to work program as required. If the Commission pleases.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay, thanks.

PN41

MR HEWSTON: Commissioner, on that point, so the casual will be responsible for picking up the duties which cannot be performed by the staff member that is on a return to work program; is that correct?

PN42

MS SOCCIO: I presume so. I presume that is why the casual will be required to work during the return to work program, which is around 12 weeks.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. Can we leave at this stage, at this point. That after the person returns to work on the 2nd, that the union be advised of the nature of the return to work program, and any duties that the person is not able to perform, then the union needs to be advised as to how those duties are to be covered, whether it be by existing staff, or the intent whether to be by existing staff or to be picked up by the casual. If there still arises an issue from that, then come back to the Commission. I think that seems to be reasonable. I mean, at the moment we are throwing balls up in the air, we are not quite sure what we are trying to catch, I think. Does that seem to be a fair process?

PN44

MS SOCCIO: Yes.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right, we will leave it at that, thanks. The Commission stands adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.32pm]