|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:(02) 9238-6500 Fax:(02) 9238-6533
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN
C No 00908 of 1999
C2002/2109
LHMU - ACM DETENTION CENTRES OFFICERS
(INTERIM) AWARD 1997
Review under section 52, item 51,
schedule 5, Transitional WROLA Act
1996 re award simplification
Application under section 113 of the Act
to vary the above award re award simplification
SYDNEY
10.35 AM, FRIDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2002
Continued from 17.10.02
PN1848
PN1849
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before Mr Gayton commences to give his evidence I should place on the record that after a discussion this morning the program of inspections will be Junee on Monday, 28 October and Baxter on Friday, 8 November. Yes, Mr Douglas?
PN1850
MR DOUGLAS: Mr Gayton, do you have a copy of your statement?---Well, no, I haven't, not an up to date one unfortunately.
PN1851
You haven't? I will hand my copy to you?---Thank you.
PN1852
Could you have a look at that? Is that a copy of the statement that you prepared?---It certainly appears so, yes.
PN1853
I think on the second page it is dated 24 September, is that correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN1854
Your Honour should have a copy of that. I think it is unsigned.
PN1855
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't have one with that date on it I think.
PN1856
MR DOUGLAS: On the second page at the top it should be dated 24 September.
PN1857
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I've got page 2 with 28 at the top of the second page. The first page is headed: Mercer, and I've got 24 September on the first page.
PN1858
MR DOUGLAS: Yes. Well, I think you have got the statement, your Honour.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1859
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.
PN1860
MR DOUGLAS: Mr Gayton, you are an associate with Mercer HR Consulting?---That's right, yes.
PN1861
Are there any changes that you wish to make to your statement?---No.
PN1862
Are its contents true and correct?---Yes.
PN1863
Yes. Could I - if you look at - you indicate in your - - -
PN1864
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you tendering that, Mr Douglas?
PN1865
MR DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honour, I tender that.
PN1866
PN1867
MR DOUGLAS: Thank you. Mr Gayton, you indicate in the statement that you have had experience with correctional services in Queensland?---Yes, that's correct.
PN1868
Could you tell his Honour what that experience amounts to?---Well, it's a range of experience. For a period of time I was the senior advocate, industrial relations advocate and representative.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1869
And where was that, at Arthur Gorrie or where?---For the Queensland Public Sector.
PN1870
Yes?---I was their industrial relations advocate and managed their industrial relations issues, hearings, compulsory conferences.
PN1871
Over what period of time was that?---Probably around about 18 months. It was a fair time ago. It was probably around about 1989, 1990.
PN1872
Yes?---It may have been a bit earlier than that actually, '88.
PN1873
Yes, and any other experience with respect to correctional services?---Yes. I was appointed as the principal of the staff training college for corrective services in Queensland. In that role I was responsible for designing training programs, induction programs for correctional officers, undertook a very wide-ranging and state-wide review of correctional officer roles, looking at different levels of correctional officers, understanding what the tasks were as a part of a needs analysis. I've also managed as a general manager a number of institutions as well, correctional institutions.
PN1874
Can you name those?---My home base was Morton Correctional Centre.
PN1875
Yes. Where is that located?---At Wacol in - - -
PN1876
Brisbane?---Outskirts of Brisbane. It was a rehabilitation programs institution that also eventually took over the reception function. I was also general manager for an extended period of time at Bogga Road Brisbane Correctional Centre.
PN1877
Is that maximum security or minimum or - - -?---Maximum security.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1878
That is maximum?---My other institution Morton was a maximum security as well.
PN1879
Yes, and over what period of time was that experience?---I'd say it was over around about 2 to 3 years.
PN1880
Yes. When?---1989, '90, around that period.
PN1881
Yes, and any other experience in relation to correctional services?---I have reviewed roles with Mercer in terms of work value, job evaluation, looking at positions within the organisation. I've also acted as peer reviewer of positions that have been evaluated by other staff within corrective services. Also peer reviewed positions that were at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre.
PN1882
When was that? When did those things occur?---That would have been over the last 2 years. Also Fulham Correctional Centre, I've done some work with Fulham looking at correctional service officers.
PN1883
Okay. Have you seen a copy of the LHMUs submission with respect to your evidence which I think is now an exhibit in these proceedings? I'm not sure, your Honour.
PN1884
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, it was LHMU26.
PN1885
MR DOUGLAS: 26, yes. Have you seen that, Mr Gayton?---Yes, it was faxed to me on Tuesday.
PN1886
Do you have a copy with you there?---Yes, I have.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1887
Can I refer you to paragraph 5 on the first page which refers to an extract of a paper by Terry O'Loughlin which then on the second page offers some criticism of the CD methodology. Are you familiar with that particular paper and its circumstances?---I quickly got a copy of it off the internet as I was walking out the door, flying to Bundaberg. Yes, I've got a copy of the paper. It was actually an article in the APESMA Journal as I understand it. It was around about two pages, rather than a research paper.
PN1888
Do you have any comment to make in relation to what is said in that extract?---Well, yes, I can make comment about it.
PN1889
Yes?---The paper itself wasn't specifically about our methodology, though it does mention our methodology. It was about points factor job evaluation systems in general and some of the issues around that. I actually went searching for what might be the background or what documentation that article was based on, referring to the kind of details that are in there and I delved back through our - where there was specific reference to our methodology, dealt back to pre 1990 where there was a methodology that was tailored specifically for APESMA for their utilisation to apply job evaluation methodology for engineering positions. So it's based on very dated information for a starter and for a specific application within APESMA itself on as I understand it the union.
PN1890
Yes?---I suppose - would you like to me work through what some of my notes that I made on the plane on the way down?
PN1891
Yes, if you would?---This is this morning.
PN1892
Is the witness able to do that, your Honour?
PN1893
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Any objection to that, Ms Schofield?
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1894
MS SCHOFIELD: No, your Honour.
PN1895
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to restrict it to just the - - -
PN1896
MR DOUGLAS: Yes, just per usual - - -?--- - - - document - the references itself?
PN1897
Yes, please, yes?---For a starter, it refers to two different methodologies - or well, it refers to Hay as a methodology it points factor system. Cullen, Egan, Dell and Mercer, Cullen, Egan, Dell which - what I suppose my position there is that it refers to two different methodologies where in fact it is one methodology. It refers to the system in its purest form has got its points values and it is not meant to evaluate the performance of the encumbered in the position and that is true. Points are ascribed to the position description, that is actually not the case, that is incorrect. When we do job evaluations, position of valuations, the position description is one input to that process in the daily gathering process but we find that generally that it is not a completely reliable one. When we are doing an evaluation of a position, one, we do get the position description. Two, we look at a whole range of organisational documentation about the context within which that position is operating.
PN1898
Yes?---Say for example, we will look at the corporate plan, we will look at the organisational structure, we will look at the systems and procedures that they have in place. The documentation of procedures, we look at the practices that are in place. We look at the relevant awards, those kinds of issues. So a whole range of documentation that provides a context within which the organisation - the position operates. We also interview the incumbent and also if required, interview that incumbent's manager or supervisor and generally get some information from management group or a senior manager about, again, the context within which the position operates. I would have to say that if I was asked by a client to provide a work value assessment on a position based pure and simply on a position description I would send some very strong warning signals about that and I would have some grave concerns about doing it. So if this - if the person who wrote this paper is working in an environment where
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
position descriptions are the input to job evaluation I can understand the level of concern that he might have about that. There is reference in the paper about our methodology and talks about cognition, education and decision accountability. I suppose that reflects the dated nature of the documentation. In all the time that I have worked with the Cullen, Egan, Dell job evaluation methodology, I haven't come across those terms and that is why I did the research and that is pre 1990, and in fact the education factor that is discussed in here is not actually education it is - it is eduction. So I suppose that is kind of telling me that the person isn't that au fait even with the system that he was talking about and writing about. Further down in the documentation. The documentation - the paper says:
PN1899
Points factor systems tend to put emphasis on areas like management of staff, overall budget control and decision-making status to accrue points.
PN1900
Again, that is inaccurate. There are different styles of roles and obviously you are the manager of Coles Myer as opposed to the manager of a corner store, size and dollars and the number of people managed is a reflection of the impact of that role in the organisation. However, we do discriminate jobs, there are a range of positions, a lot of positions that where the actual impact and contribution of the role has got very little to do with the budget that it manages, the number of people that are managed as well. For example, a lawyer does not manage a big budget, does not manage a lot of staff - - -
PN1901
If they do, they don't manage them well?---I wouldn't have said that, but it does not mean that I might not have thought it. An engineer is not necessarily managing a lot of people or dollars. A corporate planner, there are a whole range of roles where the impact of the role and the contribution it makes to the organisation that it is working within, is much more about the impact of the advice that it is providing. For those kinds of roles, we do not evaluate them on the basis of the number of people that they manager or the dollars that they manage. So we deal with them quite differently and I mean, yes, I think it is probably the key point around that point. So it isn't a driving and determining factor and we have roles that might manage no people, have no budget and have considerably higher outcome in work value than a position that might be managing a $10 million budget and 200 staff.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1902
Yes?---
PN1903
Points factor evaluation gives greater outcomes for functions that proceeded with managed or supervised rather than persistent contribute.
PN1904
Again, that is inaccurate, one, we don't look at the wording we look at what the work is that is actually being performed and two, the fact that - as I just said, the fact that you are a manager or supervising people does not necessarily impact on the work value outcomes that we provide:
PN1905
A constant concern is the application of the system by individual companies open to manipulation by individual companies in terms of transparency and accountability. Members often complain of not being given access to the results of their evaluation to allay their concerns about the objectiveness of those doing the evaluation.
