C2002/4490, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 4485 (13 November 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N VT556
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2002/4490

COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR
UNION

and

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re the alleged failure to advise
employees of changes to procedures in accordance
with clause 15 of the agreement

MELBOURNE

10.13 AM, MONDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2002

Continued from 23.10.02

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, this matter comes back on today at the request of the Department. I will hear from you, Mr Sullivan.

PN35

MR SULLIVAN: Commissioner, we wrote to the Commission on Friday afternoon and copied a letter to the CPSU which I assume they have which essentially requested you to list the matter again in the context that there had been several developments since Wednesday last week. The first of those developments was that in the Northern Region which had been - - -

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sullivan, before you go on, I think I will mark that correspondence.

EXHIBIT #DHS14 CORRESPONDENCE OF 25/10/2002

PN37

MR SULLIVAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go on.

PN39

MR SULLIVAN: Yes, we were in with you last Wednesday, Commissioner, as you well know, and then there were several developments between the time we were with you and then the writing of this letter, the first of them was activity again at Northern which had been before you the week before, on the 14th, in which, at the Preston office of Northern Region, as you were advised by Mr Richardson on the Wednesday, there was a CPSU meeting occurring that afternoon.

PN40

Following that meeting and discussions there, there was once again a cease work; cease duties notice applied. I can come to the details of that at a later stage which has some importance, in our view, but I will leave that for now so the cease work notice was applied on Wednesday evening. By Friday the site had been inspected by WorkSafe and the cease work notice was lifted and another improvement notice put on in terms which are virtually identical to those that we have seen now at Horsham, at Western and perhaps another couple of places, so we have a situation where another improvement notice has been substituted for the cease work notice.

PN41

The problem at Northern is that that has not had any effect on the approach of the staff in the sense that they are applying effectively limits to the work which is now generating immediate and imminent concern for the Department. The second thing that has occurred, Commissioner, since the time we were last before you is that, through a conversation at the highest level of DHS with the highest level of WorkSafe, we have had conveyed to us by WorkSafe a requirement that, in light of all this activity throughout the State in different ways, WorkSafe now want the Department to implement the measures; the improvement measures that were agreed at Western Region and which are subject at the moment to the consultation process under clause 15.

PN42

In essence, the Department has - sorry, WorkSafe has indicated to the Department that is its wish, that we should improve the work situation throughout the areas of Victoria where there is child protection work going on and that improvement should be in the form that was adopted out at the Western Region. So, Commissioner, we are under that general obligation now - - -

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Western or Northern?

PN44

MR SULLIVAN: Sorry, at Western. The original dispute was at Western and there was a resolution at Western which involved two things in essence.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: It is just that you spoke - - -

PN46

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - about agreed procedures at Northern, it may have been that I was - - -

PN48

MR SULLIVAN: Sorry, I might have misstated that.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: No, not at all, all right, it is Western, isn't it?

PN50

MR SULLIVAN: Yes.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Where you say it was agreed?

PN52

MR SULLIVAN: That is right, yes.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN54

MR SULLIVAN: And Bairnsdale and that was also part of this whole process we have had, we have had Western, we have had Bairnsdale, we have had Horsham, we have had Northern. They are the ones at the moment that are focus of the activity but what WorkSafe is saying to us now is that we originally had agreement with you that you were going to implement the Western arrangements throughout the system.

PN55

We then had a process at clause 15 consultation required of us which we are undergoing but what in essence now WorkSafe is saying to us is that, well, that is all well and good but we require you to now implement this throughout because they are very interested in the fact that we have got some industrial processes taking place but they, in terms of the actual immediate concerns that are there about the health working of their employees, want us to implement the system right throughout - that improvement right throughout the system.

PN56

Now, we have come - we have written to you in those terms, that is really to expand on the letter that was sent to you on Friday last which does virtually say that. Now, what we say and what we have said in that letter is that we now have to move in that direction and because we are conscious of the fact that the industrial element of the clause 15 negotiations is clearly there, we make it abundantly apparent that we will be doing - we are required to do this roll out without - but we will do it without any prejudice to what might come out of the clause 15 consultation process.