PN1906
Well, in this case it wasn't the company, ACM that was doing the evaluation, it was Mercer. We are engaged as consultants to provide that advice because it is independent advice and we give that advice without fear or favour and I must say there have been a couple of occasions where I have been danced around the floor by a CEO or a senior manager in an organisation arguing about the outcomes of an evaluation that we have done and that - that does not alter what our evaluation is unless the points that are being raised give us new insights to the role and we have a different perspective about it and give us a greater understanding of the role that might cause us to believe that this is a different - there is a difference here as to what we perceived.
PN1907
Yes. I have no other questions, your Honour.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1908
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Douglas. Mr Gayton, before your cross-examination commences I might just ask you to walk me through the way in which points are contributed to the various matters - that they are contributed to - you have given a brief outline in your evidence of how that is done but I must say it is a little cryptic for me. I would appreciate they being walked through the points for expertise for judgment for accountability, how they - - -?---Right.
PN1909
- - - how they are worked out and also how the points for the C10 tradesmen were calculated?---It is probably useful to give a brief overview of the methodology first of all, your Honour. We look at three specific factors, expertise, judgment and accountability. Do you want me to go through that stuff or is that quite clear?
PN1910
No, I would like you to go through it if you like?---All right. Three particular areas, expertise, judgment and accountability. Within each of those factors there are a number sub-factors. In expertise for example the sub-factors are knowledge and experience, that is about what is the kind and level of knowledge and experience as required to be able to perform this job at competent level. The second sub-factor we look at in terms of expertise is the breadth of the role. Does this role manage this breadth within the organisation? And that could be, for example, a payroll clerk.
PN1911
Yes?---Or is it managing the human resource function, which is a much broader breadth?
PN1912
Yes?---The third factor we look at is inter-personal skills required in the role, and in the personal skills, in the broader context of that, what is the requirement in terms of the nature of the interaction with people for the utilisation of inter-personal skills. What is the requirement to negotiate, and that may be negotiating situations, or ideas. It may be negotiating tenders. To what extent is this role involved in conflict management, for example - conflict resolution - so it is the broader concept of inter-personal skills, not just being able to stand up and talk. So in terms of expertise we first get a good
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
understanding of the role and that is through a whole range of processes, understanding the context within which it is working, understanding the structure within which it is working, the kinds of duties and responsibilities, the interactions that they have, the nature of the communication, a whole range of things. We then utilise a set of descriptors within our manual to identify how we rate each one of those factors so, for example, we may say that knowledge and experience for this particular position is a D, and it ranges from A through to G, for example as rating.
PN1913
Well, how do you assign the D for example to that?---The D is assigned on the basis of - we have a set of descriptors within our manual that says: look, a D looks like this, it has these kinds of features in terms of knowledge and experience. Once we assign that it is a D, we then look to see whether it is a full D, or whether there is a variation either side of it. Whether it is a D minus, a D equals, which is the D, or is it just slightly above that, a D plus. So that is why you will see variations in a profile.
PN1914
Is it done on a very formulated basis, or is there scope for discretion in that process?---One of the comments in I think the union response - I think the article as well - and one of the criticisms is that this is not the systems job, the valuation systems are not scientific systems, and they are not - they are not formula driven. It is not a matter of having a software package where you input a number of - push a number of keys and it spits out what the result is. It is not scientific. It is a structured process of evaluating roles - of trained people in the application of job evaluation systems to go out and be evaluators - and the analogy that I use with that is that it is a bit like the same kind of process of selecting people for a job, where you have a set of criteria that you assess against.
PN1915
Yes, okay?---If you don't have that set of criteria then there is a fair chance you are going to pick the wrong person at the end of the day. With a set of criteria it frames how you assess the job and it gives you the opportunity to use a set of benchmarks against that and it also restricts the level of subjectivity and bias that can be brought into the assessment of a particular role.
PN1916
Yes?---So I would certainly agree with the comment, it certainly is not a scientific process but, I must say, in my 30-odd years in human resources and industrial relations I've never seen one. No, I will take that back. I haven't seen one that actually works in any reasonable way.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1917
I see?---So it's a similar process then for breadth, we have a set of standards that help us to define what breadth is and a set of standards to help us to define what inter-personal skills level is, so you might end up with a profile that says: D equals 2 plus, C minus. That is a profile that you see in there. Now, the conversion then to points is through a table - a set of tables that we have that have been researched now over a long period of time and established in terms of their - their credibility and reliability in terms of relating to work value. I've actually got a copy of the methodology, and I can actually show you a table.
PN1918
Yes, I don't think we want to go to that degree?---All right, okay.
PN1919
I'm trying to get a broad understanding?---Right. So I will access the table and I will look it up as: this is a D, a D minus. This is a 2 plus and a C minus, and that gives a points allocation to the role. It is similar with the judgment area.
PN1920
Yes?---We look at job environment and we look at reasoning, and similar with accountability.
PN1921
Yes, thank you?---But it's a set of - to actually convert a profile to points is - we utilise a table to do that.
PN1922
Yes, thank you. Mr Douglas, anything arising before Ms Schofield cross-examines?
PN1923
MR DOUGLAS: Just one question. For instance, if you look at the table, I think, under "Expertise", just looking at "Court Security Officer", the first one, all right?---Yes.
PN1924
Firstly, you have C minus, that is one of the sub-sets in "Expertise", is it?---Yes. It's the knowledge and experience one.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1925
That is knowledge and experience. Then 2 minus is a second sub-set?---Yes, that indicates the breadth of the role.
PN1926
Right, and B plus is the third sub-set?---Inter-personal skills.
PN1927
Right, and that process is followed throughout the chart?---That's right.
PN1928
Yes, according to whether it is, "Expertise, Judgment, accountability"?---That's right, yes.
PN1929
For instance, going to "Judgment" in relation to the Court Security Officer, it is a B2, but no other elements, as compared to the rest of the table. Why is that?---It's the nature of the role and it is the nature of the context. The fact that it is a correction, or a security officer living in a similar kind of environment to correctional officers, does not mean that therefore they have the same profile. It's the nature of the work that they are doing and the context within which they are operating. Court Security Officers, for example, live in a highly controlled, very specified work environment with very limited variation of duties and a very limited variation of options and problems that they have to solve, so they have a lot of guidance about the kinds of judgment that they exercise and the kinds of problems that they have, are not the same breadth, not the same kind of context and difficulty, as what would for example a detention officer at one of the detention centre.
PN1930
Well, let's just go down the table to Detention 1, under "Judgment", the B plus.
PN1931
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, just before you, what are the sub-sets in judgment and accountability? I think I cut you short before you told me about those?
PN1932
MR DOUGLAS: Yes.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
PN1933
THE WITNESS: Right. In Judgment, two sub-factors. One is the job environment. To what extent is this role guided about how it pursues its duties in its role and how it solves problems. For example, there are some positions where a problem arises. This is problem number 23. We deal with problem 23 by going to the folder, pull out the folder that has got problem 23. Here is the answer, solution number 24. A very prescribed environment, where the guidance is provided in terms of decision-making and the supervision and guidance by others is exceptionally strong. Other positions, for example - other roles don't have anywhere near that same level of guidance and direction and the example that I give when I'm training - training new evaluators is, I say: well, think back to when Kennedy said: we are going to land a man on the moon by the end of this decade. There were no manuals, there were no processes, there were no guidelines about how the hell it was going to happen. A very different kind of context within which that position is addressing problems and addressing decisions that need to be made. The second factor is reasoning, a sub-factor is reasoning within Judgment, and that is - how tough are the problems that you have to solve? How many varied options are there? How difficult is it to make the judgment about the right kind of option to choose, and that is about - that is reasoning. The third area - the third major factor is accountability. Again, there are three sub-factors. The first one is independence and influence and that is: to what extent has this role got the freedom to mould the kinds of deliverables that it has to deliver in the job. So to what extent can it change the systems and procedures? To what extent can it change the way it operates, those kinds of factors, as opposed to a position that might be extremely well supervised and not a lot of flexibility about how things are done. The second sub-factor is impact. What is the value - contribution to the organisation? What is the impact that this job has - this role has in contribution to the organisation? And there are a range of ways that positions can impact in the organisation and vary in value and contribution. A lot of them can be that it is managing a lot of resources. For those kinds of specific roles if you are running a production line, for example, maybe the best measure it: well, how big is the budget? How big - how many people are you managing as an indicator of contribution. If it is an advisory kind of role, like a solicitor, barrister, corporate planner, the kinds of examples I gave before, it's what is the impact of that contribution, not in terms of how many resources they are managing, but for example the highest impact in - I will say the Queensland Public Service role is the Under Treasurer, in terms of the level of advice that that position provides and the impact of that advice on the economy
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XN MR DOUGLAS
of the State and the management of Government finances. It is not about how big the Department is, in fact, it is one of the smallest, but it ends up with the highest rating, in terms of impact and, in fact, it is the highest rated work value-wise position in the Queensland Public Sector. So we look at impact, but from a range of perspectives, which deals with that issue that was raised in here that: how many people, how many dollars you manage is a driving factor. The third sub-factor that we look at is what we call involvement. I suppose, in a way that is much more about who carries the can if something goes wrong here? Is this the kind of job where the position is responsible for the deliverables, quite clearly? Is this the kind of job where that responsibility is shared with another role, or several other roles? Or is this the kind of position that has very little control over the deliverables, except in the performance that they actually deliver of the job? A good example of that is someone on a production line, and basically all they do is go like that - I used to work in a can factory during school holidays and my job was on a production line and, take a can off here, put it on a machine, hit a lever. In that, my involvement in terms of how well the can comes out was very limited. It was really how well I performed that job, rather than the nature of the process itself.
PN1934
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you?---So they are the eight sub-factors that we look at.
PN1935
Thank you. Mr Douglas, you were about to ask another question, I think.
PN1936
MR DOUGLAS: No, that has covered the issue, your Honour.
PN1937
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Ms Schofield.
PN1938
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1939
MS SCHOFIELD: I will certainly be picking up on some of those points, thanks, Mr Gayton. Firstly, can you tell us about the process that you undertook to develop the conclusions that you have set out in the table at page 4?---Yes. One, a gathering of a degree of organisational information about each of the institutions that I visited. Things like the organisation structure, role descriptions, position descriptions, post-descriptions as well, which are quite different to the generic position descriptions that exist in ACM. I looked at the award to inform myself about the context of the award environment they were working in. The kinds of definitions in the award and specification of the kinds of work of each of the levels under that, and a range of other documentation as well. I looked at the - looked at the policies and procedures of standard operating procedures and the extent of those and they were quite considerable in - in the detention centres - and also in corrections as well. I suppose I would have to say that looking at - at the ACM centres, generally, correctional and the detention centres, that the level of guidance and direction that the staff are given about how they do their work was quite considerable and I'm comparing that to other kinds of environments that I'm aware of in the State system.
PN1940
Just picking up on that point, how does that affect the evaluation that you are making, the fact that the level of guidance and directions is quite considerable?---It does have an impact. It - it does affect the problem solving that the person - and the decision-making that the individual needs to pursue. It affects the level of independence and influence that they might have in how to frame a role. It affects the cognitive process they need to go through.
PN1941
When you say: it affects it, in what way does it affect it? I mean, what weight would you place upon - - - ?---Well, in terms of the ratings that we set for different factors, obviously, if there is a lot of guidance that is provided the rating would be potentially lower than another role in a correctional centre where there is not that same level of guidance and direction that exists in - in those particular institutions.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1942
But could I just give you the example of an airline pilot who, obviously, performs their job within a very limited set of guidelines, they have very little autonomy in terms of where or how they may land the plane, but they are expected to have skills to deal with matters that may arise. I mean, what do you say about that example?---They do have quite clear directions on how to operate. I have to - I would be making a range of assumptions about that because I have not evaluated an airline pilot, so I suppose I'm dealing with a hypothetical here, but the level of skill and experience - skill, knowledge and experience required would be quite high. The kinds of problems that it has to solve when they arise are quite critical problems within a very short time frame. The impact in terms of their contribution would be considerable in the application of the job if things are not managed the right way, if the right decisions aren't made, so it affects the profile in a range of different ways.
PN1943
Would you agree that an airline pilot does not have a lot of flexibility in terms of the work procedures that they are expected to follow in the normal day-to-day course of their duties?---In the normal day-to-day course of their duties that would be probably right, though I haven't sat down with an airline pilot, as I said - - -
PN1944
Sure?---- - - and discussed the kinds of issues and problems that they have to solve. I would probably say that there are a lot of issues that are extraneous to the actual working of the plane and how to do things that they need to consider. I would assume that if there are particular weather situations and they need to make some judgments about that, about what course of action to take. I'm dealing with the hypothetical.
PN1945
Yes, I accept that. In relation to detention officers your evidence is that they have a much more limited role, in terms of exercising their judgment?---Than?
PN1946
Than a range of other occupations based on - that you have presented in table 4.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1947
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Schofield, you will need to be more specific if you are going to assist me.
PN1948
MS SCHOFIELD: Sorry.
PN1949
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That really wouldn't assist.
PN1950
MS SCHOFIELD: Okay, I will withdraw that.
PN1951
I suppose, if I could just put it to you that yesterday we heard from the centre management at Villawood Detention Centre that one of the most important jobs of detention officers is in relation to observing what is occurring at the Detention Centre and this includes observations made on the behaviour of people that are in detention?---Yes, that's true. That is consistent with the information that I received when interviewing a range of detention officers, yes.
PN1952
But your evidence is that there is a very high level of guidance, directions and policy procedures and I think you just stated that in relation to the work of detention officers and that would generally accord to them a lower score?---Again, a lower score than?
PN1953
Well, I think you said that where there was a higher level of procedures within a workplace, that that would generally result in a lower ranking, that was my understanding of the statement that you just made.
PN1954
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That was under the "Accountability" head, I think, is that right?
PN1955
MS SCHOFIELD: I think that was a general observation.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1956
THE WITNESS: Yes. Could you repeat that for me, please, sorry?
PN1957
MS SCHOFIELD: That is all right. You have stated that there's a very comprehensive set of policies and procedures within ACM to which people work to?---That's my observation, yes.
PN1958
Yes, and detention officers - generally, that would place some limits on the amount of discretion or flexibility which they would have in the performance of their duties?---I'm looking at this in the context of the issue that you raised. If you look at the profile for a Detention Officer 2 and a Correctional Officer 2, there are differences in the profile that, I believe, appropriately reflect that. For example, you will note that the front end, the expertise profile is identical. The judgment profile is quite different where the Detention Officer 2 is a B3- as opposed to a B2+ that the Correctional Officer is. That is picking up that the kind of environment within which detention officers are operating is somewhat different and challenging than what it is for a correctional officer. Some of those differentials are, for example, and it's a common term that I came across as I spoke to people in detention offices, it's the greys of managing detention people as opposed to prisoners and inmates. There are a level of greys associated with that. In detention centres, they are also dealing with single males, couples, families, unaccompanied children, and that provides a different kind of environment than is reflected to a correctional centre that are usually unisex and usually have a very similar kind of profile in terms of the kind of people that you are dealing with, at least from a security classification. Now, that's reflected in the judgment side of things. The other thing that you're talking about is the limitations that are placed on the detention officers because of all these policies and procedures and the level of oversight that is provided. That's actually picked up in accountability and you will see the accountability of detention officers ends up with a lower work value score in terms of that particular factor.
PN1959
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you elaborate on why that occurs?---The level of independence and influence that they have is restricted by the length and breadth of the policies and procedures that are there. The issue around - for example, I spoke to a range of correctional officers at Fulham, and they have a level of discretion about the group of people that they manage in terms of making decisions, solving problems.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1960
What sort of decisions and what sort of problems do they have? You are saying they have a greater level of discretion than detention officers by the look of those scores?---Yes.
PN1961
Yet, what I gleaned from the inspections yesterday suggested that detention officers has a fair degree of discretion in the way they handled the detainees, especially in the areas of slightly lower security than in the higher level where they seemed to have quite a degree of discretion in how they interacted with the detainees?---I think there are issues around interaction. There are issues around solving problems and decisions.
PN1962
I need you to explain that to us?---For example, the detention officers that I spoke to you at Villawood and Marybyrnong, I'm just trying to think who - at Marybyrnong specifically, no, Villawood specifically, the people that I spoke to there, in terms of I asked the question: what do you do when you have a problem or a decision that needs to be made, and the response was: look, I make an assessment of the particular situation. It may be a request from a detainee that: I'd like this to happen, please. The decision that they make around that, according to the people that I spoke to, was: do I say no because that's what the rules say and the procedures say, or do I refer this to my supervisor? It was not: or do I set aside the rules and make an exception. So that's where the differential is there.
PN1963
In a correctional facility, there is a discretion to set aside the rules, is there?---In terms of procedures and systems, yes, that was my information from the correctional officers I spoke to at Fulham.
PN1964
Can you give any examples of where a correctional officer could exercise such a discretion?---For example, an example from, it might have been Fulham. This was probably 6 weeks, 5 or 6 weeks ago that I did this work. I believe it was, certainly, at one of the correctional centres. There was a guideline about length of time for telephone calls and that is 10 minutes. If there's a prisoner that's on the phone and has extended beyond that time and there's no-one else lined up, then they can say: yes, that's fine, go ahead, keep going. It's that kind of stuff whereas the information that was provided to me by the detention officers was: I would go to my supervisor for the exception or I'd stick to the rules. That's reflected in accountability.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1965
Yes, thank you?---It doesn't mean that detention officers don't exercise any level of exercise of discretion - - -
PN1966
I understand that ?--- - - - around a rate of issues but I found that it was more restricted in that environment.
PN1967
Yes, thank you. Ms Schofield, I'm sorry, I still keep playing the advocate far too often.
PN1968
MS SCHOFIELD: Thank you, your Honour, yes. So just following on from that, the amount of discretion in a job is therefore important in relation to achieving a higher score in terms of accountability?---It's a factor that you consider. You can't say that one factor will drive a higher points score. We look at the eight sub-factors and the relationship between the eight sub-factors.
PN1969
You used the example, in your answer to the previous question in relation to detention officers, that often they refer requests for items to detention supervisors. Therefore, they would have a limited range of flexibility in terms of an accountability score?---Well, it wasn't an example. It was a reflection of how the roles were presented to me. I asked the question: well, what are the thing that - if you have an issue or problem that arises, what do you do about it, how do you solve it, what do you go to your boss about? Those kinds of questions, and that response came from the detention officers that if there's a guideline there that says this is what happens, then I either make a decision that that guideline applies or I refer it to my supervisor.
PN1970
So staff are familiar with the guidelines, in your experience?---Well, staff certainly refer to the guidelines and standard operating procedures. I did make the point of asking to what extent are the processes set out. Now, you are in a situation in an institution like this that you are managing people, and you do not get guidelines and procedures documenting or dealing with all situations so there is a level of discretion and judgment that's applied but certainly, I saw a differential between that level between detention officers and correctional officers, and that's why there is a differential there.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1971
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Gayton, just again for my clarification, from page 2 of 38, do I understand that you spoke with two detention officers and two detention supervisors and two - a correctional officer, a correctional supervisor, a custody officer and a Court security officer and a Court supervisor?---Page 2.