PN57

In other words, we are making it very clear in our letter and we make it very clear now, that we will now pre-judge what might arise out of the any consultation process, out of any alternate proposals that might be put up by the employees through CPSU. So this is a compromise that we say we have to now put forward because without it we are not going to satisfy our statutory obligations to WorkSafe but with it, we say, we can do what we need to do in terms of our statutory obligations to WorkSafe and we can also the process that has been begun and we give assurances, Commissioner, to you and to the CPSU that that will be totally without prejudice to what might come out of those consultation processes.

PN58

Now, we have - there have been attempts made to discuss this matter with the CPSU. There was a conversation, I am advised, between Mr Lee and Mr Walton, the Assistant Secretary or the Assistant - yes, the Assistant Secretary of the CPSU on Friday. Maybe there was more than one conversation but there was at least one. We in fact requested Mr Walton be available today to be in this hearing. I should note at that point, Commissioner, that there is a change of appearance here today - - -

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN60

MR SULLIVAN: - - - which includes Ms Callister who is the Executive - who is the Director of Child Protection and Juvenile Justice for the Department so she is the most senior executive in this area. We asked Mr Walton to come along today. He wasn't able to come today. He hasn't given any indication of his availability through the week so we have gone ahead without him but in essence we are looking here today to begin - at least to reach a level of consensus with the CPSU.

PN61

We have started that conversation, we haven't finished it but we are looking to reach a degree of consensus with the CPSU on our proposed approach because we think that is by far the best way we can proceed forward so we will look to this hearing but I would seek very shortly to go into conference, Commissioner, to seek the this occasion to actually reach a consensus with the CPSU about this matter. If that is not available then we might have to take some other approaches before you today but basically we come here essentially seeking a consensus with the CPSU on a proposal that we believe gives no prejudice whatsoever to the employees or the union.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow that.

PN63

MR SULLIVAN: Yes. And that is the opening submission, Commissioner, but as far as I am concerned we can go into conference at an early stage.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Richardson.

PN65

MR RICHARDSON: If the Commission pleases, DHS14 talks about:

PN66

DHS has now been directed by WorkSafe Victoria to immediately implement, on a State wide basis, the improvements agreed.

PN67

And that is the basis for being here. Mr Sullivan has not shown us any documentation. He has talked about discussions at the highest level. Similarly, we have had - Karen Batt has had phone discussions with John Merritt which is the highest level of WorkSafe and he said there is certainly no correspondence and he is not aware of any direction by WorkSafe Victoria to immediately implement, on a State wide basis, the improvements agreed in relation to the Western Region. So - and I will hand up a document.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: I think this is CPSU1, Mr Richardson.

PN69

MR RICHARDSON: All right.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not aware there are other CPSU exhibits, are there? Do you - I think this is CPSU1.

PN71

MR RICHARDSON: CPSU1, yes.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

EXHIBIT #CPSU1 LETTER OF 25/10/2002

PN73

MR RICHARDSON: Now, when this matter was on earlier we undertook to write to WorkSafe about the Committee not going ahead at Western Region while the process was - - -

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: I am going to ask you to pause and I will read this. Should I read this while you - to understand your submission?

PN75

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, I think it is worth reading.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, well just pause for a moment then. It is always difficult to do both. Yes, thank you.

PN77

MR RICHARDSON: Now, it seems that, oh, there is a misinterpretation of what WorkSafe is saying or WorkSafe at various levels are saying different things because Mr Sullivan, both by the correspondence and has told you this morning, that they have been directed to immediately implement on a State wide basis what was - happened at Western Region. Now, I don't think you can read this letter, CPSU1, in any other way than that commitment to the resolution in Western Region is anything but something that was suggested and that WorkSafe want a concept of developing an agreed process for dealing with these issues via a consultative process.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: We have certainly tried that, Mr Richardson.

PN79

MR RICHARDSON: Well, I am not sure that we have because we are working along to the timetable and that has - I was informed by Karen Batt the Secretary that two weeks ago there was a meeting between WorkSafe and representatives of Child Protection in which a proposal was put by ourselves that - pilot two different, the DHS model and our model and there has been no response to that either - - -

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: When was that put, Mr Richardson?

PN81

MR RICHARDSON: There was a meeting about two meeting ago.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the Commission has not been informed of that.

PN83

MR RICHARDSON: No, well I - - -

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: We had some very close discussions on

PN85

Wednesday of last week.

PN86

MR RICHARDSON: Last week.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: And you undertook, together with Mr Sullivan, to reconsider the schedule, the program of consultation which - I have heard a lot about this consultation.

PN88

MR SULLIVAN: I see.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: I am going to be adopting - I am putting myself on inquiry now. I want you to take note of this. I will be looking for the greatest detail as to how the consultative process has been given effect. It may be necessary - I think it may be necessary to have evidence.

PN90

MR RICHARDSON: Well, in terms of the timetable the - - -

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: But most importantly, Mr Richardson, last week I was told that you and Mr Sullivan were going to reconsider the timetable that is set out in DHS8.

PN92

MR RICHARDSON: Yes.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, neither you nor Mr Sullivan so far have told me what me what has happened in relation to that undertaking; that joint undertaking so as you develop your submissions it will be - I will want to hear that and obviously I want to hear the same thing from Mr Sullivan.

PN94

MR RICHARDSON: Okay, well, the short answer is nothing much has happened and I will put that into the context. At the stage we were of the consultative process, DHS, we had just gone past the time line of DHS putting their proposal. Now, that had been put at various times in various region and we were starting a fortnight where we were to have a series of meetings. Now, because of the events of last week, not many of those meetings have taken place and there is a proposal that we are formalising now to fit in all of the meetings in the other areas this week which is the second week of the period where we were to take things back to our members.

PN95

In the meantime we have also been - and I think part of the difficulty about this situation is that there has almost been a focus on the means rather than the ends and I would say that probably there has been a bit of a fixed position from both sides so in the time that we have had available to us since Wednesday night, we have been trying to find some alternative propositions that could be floated at the members' meetings that are now scheduled for the rest of this week so in terms of that part of the time frame, we didn't feel that we were in a position to compress that part of the time frame.

PN96

We certainly would be able to compress us getting a response to the Department and hopefully they could compress that component of responding to our response, if you like, but - so I don't think we have been sitting on our hands since Wednesday evening, that we have been trying to progress the matter but we have serious issues when DHS14 purports and Mr Sullivan has verbally supplemented that that they are under some directions by WorkSafe Victoria which flies in the face of what the head of that organisation has told our Secretary by phone - - -

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN98

MR RICHARDSON: - - - this morning and which flies in the face, we say, of the sentiments expressed on 25 October in CPSU1 so we would like to have some more detail about who was issuing this direction, what form the direction was issued but - - -

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I say, Mr Richardson, my notes didn't record Mr Sullivan saying he was under direction. It may be he used that word "initially". The notes that I have taken of what he said is that the highest level of WorkSafe to the highest level of DHS, WorkSafe want the Department to implement improvement measures agreed at Western. WorkSafe wish that DHS improve the work by implementing this throughout Victoria, something like that. Now, that may not be - but if you are looking for a direction, I don't know, a direction tends to have a capital D.

PN100

I didn't know that he said that and by all means continue with a submission that is aimed at skittling an assertion that there is a direction but I must say that wasn't as I undertook it.

PN101

MR RICHARDSON: Well, the letter, DHS14, says the:

PN102

DHS has now been directed by WorkSafe Victoria to immediately implement, on a State wide basis - - -

PN103

MR SULLIVAN: Commissioner, I will respond to this and give some clarification.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it might be useful, Mr Richardson, so perhaps we will do that. Can I ask you to pause in your submission and I will hear you, Mr Sullivan, on this point. Is there a formal direction?