PN1972
2 and 3 of 38. You are indicating the staff that you interviewed. I'm just not sure if you are referring to the numbers there or not. Was it only one of each?---No, I spoke to two detention officers at Marybyrnong, two detention officers at Villawood, and I had input from a supervisory perspective from three.
PN1973
Three supervisors at?---One from Marybyrnong and I had two from Villawood.
PN1974
Thank you. Yes, Ms Schofield?
PN1975
MS SCHOFIELD: Just finishing off on this point about the level of procedures and discretion and accountability, and the ranking that accords from that, would you say there are procedures within detention centres, for example, that go to issues such as what to do if there's a riot? Did staff refer you to those procedures?---Did not refer me to those procedures. Whether they exist or not, I don't know but as a matter of fact, don't know. I would expect that there would be but I don't know.
PN1976
Well, can I just put it to you that hypothetically, there are procedures to deal with riots within ACM, and your methodology would review those procedures and discuss them with staff. Is that correct?---Not specifically, though we did have discussions about incidents that do occur with a number of the detention officers. Not specifically but, I must say, I'm aware of the kinds of situations that do arise, incidents that do arise not specifically in detention centres but, certainly, in correctional institutions and I have been watching the news over a period of time and I know that incidents do occur.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1977
What way, in your methodology, would you put on staff performing their duties in a way that assisted in the prevention of riots?---I'd certainly take that into account. I mean, it's not just the day to day normal humdrum of being a detention officer or a finance manager or a mower driver. You look at the full context of the role.
PN1978
How would you take that into account? I mean, where would that fit within your methodology?---It can be taken into account under the judgment area. Without knowing the procedures specifically in place, I can speak about my experience in Correctional Services where we have quite clear procedures in place. When there was an incident, there was a set requirement for a number of steps to be taken by the officers on the ground, by the senior or supervisor in the area, by a central control group that were quite stipulated. Now, incidents are out of the ordinary and, again, those procedures do not always cover the kinds of situations that arise so there is a level of discretion about how that is dealt with.
PN1979
That wasn't something that came up through your discussions with detention officers?---Well, as I said, a number of detention officers did discuss that and talk about the kinds of incidents and it is certainly something that I would consider.
PN1980
What weight do you place on their ability to communicate with detainees, to develop relationships and empathise with detainees which might contribute to preventing riots, or creating a more harmonious relationship within a detention centre?---I well understand the value of those skills in these environments, and having a very strong understanding of that, I would say that I took that very much into account, yes. In different institutions, there are different styles and levels of relationships with detainees. It depends on the nature of the institution itself. For example, if you look at Fulham institution, Fulham Correctional Centre, you have the long term prisoners potentially. They tend to stay for long periods of time. You have a relationship that builds up over a significant period of time between the prison officers and the individuals. You have the prison officers, correctional officers who have got a significant input and a role to play in terms of case management and how that person's time at
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
the institution is managed, and the kinds of activities and education and rehabilitation activities they pursue. Other institutions have a different profile. A reception centre, for example, the turnover of the prisoners is quite quick. You don't have that long term relationship. You don't have the same kind of input in terms of case management. The detention centres have a particular style of profile. Now, I must say, I saw Villawood and I saw Marybyrnong. The kinds of stats that I did see out - and this was from the officers there - I'm remembering here. I'd be pretty confident that I was provided with information that over a period of 11 months, I'm confident about 11 months, there were approximately 700 to 800 movements, and I'm confident it was between 700 and 900 movements, of people into the centre and then going back out which led to an average turnover of 1 month. So you're not talking about, in that particular style of institution, of long term relationships. That has got some positives associated with it in terms of - on one side of the coin, you are dealing with a very transient group and you need to be very alert and very aware of the kinds of behaviours that are being provided, but on the other side of the coin, the longer term relationship side of it is not necessarily as strong as the long term institutions so there is a variation there. Now, I also have to say that in that same conversation, that there were some detainees who were there for 3 years who would be managed differently and the ..... would be different.
PN1981
That information, how does that contribute to the outcomes that are presented on page 4?---Well, it provides a context within which the role is operating, and it gives a perspective about how to assess, for example, that kind of relationship building that is required is one factor, but then it's also taken into account in terms of being able to pick up with what might be a very transient and unknowing group being aware and alert and intuitive about where people that are not so well known to you are operating and how they are behaving.
PN1982
So the value accorded reflects your understanding of the environment in the information that you were provided with by employees and from a range of sources. Is that correct?---Yes, that's right, and my own experience, of course.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1983
Yes, and in the case of this review, your conclusions were based on the interviews that you have set out in the front of your report and the response that you provided to SDP Kaufman when you interviewed detention officers at Villawood and Marybyrnong?---It was based not only on that. It was based on information about the centre; going around the centre and seeing how it operated; understanding its layout; understanding the different units, stages, and how they operated; the style of management in the place; the level of flexibility and freedom that detainees have in wandering around the facility. It was based on documentation about the roles, the generic documentation for a detention officer. It was also based on information they gathered about post tasks that goes into more detail about what's required.
PN1984
When you used the word "understanding", you are saying that it is based on your understanding?---That's correct. We require a good understanding of the roles and what's required in the performance of the duties, and the context within which they are working.
PN1985
In relation to the work that you compiled for this report, did you provide employees a summary of your findings?---No.
PN1986
Did you go back to employees to validate with them that your understanding of the work and the assumptions that you have made accorded with their understanding of their job?---Did I go back to employees after the initial interview? No, I didn't but the process of information gathering - I mean, I've trained people in questioning and assumptions I check out as a part of the process of discussion. So if I'm a bit unclear about what is being said to me, then I check out what that actually means. I'd say: does that mean, so it's part of the process of information gathering but, no, I did not go back to the officers and say: this is the profile I've developed. Do you agree with that? I don't know how useful a process that would have been.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1987
Well, you are confident that the information that you gathered and the assumptions that you made were the correct ones, and what you are saying is you validated that along the way?---There are other processes of validation that we go through as well. One is, for example, looking at a range of like roles that we have evaluated in other organisations. Now, that is not a dependable way of validating a particular profile because each job is judged differently. Each position and role is judged quite differently but I looked at a range of security officers, correctional officers, did not have detention officers that I could check against but I looked at profiles from a range of other institutions that we have done. As a part of our quality process, when I developed a profile and done that validation process and reliability check with other kinds of profiles that we've developed we also have a peer review process with a senior - with at least one senior officer within our organisation where we provide - this is the profile that we've developed for this range of roles. This is the nature of the role and we get questioned - in this particular process I was questioned about well, why is there a differential between this one and this one, why is this particular sub-factor been rated as a DE or a D minus, what is the nature of the work that lead you to give this sub-factor - the person that is doing this peer review with me, in this case it was Peter Muir, from our Brisbane office. Peter has been with the business and used this job evaluation methodology for longer than I have. I was trained in this methodology 1992-93. He was with the organisation and has got much more experience than I. He is probably one of the - he would be the most experienced job evaluation person in our organisation, I would say. So there is that process as well.
PN1988
So that is all down to you and Cullen Egan Dell to draw those conclusions and to go back and validate and test the findings in relation to detention officers with a range of other findings that your organisation has made?---If we had concerns about certain aspects of our profile, if we had concerns about some of the "assumptions" that we've made or are uncertain about how certain areas operate, then we may go back to the incumbent. We may - we also do go back, in normal course of process, to the managers of the organisation and say, these are the profiles that we've developed, how does that look to you. Now, that is not - the reason for doing that is if there are some questions or issues that they have in terms of the outcomes, they can say, look, I really don't understand why the work value of this particular position is higher than this one, I would have thought it was higher, it was the reverse.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1989
What are you looking?---What I am looking at there is does this fit in terms of the sensibility of the organisation, how they see the world.
PN1990
What classifications are you looking at? Are you looking at classifications that form part of the Cullen Egan Dell methodology or are you just looking at anything?---Looking across the board. This is the outcome in terms of relative work value. Does this look right to you?
PN1991
So you are looking at everything?---I'm not sure what the question is.
PN1992
Well, are you looking at security awards, are you looking at classifications of other security workers or correction workers or similar workers irrespective of whether they have been incorporated into your organisation's methodology or are you - I mean, I glean from your report that there was a system - data base and my understanding, from reading this report, is that you go back to that data base for verification but I am just not clear whether that is the case or whether you look at anything that is available?---That was the process I talked about before where I looked at security officers. I looked at graduate engineers, for example. I looked at other correctional profiles that we had done. Looked at a range of other kinds of roles where we have done - that relate in some kind of way, in a like way, to the kind of detention correctional officers but we certainly spent a lot of time looking at correctional officers, did not have profile officers available on detention officers, because we have not done them before. Having said that - - -
PN1993
So you looked at what you had available within your data base?---As one check.
PN1994
Yes?---As one set of benchmarks to review the profile that I'd developed, yes.
PN1995
Yes. You didn't take that information back to employees for validation?---No.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN1996
No. How did they know that it was right? How do you know that employees agree with in terms of the understandings and assumptions you've made in drawing the conclusions that are based in this report?---Well, the fact that I spent time with them, the fact that I have got experience - the fact I've got experience in like institutions, that I'm experienced in utilising the job methodology, which they are not aware of but a job methodology that is probably - that would be the most recognised and regarded as the most reliable in Australasia so the methodology is right. I had spent time with people who actually did the work and that our process of quality control, in terms of looking at other like roles as a check and our peer review and quality processes, that is the level of confidence that I've got about it.
PN1997
The level of peer review and quality processes derived back to the Cullen Egan Dell methodology?---Yes.