PN105

MR SULLIVAN: Commissioner, it is true that in the letter the terms that were used that Mr Richardson has pointed out were used. That was written on Friday afternoon in a certain state of knowledge that I had. The state of knowledge I now have is this: That there was a discussion between the Secretary of DHS who statutorily, Commissioner, in fact, carries a lot of onus in this area of child protection, the Secretary of DHS and an executive director of DHS and that conversation was not with Mr Merritt but with Mr Merritt's superior, the Acting CEO of WorkSafe, Greg Tweedly, so we are talking with a different person there and that conversation was about the concerns that WorkSafe had about the whole situation and that conversation, as I am told, used the words more correctly that I have used this morning, that basically there was a strong indication or whatever words.

PN106

It was not a formal direction but it was certainly to the effect that the Department really has to act on this across the State. I won't put it any higher than that.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you. Yes, Mr Richardson.

PN108

MR RICHARDSON: Okay, well, Mr Sullivan has referred to the events at Northern Region and made the suggestion that the immediate risk was not agreed to and there was improvement notice. I haven't got a spare copy of it, I can organise to have a copy of this but the field report says:

PN109

As a result of inquiries...

PN110

I have got copies, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #DHS15 FIELD REPORT OF 24/10/2002

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Richardson.

PN112

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, if you go to the bottom of page 1:

PN113

As a result of inquiries made and the steps taken by senior management today to address the immediate risk, I have formed the opinion that the issues raised are no longer are immediate risk to employee health and safety, therefore a prohibition notice has not been served.

PN114

And it outlines a series of steps that:

PN115

... taken and proposed by management to address the immediate risk of injury to employees.

PN116

Now, the second of those is:

PN117

Additional staffing support for duty seniors who manage the unallocated case list through use of agency staff. One person is expected to commence next Monday and another is being recruited.

PN118

Now, the person that was expected to start today, didn't start, so in a sense this - while Mr Sullivan says that the immediate risk was taken back and an improvement notice was put into place, it was based on a range of things suggested by management and at least one hasn't been delivered this morning as was anticipated. So it still goes back to the issue that we raised the other day, the genuine concerns out in some regions and they are being dealt with, we would say appropriately under WorkSafe.

PN119

Concurrently with that there is a recognised problem across the State that we have got to get a State wide resolution and we are happy to participate in the process but in terms of where we have got to in the time line, we don't think that it is appropriate for us to make commitments in a process like this until at least we have been through those series of meetings so we are - as we indicated previously, these have been responses to particular circumstances in particular offices in particular regions where we are not currently - there are currently no meetings planned in any other areas and there has been no request for any meetings of - with those people who are concerned that it is an immediate issue and we have now got - - -

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Why do you think that is, Mr Richardson?

PN121

MR RICHARDSON: Well, because it likely to vary from - you know, the requirements of child protection don't necessarily follow the lines that are drawn on a map so the workload of regions is going to differ from time to time. There are various staffing levels at various offices where positions have not been, for whatever reason, have not been filled so that creates a pressure so it is likely that there is always going to be a disparate requirement for - in the short term, for the amount of cases that are attempted to be allocated to - compared to the number of workers that are employed there.

PN122

I think that, as we said the other day, there was another overriding circumstance in Horsham that had implications for the situation in Horsham but, as I said, we have certainly got no other meetings scheduled in any other offices or regions of the Department that go to the question of people feeling their under some sort of immediate risk that - in terms of developing an appropriate State wide model, we think the meetings that are to be scheduled this week are an important component of that.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: What meetings have been scheduled for this week, Mr Richardson? What meetings were scheduled for last week? The consultative process was to commence on - that is:

PN124

The CPSU Industrial Officers meeting with members to discuss the proposals and ascertaining whether members wish to put forward alternatives.

PN125

And this is in the field, isn't it?