PN1998
How do you know what places the right weight in terms of scoring people if you didn't check with them?---Well, I did check with them. I actually had spoken to people who did the work.
PN1999
You didn't give them an opportunity to question you on the findings?---I suppose that is the process right now, isn't it, but not directly with the employees, no. But I have to say, if I gathered those same people together and I said: this is the profile that I've developed for you, what do you think about it, I don't know that they could adequately respond to that because they don't understand the methodology, they haven't done the work in terms of had the experience of applying the methodology so it probably wouldn't provide much - - -
PN2000
They are aware of what they do in the workplace?---Yes, they are.
PN2001
They are aware of what their full range of duties are within the workplace?---Yes, one would certainly hope so.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2002
They - you say that you are confident that you have taken account of the full range of duties?---I had available to me a wide range of information about what detention officers did, both through position descriptions, through post positions duty statements, through discussions with individuals, through discussions with their bosses, with their supervisors, about what the differentials are and what they do. In the interview process, I interviewed both supervisors and detention officers. So the detention officers, I'd ask them questions like: Well, what do you go to your supervisor about? What does the supervisor do that is different to what you do? So I started getting a perspective about how supervise operated. When I spoke to supervisors, I asked them questions like: What do your detention officers come to you about, what are the problems and issues that you need to solve on their behalf, what do you expect - so there is a validation process going that way as well.
PN2003
So workers gave you that information, you placed it within the context of the Cullen Egan Dell methodology and that resulted in this report?---Yes, which is what we do as our core business.
PN2004
Just in relation to page 4 and the table that is there, we have raised this in the Commission, you have probably read the union's submission on this report, but one of the issues that we have raised is the fact a number of the criteria that are specified there are simply not explained. If I could just ask you to explain, perhaps, some of the difference between outcomes. In relation to detention officer 1, they have a total point score of 116 points but a security officer at Arthur Gorrie Correction Centre has a score of 127 points. Now, it is not clear to me, apart from the fact that there are different numbers mentioned there, what this difference in outcomes is attributed to?---We are talking about two quite different roles. You are talking about two quite different levels of competence and delivery of the full requirement of the role.
PN2005
How are they different?---Detention officer 1 is somebody who is pretty reasonably inexperienced in the detention environment. They have been through a period of training and they are reasonably new into that environment, reasonably new to the tasks and duties. They are reasonably closely supervised. Given a lot of guidance about what and how they do things. They are learning on the job and that is what a detention officer 1 is. They are not operating as a fully fledged detention officer.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2006
A new security officers at Arthur Gorrie - it does not state there - - -?---I haven't got the Gorrie profile here, have I?
PN2007
No?---No. Is there a new security officer role? I am trying to remember.
PN2008
I am assuming that somebody is classified as a security officer at Arthur Gorrie they may be a new employee or an experienced employee - perhaps I should withdraw that because - - -?---I mean, I can respond to that. The structure that you have for detention officers is detention officer 1 which is a detention officer in learning. A security officer at Arthur Gorrie, I am presuming they have a similar kind of structure there, where there is a classification for somebody who is in learning mode and a classification for somebody who is an experienced competent person, a person who is competent - who is delivering at a competent level. So we are talking about here is a person who is delivering what is expected as a fully fledged security officer as opposed to a detention officer who is in learning. There is a significant difference there.
PN2009
So the difference is in relation to, as you have just said, a new employee as opposed to a competent employee?---It's not about the employee. It's about - I am assessing - for a detention officer 1, I am looking at - I am assessing a role that has got restricted - that is restricted in the range of ways in being a full - - -
PN2010
It seems to me you are basing that on length of service?---No, I'm basing that on the way that those positions operate within the institution. They are not - when we assess a position, we assess the competent - delivery at a competent level. Now, if somebody is on the job, the first day on the job, you cannot expect that person to be fully competent and delivering to that level. They are learning. It is part - there is significant on the job training and experience that they gain over a period of time before they become experienced detention officers. So we are talking about two different levels of jobs there. That is reflected in detention officer 1 and 2 by one, the knowledge and experience at the front end with a C as opposed to a C plus, they aren't experienced. When we talk about knowledge and experience, we don't look specifically and only at qualifications. We look at a combination of learnings that can lead to a level of competent delivery. Those learnings can be gained by qualifications, by training courses, by experience, by on the job training, by life experience.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2011
You are making an assumption in that conclusion of 116 points for detention officer level 1 that those employees are inexperienced employees and they are still learning?---Yes, that is by definition. That is what the award says.
PN2012
That is what the agreement says, yes?---That is what the agreement says. It is also the information that I got from detention officers and correction officers where a similar kind of structure exists. People come out of training and then go into a learning mode within the institution to get their experience.
PN2013
In relation to detention officer level 2 and correction officer 2, what is the difference in skills that results in a different point score there?---Detention officer 2, correctional officer 2 - I talked about that earlier in terms of the context - the differential there is really between judgment and accountability.
PN2014
According to this, there is a lower level of accountability and hence a higher point score for correction officer level 2 as opposed to detention officer?---There is a differential in accountability, there is also a differential in judgment. In judgment detention officer 2 rates an additional 8 points whereas for accountability the correctional officer rates an additional 17 and that provides the end variation.
PN2015
What is the difference in accountability?---I talked about that before. That was the - okay.
PN2016
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Mr Gayton did discuss those differences in answer to a question from me.
PN2017
MS SCHOFIELD: Well, I am trying to work out what specifically B plus 1 I plus means as opposed to C minus 1 C minus.
PN2018
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps if you would take one element at a time, Mr Gayton?---Okay. When I explained it earlier - - -
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2019
MS SCHOFIELD: I know you explained it in broader terms earlier but there is no definition in your report about what B plus is or a range of other rankings. You have only given - - -
PN2020
MR DOUGLAS: Your Honour, these definitions are set out in the document.
PN2021
MS SCHOFIELD: Not all of them. Sorry, B plus is there.
PN2022
MR DOUGLAS: B plus is there under job environment.
PN2023
MS SCHOFIELD: That is only one, one profile.
PN2024
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think what Ms Schofield is asking is why did the detention officer get a B plus for the first element of accountability whereas a correctional officer got a C minus for that element. Are you able to descend to that level of detail, Mr Gayton?---Yes. I am going to go back through my memory here. B plus is - I am just trying to remember differential roles. I think that reflected that issue that we have talked about before in terms of movement away from - the independence and influence of the role has - can exercise in how the job gets done and reflects, to an extent, the issue about - the common feedback I got about - from officers that when there are variations away or people seeking variations away from the guidelines or procedures, that they go to their supervisor and the differential - that is the differential there in terms of the B plus, C minus where I said there, in terms of presentation to me, at Fulham, for example, they had a little bit more of that kind of discretion and independence. They also had a longer period in terms of relationship with the prisoners in the institution that they had a capability of being able to exercise that kind of judgment with a greater depth of knowledge about the individual. So that was the differential there.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2025
MS SCHOFIELD: So the major differential there is the fact detention officers refer back to procedures to a greater extent than correctional officers who therefore have a larger amount of discretion in the perform of their duties?---No, it is not that they refer back to procedures, it is what they do about the application or variance away from those procedures that is different. Correctional officers a Fulham have significant level of documentation about procedures and guidelines and how to do things and when to do them at both institutions but it goes back to if there is going to be variation to those guidelines and procedures, at Fulham there is more flexibility for the officers there to exercise a level of discretion about that, a greater level than what there is for detention officers at Villawood or at Maribyrnong.
PN2026
Has not that got more to do with the company's policy than the work itself? I mean, I would imagine that most employers wouldn't want their employees to divert from procedures when they are in place?---I don't think it is an issue of company policy. I think it is about how the institution is managed, yes but it also directly impacts on how the role is performed and what kinds of decisions are made, what kinds of variances are allowable that the individual can exercise.
PN2027
So when there are detailed procedures there is less variance. I'm trying to - - -?---I think as a general statement that would be right but what I'm talking about is not about less or more procedures. I'm talking about what people do with those guidelines and how they can divert away from them for example.
PN2028
And if they can't divert away from them because of the company policy they would result in a lower point score under your methodology, is that correct?---It depends very much on the context. You can have detailed procedures and systems in one environment and detailed procedures and systems in another environment but the nature of the environment will actually impact on how you evaluate that. If the systems and procedures are in a warehouse it may be quite different to how that is actually applied and dealt with, if you are in a correctional institution or whether you are working with NASA. So it is impacted by the nature of the work environment within which it works.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2029
But in any occupation it is a good thing if employees have a knowledge of and compliance with the procedures that are in place in that workplace, would you agree?---It can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. Procedures are there because they provide and systems are there because they provide a standardised way of doing things and dealing with problems carrying out tasks. If I was working in an organisation where all that people did was comply with those, even in the face of it not being practical or reasonable to do so, then I think that is very bad.
PN2030
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the question was whether knowledge of the procedures and practices was a good thing?---Yes, yes, yes. Knowledge is.
PN2031
Yes, I think that was the question?---Right, sorry, my apologies.
PN2032
MS SCHOFIELD: Are you aware of the wage-fixing principles in relation to work value?---I haven't been in the industrial - I haven't been operating as an industrial advocate for a considerable period of time. I have read them.