PN126

MR RICHARDSON: Yes.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: With the Child Protection Officers who are - if I have understood anything about what I have been told over recent days and weeks, is they are very - their time is very confined. The flexibility that they must have within their working weeks is very limited. So I am - I deduce from that that there would be a far amount of care taken in their consultation that the people have known about since 1 October and prior to 1 October, so what - have you got an exhibit you can give me to show me what was scheduled from - over the consultative period, that is Monday 21 October and onwards?

PN128

MR RICHARDSON: Well, the difficulty was that on - the Industrial Officers were scheduled to have a meeting last Monday. Mandy Coulson, who has got - one of the people responsible was at after hours as a result of the hangover from the weekend before.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN130

MR RICHARDSON: So that couldn't take place and Christian was involved in - for essentially two days at Northern Region. Peter Henley, one of the Country Organisers was involved for two days at Horsham so a schedule of meetings has been set for this week and - - -

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: What are they going to be discussing? Because I might be the only one still thinking that they are discussing the original proposals. I might be the only person who still thinks that this process has got some integrity because if I have understood your earlier submissions, the CPSU were floating new proposals last Wednesday. I don't know about those, I wasn't told about those.

PN132

MR RICHARDSON: No, no.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: And that sounds like an old soap television show line: Why wasn't I told? I don't care if I am not told but my understanding is that this process is going ahead and I met with - we had a hearing rather and we have conferences here with you and with Mr Sullivan and you were going to go away, this is late last week, to see whether this could be compressed and whether the end of November was still going to be the confining time line. And you tell me today that something else was floated on Wednesday.

PN134

There is this response from WorkSafe to a letter of 2 October so that took 24 days; that response. It may be there have been some communications, it seems to be the case that there have been. But is what is going to be in the consultation what I think it is, as I have just described to you, Mr Richardson? Or is it something else? Are there new proposals that are going into the field that the Commission hasn't been advised of?

[10.42am]

PN135

MR RICHARDSON: On Wednesday night, after we finished, I went back and had a conversation with Mr Walton, the Assistant Secretary, and I said - essentially the thrust of that conversation was that, you know, we need to work our way through a resolution. Now, the - what, at that stage, was scheduled for the consultation at the meetings was DHSs proposal on essentially an alternative proposal that had been worked out by a representative group of delegates some months earlier. Now, as I say, I wasn't aware of the meeting when we were here, and I am - only found out about that at the meeting.

PN136

But there was a meeting a fortnight ago where Karin Batt floated the proposal of - there be essentially two pilot programs. The process developed by the representative committee some time earlier in the year. And DHSs proposal. As I say - - -

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Who was that put to?

PN138

MR RICHARDSON: I understand it was representatives of WorkSafe. I under Jill Callister was there, and Penny Armitage.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: Who is Ms - is it Ms Armity, is it? Is that a WorkSafe - - -

PN140

MR RICHARDSON: Ms Armitage.

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Armitage. Is she s - - -

PN142

MR RICHARDSON: No. From the Department of Human Services.

PN143

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. All right. And you say WorkSafe was present?

PN144

MR RICHARDSON: Yes. John Merritt, I understand was present, from WorkSafe.

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: He is a senior officer at WorkSafe?

PN146

MR RICHARDSON: Yes.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And that was a fortnight ago?

PN148

MR RICHARDSON: Yes.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: And Ms Batt was present?

PN150

MR RICHARDSON: Yes.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: So that is going into the field as well, is that? Elements of that proposal.

PN152

MR RICHARDSON: No. What I - I was putting that into a context - there is essentially two models floating around. There is a model that was worked out by a group of delegates in - from Child Protection some months ago, which, if you like, is our model. There is the DHS model, which was there response to the Western Region back in April or - DHS want to implement their model. And we say there is some problems, and we have got this alternate model. Now, the discussions with Mr Walton on Thursday evening and then the next time that we could talk on, was briefly on Friday.