PN2033
So can you advise how your point system accords with the wage-fixing principles?---Because I'm not an expert in the wage-fixing principles, no, but I can give you my observations about that. Our methodology is utilised by organisations as a part of award processes in the private sector, in public sector, where there are - I will give you an example rather than rambling on. Did some work with the council, Thuringowa Council. They have an award that has got narrative standards for levels, defined levels in the award and the organisation had considerable problems in applying those narrative standards to define appropriate levels to allocate positions to. We were engaged by that organisation to implement the job evaluation system that provided support to the award in achieving that. We worked with the employees, we worked with the union. The staff and the union were excessively disgruntled about how decisions were made utilising narrative standards, that it was not all that helpful in being able to determine appropriate levels and that is quite understandable that when you have generic standards and where you have got
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
work design these days where there's an emphasis on multi-skilling, where there's an emphasis on a wide range, where there a wide range of roles that are being dealt with under one set of narrative standards, it becomes very difficult to use. The organisation was - management was unhappy with the process of using narrative standards, the union was unhappy and the employees were unhappy. Our job methodology was implemented in that organisation as a tool to assist the organisation and the staff in assessing work value and it's used to this day and from - I was speaking to the CEO yesterday from Thuringowa and it seems to be working very well.
PN2034
That was signed off by the industrial parties?---The unions were involved in the process, yes.
PN2035
So the unions validated your conclusions or the system that was ultimately agreed to?---Yes, we had a full consultative process all the way through and that is just an example. I mean National Mutual uses it for its staff, the banks use job factor systems for job points factor systems to allocate positions to levels. The large - - -
PN2036
In relation to the example that you just gave though, is it fair to say that the unions or employees through their union representatives were involved in invalidating your findings and your understandings and the methodology that you used?---We presented the methodology to the unions and discussed - we are talking about a different situation here. The situation - - -
PN2037
But they had an opportunity to - - -?---The situation with - - -
PN2038
They had an opportunity to address that?---Yes.
PN2039
To address your findings and to address you on your findings?---Yes.
PN2040
Yes, and there's no such opportunity that has been given to employees in relation to this report?---This is a different situation. Thuringowa was - - -
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2041
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think you have been through that question, Ms Schofield.
PN2042
MS SCHOFIELD: Yes?---But Thuringowa was an implementation of a new job evaluation system across the organisation.
PN2043
And where the methodology has been utilised as part of award processes, has that generally involved the industrial parties?---Where it is used systemically?
PN2044
Yes?---Yes, and that is very widespread. I mean most of the public sector organisations - Queensland Public Sector uses it for the Public Service Award from its lowest-paid positions to its highest, New South Wales, Victoria. South Australia is implementing it. Northern Territory uses it, Western Australia uses one of our points factor systems, the federal government. It is a tool that supports the assessment of work value.
PN2045
And just going through the client list on pages 27 to 29 of your report, I formed the impression from looking at that material that it is predominantly public sector clients that have utilised the CD methodology. Is that correct?---No, no. We worked - if that gives a bias then I would have to say that that is not a true indication.
PN2046
Would you agree that there are more clients from the public sector that are listed in that report on those pages? I mean there are very few private sector clients?---I don't have it here. I don't have it here but if you are saying that that is the case then I would assume that that is factual, yes.
PN2047
On page 29 of your report you have just referred to the work that you have done with the Queensland Government and you have just referred to that and one of the sectors that is mentioned there is the education sector in Queensland?---Yes.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2048
My understanding is that the Cullen Egan Dell methodology has been used for a classification system for the University of Queensland, is that correct?---We have so many clients. We do work for the University of Queensland. We do work for a wide range of universities. Whether our job evaluation methodology is utilised for award-based employees, I'm not sure. I'm sorry.
PN2049
Well, if I could just advise you that it is my understanding that it is used for award-based employees and in particular security officers who are employed at the University of Queensland are graded at more than 157 points, that is above a trade and that refers to static security guards who work within the University of Queensland Education Campus. Now, how would you account for a difference in outcomes between a university security officer who has been graded at more than 157 points and the material that you presented in your report in relation to detention and correction officers who don't actually reach that trade level?---I can't account for it because I don't know the nature of the work. We require a understanding - I need an understanding of the job, the duties, responsibilities, working environment to be able to make that kind of assessment, so I don't know, but certainly I've looked at a range of security officer roles that fall within a - quite range of work value outcomes.
PN2050
Would you say then, just based on your own experiences, that university campuses would be more difficult security environments than a detention and a correction centre?---I could make some assumptions about the, about the behaviour of at lesson teenagers. It would be a personal view.
PN2051
What would - - -?---It would be a different environment that would probably be more onerous in terms of correctional - could I - correctional officers, or detention officers or detention officers I would expect but I don't, I don't know the specifics of the role but there's a significant differential in terms of how institutions are managed. If there is - if you are operating in quite a low security environment, then the type of role and how the role operates, its level of flexibility, its level of decision-making, the kinds of problems it solved are quite different and what organisations - my experience from a correctional perspective is that low security tends to provide a lot more flexibility, both in terms of the people you are supervising and also how offices operate and how
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
they conduct their role. When you are dealing with high security, the environment of management changes how those - how that group is managed is very different and you tend to have a lot more controlled movement. You have got a much more secure environment, you have got greater limitation in terms of activities, so the role of the correctional officer is different in that kind of environment as well.
PN2052
So somebody in a low security environment because they have more flexibility would achieve a higher point score under your methodology - - - ?---No.
PN2053
- - - is that your evidence?---No, I'm not saying that, no. It depends on the context within which it's working and the role that the people are performing.
PN2054
Can I put it to you that in a range of other universities throughout Australia there's a different type of evaluation and methodology used and security officers who work in those institutions are classified up to and usually at trade level.
PN2055
MR DOUGLAS: I think your Honour that question is a little bit unfair by referring to a range of universities. My friend should be a little bit more specific than that.
PN2056
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I think Mr Douglas has a point, Ms Schofield.
PN2057
MS SCHOFIELD: If I could refer to the Higher Education Salaries Award, security officers who draw their classification from that award are classified up to trade level. Are you aware of that?---No, but I'm also not aware of the roles and I'm not, not au fait with what they are doing.
PN2058
And are you aware that there have been decisions in the Federal Commission in relation to the New South Wales' Security Industry Award which puts the level 2 security officer at 100 per cent relatively which is trade equivalent?---I'm not aware of that.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2059
That is not something that you would have sought out as part of your report in relation to detention officers, to look at other award security employees?---The issue was about, is about identifying relativities and I don't know how that might have helped me without a knowledge of the particular role that is being performed within those institutions, so I don't know how that would have helped me. In fact, you are talking about security officers that have quite, as you said, quite a different role - - -
PN2060
Yes?---in a university environment to a correctional environment.
PN2061
And I'm talking about general security officers in the State of New South Wales, as well - - - ?---Yes. I have - - -
PN2062
- - - and the fact?---I have no personal knowledge of, of those roles in New South Wales. We have a, we have a Sydney office that would probably do those roles if our methodology was applied.
PN2063
Sorry, I don't mean to mislead you. The Cullen Egan Dell isn't - does not form part of that New South Wales' Security Award. So in preparing your report you didn't really look at decisions of the Industrial Relations Commission that had set relativities in the security industry, or similar industries?---No, no and I deliberately did not pursue, or actually I would deliberately not pursue that. I would not want any particular bias to potentially be inflicted upon myself. When we assess - - -
PN2064
How does your methodology fit in terms of these industrial proceedings? I'm not aware of the relevance of your methodology in an industrial context, given that you are not familiar with the industrial environment?
PN2065
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't understand that question, Ms Schofield.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2066
MS SCHOFIELD: Well, I will withdraw that. Your evidence seems to be that your report was prepared looking at a whole range of occupations that may impact on the conclusions that you were drawing in relation to detention and corrections officers. I understood that to be your evidence earlier.
PN2067
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, just so that I'm clear, the positions that you have identified in your report to which points have been attributed, are positions that have been evaluated by Cullen Egan Dell at some stage and those scores attributed to the positions, is that the understanding here?---These are positions that I have evaluated.
PN2068
That you have evaluated, thank you?---Yes. I think that is - Gorrie is not in there?
PN2069
Yes it is?---Whereabouts is Gorrie?
PN2070
You have a unit officer and a security officer, that is AGGC - - -?---Right.
PN2071
- - - is the code?---Yes. All of the other positions I have evaluated. The Gorrie - two Gorrie roles - the Gorrie roles were evaluated by Michael Smith of our office - - -
PN2072
Yes, you have made that point?---who, IP reviewed the roles because of my correctional experience.
PN2073
MS SCHOFIELD: So the points system derives from your understanding and positions that you have previously evaluated for your organisation?---These profiles here are based on my evaluations of those roles.
PN2074
They are not based on any knowledge of decisions of the Industrial Relations Commission or award relativities that may apply to smaller employees?---No.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON XXN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2075
No. Thank you, I have no further questioning.
PN2076
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Douglas, any re-examination?
PN2077
PN2078
MR DOUGLAS: You mentioned a post descriptions, how are they different to position description?---Position description is usually your equipment tool that, that discusses the generic role of a correctional officer or a detention officer and it is the kind of thing that if you rang up for a job in - at ACM, you would be sent out and this would be - this would give you a description of the duties and responsibilities and it would give you - these are the selection criteria. Post descriptions are about a particular job in a particular institution. Say, for example, at Marybyrnong, the visits post, there is a document that says: this is what this job does in the visits role and it accepts members of the public coming in - - - ?---So it is basically setting up the task.
PN2079
So that might be a post description - - -?---Yes.
PN2080
- - - within the work range of the classification of custody officer - - -?---Yes.
PN2081
- - - for example?---That's right. It fits within the broad ambit of a, of a custody officer role or a detention officer role but it is about a specific job within the institution. It could be visits, it could be the control room, it could be the officer looking after stage one, it could be the officer looking after stage two, so they are discrete to the particular post within the institution so it gives a broad range.