PN153

The discussion on Wednesday was, you know, maybe there is a compromise model somewhere in between the two that could address the concerns and might work. So Mr Walton and I had another brief discussion on Friday, and tomorrow is our officers meeting. So Mr Walton asked me to put down a rough sketch of what was a potential compromise model, to put to all of the people involved. Now, if that has any attractions, that would then form part of the meetings that are scheduled for the rest of this week. But it hasn't got any higher status than that, if you like, other than Mr Walton and I trying to steer our way through what we saw as DHS locked into their position, us locked into a position, and whether there was any compromise position that may - - -

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN155

MR RICHARDSON: - - - may resolve the issue.

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow.

PN157

MR RICHARDSON: So that is the status of what I was referring to there. So again, in terms - we are unclear as to what this imperative that WorkSafe is putting on the Department. We want to go through the process of consulting with the members and allowing them to have some input, because ultimately they are the people who have got to work under whatever is determined. And it is going to be something that they genuinely believe protects their interests in occupational health and safety.

PN158

And, in terms of the acceleration, it was still talked about. Because of the time frame, as I indicated, I am not sure that we can accelerate the series of meetings to finish those any earlier than Friday. But we can accelerate the processes where, as officials we are in control of the process, that is in drawing up something to go back to DHS with. And we would hope that they could tighten the timeframe there, in their response.

PN159

MR RICHARDSON: What have you got in mind, Mr Richardson, for that phase? Because currently it is given half a month.

PN160

MR RICHARDSON: Yes. Well we - - -

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: In the agreed - in the presently agreed schedule.

PN162

MR RICHARDSON: Well, we would think and hope that we could respond within two working days of - so that we have a response by the close of business on the Tuesday. The Cup intervenes, doesn't it? Yes. So probably close of business Wednesday.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: You are talking to someone who has regularly listed industrial matters on the Monday, and had his Associate seek to impose restrictive work practices, which would drag Australia back into a non-internationally competitive limbo from which we are proudly emerging. However, yes. All right. Wednesday. I understand. Thank you. Thanks, Mr Richardson. All right, Mr Sullivan. Well, that is - there is an initial position on the table. Do you want to put something? Do you feel you need to, before we go into conference?

PN164

MR SULLIVAN: Well, there is - there is that on the table, Commissioner, but what is not evident, obviously, is a consensus about what we have placed before the Commission and before the CPSU before today. I don't know whether I am in a world of my own, Commissioner, but from everything Mr Richardson has been saying, it just confirms what we were trying to do last week. That is, we were trying to get this consultation process to be a proper consultation process with the employees, and not have it linked to an industrial objective of the union and its own claims.

PN165

Now, almost everything Mr Richardson said to you just previously is that the CPSU keeps developing its claims. It might have a claim ready by that day which you have just mentioned. That they were meeting again last week about their claim, called an alternative proposal. And I just go back through the consultation process. The consultation process, during this two weeks that we are in the middle of for the moment, was meant to be the opportunity for the CPSU to talk with employees across the board as to what they might think are alternative proposals.

PN166

In my submission, Commissioner, the CPSU has barely even paid lip service to that. They had, before the beginning of last week, despite requests, not notified us of any scheduled consultation meetings. Now, keeping in mind there is meant to be three working days notice for these meetings to take place, that by the beginning of last week, despite requests, we did not have a single schedule or indication from the CPSU that they were going to consult with the employees in the field. Now, this all adds, and you have heard from Mr Richardson this morning saying, "Well, they had better get cracking now, this week." Commissioner, our concern is that we entered the agreement in the end to go through the consultation process, that has not been occurring.

PN167

And what has been happening, in reality, is CPSU going to particular work sites, and lo and behold, out of those work sites come very serious notices in terms of occupational health and safety. Now, I don't want to flog that, because I really came here this morning with a view of trying to reach some consensus with the CPSU about the position the Department is in. The things that I would like to respond to, really, are these. That we, yes, have considered the question of our response time to any alternative proposal, and we believe we could come back within a week, instead of the two week period that we are currently on the schedule. So that is the first thing that I should indicate to you, Commissioner.