**** JAMES EDWARD GAYTON RXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2082
So there could be a number of post descriptions say, that detention officers too would work to?---Yes, yes, and I must say I find position descriptions tend to be very generic. When you get to post it gets quick specific about what you are expected to do in the job itself and if you get a range of those you can get a very good idea of the kinds of tasks that are being performed.
PN2083
When you carried out your work in relation to this report, did you, aside from the Arthur Gorrie exercise, did you have access to post descriptions and the position descriptions?---I have a - I'd accumulated a range of post descriptions, I didn't - I can't say I got them all, no.
PN2084
But you certainly had examples?---Yes, yes.
PN2085
Just to confirm, as I understand it, the CED methodology rates the job and not the individual?---That's right, that's right, yes, that's - that's correct.
PN2086
Now, Mr Gayton, you have been asked a number of questions this morning in cross examination and some by his Honour, have you, in the light of those questions have you any reason to modify your conclusions set out in the chart in your paper?---No.
PN2087
I have no other questions, your Honour.
PN2088
PN2089
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are going to call Mr Thomas, are you Ms Schofield?
PN2090
MS SCHOFIELD: Yes.
PN2091
THE COMMISSION: Would you state your full name and address?
PN2092
PN2093
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Ms Schofield.
PN2094
PN2095
MS SCHOFIELD: Mr Thomas, do you have a copy of your statement with you?---I do.
PN2096
Is that a true statement?---It is.
PN2097
Your Honour, I might tender a copy of that statement, although I note it is not yet signed by Mr Thomas.
PN2098
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
PN2099
MS SCHOFIELD: And it is dated 5 July - - -
PN2100
PN2101
MS SCHOFIELD: Thank you. Mr Thomas, you are employed as a Detention Officer at Villawood Detention Centre?---That's correct.
PN2102
How long have you been employed with ACM?---Going on 4 years now, I was employed in February of '99 and to current date.
PN2103
Prior to that?---I served approximately 7 years with the private sector of security, that was with an institution called Chubb Protective Services, formerly known as 1R Securities Services.
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2104
And what sort of company is Chubb, are they a large or small company in the security industry?---They're one of the world's largest security companies for the private sector. They would manage numerous amount of clients, dealing with high rise down to the - the small nitty-gritty of banks, supermarkets and so forth, they also look after City Rail clients and so forth that - you could be in any sort of field area.
PN2105
And what positions did you hold when you were employed with Chubb?---I held a number of positions starting out as a general security guard, progressing through to a leading hand to a particular site, then moving on to a patrol guard, mobile patrol, inside the - the main company, then proceeding through to a site coordinator and so forth into their control room environment.
PN2106
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Schofield, these matters are apparent from the witness statement.
PN2107
MS SCHOFIELD: Yes, your Honour.
PN2108
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have no difficulty with you asking the witness to expand but it is not necessary to repeat.
PN2109
MS SCHOFIELD: Yes, okay. You say in point 4 that you held a security industry licence since 1992, did you have to undertake any training to acquire that licence?---You do. Required by law you have to actually go through a security training course, now that can be anywhere between a period - back then was a weekend course consisting of two full days and then a final exam. These days now it's now brought forward to a period of 5 days consisting on the sixth day that you actually do an exam. Also with that you can actually incorporate a firearms training course which would make your entire training course a 7-day event all up.
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2110
And how does that compare to the training that you have undertaken since you have been a detention officer with ACM?---Well, that only - you're only learning the security industry and relevant events for a security guard, now you're only doing this - as I say, I did it over a weekend course back then. Now, you're doing it over a 5-day period because of the legislation changes and legalities to insurance levels for working staff. In regards to a detention officer, your training course is actually 6 weeks. So there's another 5 weeks of training that's actually incorporated in to understand the corporate planning and proceeding of a detention officer's environment and then to know the actual Immigration law and liabilities that an officer must work under.
PN2111
You say there that after you completed that 6-week course with ACM you then went on to obtain a certificate level 3 in Correction - - -?---That's - that's correct, yes.
PN2112
How long did it take you to complete that certificate?---Upon completion after 6 weeks its roughly - I completed mine in a 12-month frame period I believe. You are given roughly 18 months from your - your completion from your training - your training course, but I chose to take it up as quick as possible to further my career standings with ACM as a detention officer.
PN2113
You say the training is an essential job requirement, why do you say this?---The training, I believe, if you don't do the full training you're not going to understand the full logistics of your - your job role to your environment. To understand that the training, you've got to be of a competent learning background, be able to be straight forward in thinking, very quick on your feet, and basic just confidence, to understand the simple terms to some of the - like the harder terms. If you don't understand anything I would suggest that you get clarification straight away in regarding to any sort of information that's not coming through to you clearly. AS towards a security officer for that's sort of training it's - it's just general straight forward legislation to training to - to what you need to know. Your responsibilities are limited as to a detention officer's responsibilities on the job.
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2114
And would you say that the training that you undertook at ACM made you a more competent employee?---More of aware of my actual job role in a security environment and inside of the detention centre knowing that I have to know a security environment role and the immigration background role.
PN2115
At paragraph 11 of your statement you said that:
PN2116
Staff within a detention centre often need to be allocated to escort detainees.
PN2117
Did you ever do escorts in the security industry?---I have conducted special escorts throughout the security industry, yes. Back then throughout your company that you may be called to a certain particular job, such as escorting large sums of cash, or it might have been a VIP sort or escort.
PN2118
And were all security officers in the security industry trained to undertake escorts?---There were - there was a division area where they actually put you through further training for high profile, PR responsibilities, what you need to know, what you need to look out for and so forth and just to ensure that you are doing your job role correctly.
PN2119
So particular security officers would have undertaken that training?---Particular officers would have - would have came to you at a extension where you may have been in the job for a period of 12 months or more. Where the senior management of a security firm would have thought that you might have been the right person for that particular job role therefore they would have put you through an extra training phase.
PN2120
Would you expect that most security officers working in security - in the security industry would be capable of performing escorts?---Most officers, yes, I would - I would say they have got a confident background to undertake any sort of escort depending on the nature of the escort at the same time, whether it be a high profile or just a standard operating escort.
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2121
At page - at paragraph 13 of your statement you say that your job involves a high level of discretion, can you compare for us if you like, your observations skills that you need to use in an immigration detention environment with those that you use in the security industry?---Okay, the level of discretion that you would be using there is towards the residents of the centre that are actually detained there. These people are sometimes very, very highly agitated people, depending on their backgrounds, their natures, the language barrier is the hardest thing that we find to deal with there in relation to that. When dealing with a situation there, you have got to be extremely discrete that you don't insult or cause some sort of a racial dilemma regarding what ever they are actually asking you or what ever you are trying to actually perform. As towards the discretion in the security industry, it is pretty much straight forward and standard. Your discretion is you have a job profile to do, you conduct perimeter patrol. If you have a conflict with anything you cease contact immediately to that area, return and report it to your direct up line supervisor or you would report it directly to the police, depending on the site that you were actually attached to.
PN2122
So would you say you have a higher level of discretion in detention centres than as the average security officer?---I would that is due to the fact that you are dealing with a large number of people, you have got to have predominantly very high PR skills to deal with these people because you are constantly communicating, you are managing people, you are not ordering them around, it is not as such as in the same as a correctional office or where they have set guidelines, legislations to govern these people from point A to point B. Whereabouts inside a detention centre they have a fairly free roaming area to operate in and within side that you have got your parameters to deal with these people and dealing with them you may be bumping into in, asking them to do a simple task for you or to assist you or you may be requiring them to attend a meeting with the immigration department.
PN2123
And when you were employed in the security industry you were classified as level 4 under the New South Wales Award, is that correct?---That is correct, level 4 was for a control room operator. Depending on your site evaluations where you may be, it goes in classifications of your pay level.
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2124
And that is a senior position under the award?---Under the award it was a senior's position, yes, for inside the control room environment.
PN2125
Did you ever perform a search of premises when you worked in the security industry?---Search of premises, yes, I would have conducted those whilst doing mobile patrols, various clients, industrial areas, such premises would consist of anywhere from your administration building blocks to make sure all admin areas were all secure through to your general industrial actual work site itself where you are making sure you have got no unsecured areas left open from the operation the previous day.
PN2126
Is the same as the sort of search that you might perform as a detention officer in a detention centre?---No, not - not as such as a search, a search you are actually looking - you are defining - you are actually looking for certain items or items of the contraband basically. With that you are actually entering premises with the once set in mind to find illegal items inside there to remove them for the safety of the occupants and the safety of the staff and other members of the department.
PN2127
That is in relation to detention centres?---That is, yes, in relation to detention centres, yes.
PN2128
Have you ever restrained anybody when you were working in the security industry?---Not as such inside the actual security industry, no. I have detained people for questioning through the police but I've never used - the such - the restraining such as handcuffing or that effect.
PN2129
Is it common practice for security officers to restrain members of the public?---To my knowledge no, I believe that a general security officer in the private sector has no more power authority or has no power of arrest as a general citizen.
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2130
How common is it for security officers to experience hostile behaviour or abuse during the course of their security?
PN2131
MR DOUGLAS: Well, your Honour, these - I have allowed these questions up to now, they are a bit general in nature having in mind the experience of this individual, they want to be more precisely based in my view.
PN2132
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I was letting them go because there had been no objection but that thought had crossed my mind, Ms Schofield.
PN2133
MS SCHOFIELD: Did anybody ever abuse you when you were a security officer?---I have come across people in my time as a security officer, yes, I have been abused just by generally being there in uniform. In fact you - people who are under the influence of alcohol, drugs come by. They may not like you just because of the way you look and you may cop some sort of racial abuse from them or just verbal abuse.