PN168

Secondly, in relation to the question of the pressure that the Department is under from WorkSafe, I think I have probably described to you now adequately the nature of that broad pressure. That is the second thing I - if I need to explain that further, I will. But I think the Commission and the union probably understands what that is now. In terms of - the CPSU seems to be confusing itself. The approach that we are trying to implement through the consultation process is a consensus approach, an agreed approach that arose in Western. It is not DHSs proposal.

PN169

It is actually something which was consulted through at Western, it was agreed by employees, and then it was examined by WorkSafe, and it was adopted as an improvement system, an improvement to the system throughout. And if you take that and applied the particulars of Preston and Northern, for example. If you look at that field notice, that field report, you will see there is a lot of emphasis on better system of allocation. Now, that is what this whole general program is about. It is a better system of allocation. It is to do with new guidelines and procedures for allocation as one limb.

PN170

The other limb is a workload monitoring group for a region, which has a number of functions, many of which are to continuously examine issues of workload, case allocation. So it has got a broad brief. It is not just one - not a reference committee for a person who feels as though they have got too much work. It has actually got a broad brief. It is - involves employees, the union and the Department. So it is - that is the overall body. But in addition, Commissioner, there is a set of new allocation guidelines and processes which is attaching to that as well.

PN171

Now, if you go to that field report that has been put in as now DHS15, you will find in the - on the page that refers to the improvements that are being suggested by WorkSafe, that is, about the third page, the improvement notice, the actual improvement notice itself, following the field report. It is expressed in terms which are almost analogous to those which applied to Horsham the other day, and to Western prior to that. Directions as to the measures to be taken to remedy the contravention is contained towards the bottom of the page. It says:

PN172

The Crown in right of Victoria, must provide and maintain a safe system of work associated with work allocation for child protection workers at this workplace. To achieve this risk control measures are required to be established and implemented that demonstrate a reduction in employee stress related or associated with work allocation.

PN173

So it is a broad direction. It is one which we say can be advanced by application of the Western arrangements. So, Commissioner, our problem is this. That we are actually getting frustrated now in the consultation process with the employees, because there has been no consultation by the union up to this point in time, effectively. We are getting what we say are - is an industrial objective advanced by means which we think are not proper. But finally, Commissioner, we now have the situation where the Department no longer, in our view, in the Secretary of the Department's view, has any choice.

PN174

We have to advance with improvements. We are seeking to get a consensus or some means through this process in the Commission to advance that approach. But, in the end, if that is not achieved today, we still have to examine our position in terms of our statutory obligations. Commissioner, there is one other thing that Mr Richardson raised that I will just touch upon, and that is the meeting that was held between Ms Batt and members of the Department about two weeks ago, as he has described it.

PN175

Ms Callister was at that meeting. I am advised by her that what occurred was that the CPSU put forward its industrial claim, that is, ratios, limits, case load limits, as one of the things to pilot. The response to that, Commissioner, was that we are in a consultation process. The Department will examine any alternative proposals that come out of that consultation process. So there was not a failure to respond. There was a very clear response. The response was, "No, we are not going to look at piloting another approach. We are going to look at what the employees come up with as an alternative proposal."

PN176

And we will continue to do that, Commissioner, despite the fact that we really are under no obligations, as far as we concerned, to extend the Western arrangements through the system. Commissioner, I don't know that I really want to take issue with a lot of the things that could be taken issue with out of what Mr Richardson said before. I will just reserve my position on some of that stuff, because the purpose, as far as I am concerned today, is to get some sort of resolution. If the Commission pleases.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. We will go off the record.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #DHS14 CORRESPONDENCE OF 25/10/2002 PN37
EXHIBIT #CPSU1 LETTER OF 25/10/2002 PN73
EXHIBIT #DHS15 FIELD REPORT OF 24/10/2002 PN111