PN2134
And as a detention officer, have you ever been abused?---I have been abused as a detention officer due to the fact that they just may not have understood exactly what I was actually trying to communicate with them.
PN2135
Have you experienced more abuse in your role as a detention officer or a security officer?---I would say it would be roughly the same, it is pretty much 50/50.
PN2136
When you worked in the security industry did you have to undertake any training in relation to riots?---No, anything of that nature was - has nothing to do with an actual security guard itself. That is more left to the police officers.
PN2137
And you mentioned you did 5 days training for your security licence - - -
**** SHANE THOMAS XN MS SCHOFIELD
PN2138
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, he did 2 days training, it is - now, it is 5 days.
PN2139
MS SCHOFIELD: Sorry, 2 days. Did you did any conflict management training?---Throughout the training course back then that wasn't actually set out inside the training package because it was a 2 day course. You just learnt the basics how to perform duties as a security officer and so forth. The conflict management now I believe is actually involved inside of that training due to the training aspects being a much broader range of learning.
PN2140
That is in the 5 day course?---That is to my knowledge, yes, that is correct.
PN2141
And did you do conflict management training with ACM when you commenced your employment?---That is part of the pre-service training, yes, it is involved in your 6 week training course.
PN2142
Thank you, Mr Thomas.
PN2143
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Ms Schofield.
PN2144
MR DOUGLAS: Just a few questions.
PN2145
PN2146
MR DOUGLAS: Mr Thomas, can you just identify the various establishments or locations that you worked in when you were working as a security officer?---Okay, I've actually done places such as bank escorts, working inside a - the general departmental bank. I have worked on building sites securities, constructions sites, high rise sites I've worked at, and more recently inside the control room, yes.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2147
And that was related specifically to City-Rail here in New South Wales?---Yes, that is correct, working out of the main control room out of their head office.
PN2148
And I take it from what you said the department - after you - your 2 days training when you became a security officer that was followed on by on the job training in various - in relation to various subject matters?---Yes, you would - you would further on with further training depending on who your employer was or what actual area you would be working in, you do on the job training.
PN2149
So if you went from say being a security officer in relation to a bank - protection of a bank branch and I presume that you worked at such a - such a job?---Yes.
PN2150
To a security officer on a building construction site where there may have been union problems you would have been given some training or some assistance before you went on that building site?---Not as much as from the actual employer itself. Normally from the actual employer to the site would actually put you through some sort of training.
PN2151
Yes, but you weren't put on the site raw without some background as to what you might face as a security officer at that particular site?---Not necessarily. No, there were some offices you could have attended that site without receiving any sort of prior training.
PN2152
It depends on your prior experience?---Pretty much so, yes.
PN2153
Yes. You told us that a security officer does not have power of arrest and that is so. What was your responsibility as a security officer if you saw somebody actually committing an offence?---Committing an offence you'd have to basically - you could approach the person to ascertain what they were doing there and what the offence was to assess the situation. You'd take down their general details, height, description of the person and so forth but if you attempted to arrest the person you could only do it under a citizen's arrest because a security guard does not have any power to arrest whatsoever.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2154
But how come you actually detained somebody at some stage?---You can officially detain by holding them with inside a relevant area but I believe it is a 5 metre radius of your area, until assistance from the police would arrive.
PN2155
So if you are a mobile security officer and you are going around checking retail establishments in the middle of the night and you see somebody with a crow bar trying to open a door of a shop that you are responsible for and you are within 5 metres of that person, you can detain them?---Basically. I mean you - - -
PN2156
And are you trained in that?---You do receive training, depending on what nature training you may have taken on, such as your 2 day course which is now a 5 day course. You could have taken on an additional training course and actually detaining an assailant. You could have done a course such in handcuffs and baton control.
PN2157
Yes, do you pull a gun on that person maybe?---Only if your life was in immediate danger.
PN2158
Yes, but you would be - - -
PN2159
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, just on that, do security officers generally carry guns?---Most mobile patrol officers would.
PN2160
And they are obviously licensed to carry guns?---That's correct, sir.
PN2161
And does it follow that they have done the 1 day gun training course as well?---You do more a 1 day training gun course, sir. I believe a firearm's course is roughly 3 to 4 days.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2162
I see.
PN2163
MR DOUGLAS: And do you have follow-up training on that? Do you go - - -?---You must go through it every 12 month re-accreditation every year.
PN2164
Where do you, to a police firing range?---It would be a New South Wales Police accredited fire range with inside the parameters of the laws to the gun regulations of New South Wales.
PN2165
Yes, and when you joined ACM in '99 did you take a drop in pay?---I did take a stand-back in pay but I don't see what the relevance - - -
PN2166
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is a question for me, Mr Thomas. Relevance is for me, not for you.
PN2167
MR DOUGLAS: I take it that you joined ACM because you saw a career opportunity?---I did, yes. It was a different path I wanted to embark on to understand a little bit more about detentions and then to probably further move on into corrections.
PN2168
Okay and have you worked in corrections yet?---No, I haven't.
PN2169
No. Is that still an ambition?---That is an ambition.
PN2170
Yes. So what you have said today about what goes on in a corrections establishment is based on what other people have told you?
PN2171
MS SCHOFIELD: I don't think he has said anything.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2172
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm not sure that he said anything about corrections, Mr Douglas?---I haven't said anything.
PN2173
I may have missed it if he did.
PN2174
MS SCHOFIELD: No, I don't think.
PN2175
MR DOUGLAS: Okay. So you haven't said anything this morning about the work carried on in prisons, correctional establishments?---I may have said something to - along the words to - about legislations or a particular line of work.
PN2176
Yes, I thought you said that work in correctional establishments was more regimented because of legislation than in detention centres. That was my note?---Right. I may have said that, yes.
PN2177
Yes, well that is based on what you have been told, not your own experience?---Yes, and what I've actually witnessed and seen with inside a correctional facility.
PN2178
And when have you been inside a correctional facility?---Upon escorts, whilst conducting escorts for the detention services, pick-ups and so forth from a correctional facility.
PN2179
How many times have you been to a correctional facility doing that?---I'd say in my 4 years of service to this date I'd say anywhere between 50 to 100 times.
PN2180
Yes. Where? Facilities here in New South Wales or where?---New South Wales alone.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2181
What, to Junee?---Junee which is ACM operated and New South Wales State Government operations.
PN2182
Okay. Now, you became a detention officer 1 after you completed your initial training course?---Yes, you'd come out of your 6 week training course and then you'd start at level 1.
PN2183
How long did it take you to become in your view, you personally, a competent level 1?---Okay. To fully understand the operations of detention services, understand the emigrational background and the nature of the job, I would say to be a fully competent officer of a level 1, a minimum of 12 months.
PN2184
A minimum of 12 months?---Yes.
PN2185
And did the certificate 3 training you did during that period assist you in becoming competent?---If furthered the competency along, yes, by understanding the job role and the natures of what you had to undertake and understand.
PN2186
And at the end of that 12 months plus your initial period of training you became a detention officer 2?---That was correct. Once completing the certification it was then forwarded through. That was all then returned. Once you were granted that, you had passed, your pay rate would have went up to a level 2.
PN2187
But becoming a level 2 wasn't dependent upon you passing your certificate was it?---Yes, you have to. Basically to go to level 2 you have to receive your certificate to further on.
PN2188
Are you familiar with the agreement that applies with respect to DO1s and DO2s, the ACM agreement?---No, I'm unsure of which agreement you are talking about.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2189
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The certified agreement, Mr Thomas.
PN2190
MR DOUGLAS: The certified agreement?---The actual award agreement?
PN2191
Yes?---I am familiar with some parts of it, yes.
PN2192
Yes. Well, you said earlier that some people take 18 months to get their certificate 3?---That's now, as of now they're doing that.
PN2193
Some people don't even ever get it and become detention officers 2 is that correct?---I wouldn't know.
PN2194
You don't know?---I've never seen anybody not get a certificate 3 yet.
PN2195
Can I just refer you briefly to paragraphs 10, 11, 12 of your statement where you talk about the supervision. You say:
PN2196
I supervise a team of six to eight officers.
PN2197
In 10 and then 11:
PN2198
Generally I'm responsible for supervising and allocating tasks for all staff.
PN2199
?---Mm.
PN2200
And you refer to the allocation of tasks in 12. Now, you from time to time work as a detention supervisor?---That's correct. I've done acting positions as a supervisor.
**** SHANE THOMAS XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN2201
Yes, and when you were carrying out duties which involve you supervising people as you refer to in those paragraphs, that is when you are acting up as a detention supervisor?---That's correct.
PN2202
And in paragraph 13 where you say:
PN2203
My job involves a higher level of discretion.
PN2204
Are you talking there as being working from time to time as DO2 and from time to time as being upgraded to a detention supervisor? In other words the collective of your work experience?---Yes.
PN2205
Yes. Thank you, your Honour.
PN2206
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Douglas. Ms Schofield, re-examination?
PN2207
MS SCHOFIELD: No, thank you, your Honour. I have no further questions.
PN2208
PN2209
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that all we can do today?
PN2210
MR DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honour.
PN2211
MS SCHOFIELD: Yes.
PN2212
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until we go to Junee on the 28th.
ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2002
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
JAMES EDWARD GAYTON, SWORN PN1849
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DOUGLAS PN1849
EXHIBIT #ACM13 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JAMES GAYTON PN1867
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS SCHOFIELD PN1939
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS PN2078
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2089
SHANE THOMAS, SWORN PN2093
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS SCHOFIELD PN2095
EXHIBIT #LHMU27 STATEMENT OF SHANE THOMAS DATED 05/07/2002 UNSIGNED EXTENDING TO 24 PARAGRAPHS PN2101
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS PN2146
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2209
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2002/4384.html