C2004/1243, Transcript of Proceedings [2006] AIRCTrans 421 (23 March 2006)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 14449-1

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2004/1243

LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS UNION
AND
RURAL AMBULANCE VICTORIA
s.170LW - Application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement)
(C2004/1243)

MELBOURNE

10.01AM, WEDNESDAY, 08 MARCH 2006

Continued from 30/1/2006

Hearing continuing

PN699

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Meredith

PN700

MR MEREDITH: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, we propose to take witness evidence from Mr Steven Gough.

PN701

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well.

<STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH, SWORN [10.01AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MEREDITH

PN702

MR MEREDITH: Mr Gough, could you restate your name and your address, please?---Steven Thomas Gough. (Address supplied).

PN703

Your current occupation, please?---I'm the general manager, operations, for Rural Ambulance Victoria.

PN704

Have you prepared a witness statement for these proceedings?---I have.

PN705

Do you have a copy of that statement with you?---I do.

PN706

Are there any changes or corrections that you would wish now to make to that statement?---The title in paragraph 1 reflects a previous title. It's now the general manager, operational services, and in paragraph 3 the years of service has transpired since this witness statement was first written.

PN707

Very well. Subject to those corrections, is that statement true and correct?---It is.

PN708

Commissioner, I have previously tendered this by mail but in this tribunal I tender a further copy.

PN709

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

EXHIBIT #M15 STATEMENT OF STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH

PN710

MR MEREDITH: Mr Gough, this statement amounts to your evidence-in-chief. You have indicated a couple of minor corrections to the statement; there is one matter that I wish to briefly traverse with you and then Ms Forbath will proceed with her cross-examination. There has been evidence put to this Commission so far, in these proceedings, of there being no knowledge of any occasions when a recommended applicant has not been appointed to the position. Do you have any knowledge of occasions when a recommended applicant has not been ultimately appointed?---I can recall three occasions where recommended applicants haven't been appointed to the positions.

PN711

Does that include Mr Gunn or is this three other people?---It would be three other people - positions.

PN712

Without identifying the individuals, can you inform the Commission of the types of positions that these people had been considered for?---Without speaking to the specific individuals, one was an area management team position, one was a station officer position within an area and one was an area manager's position.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XN MR MEREDITH
PN713

Can you recall over roughly what period of time these three instances occurred - I will rephrase that; going back in years how far do you think this might have been?---They're post 1999, since the formation of RAV. The majority of them would be within the last three years.

PN714

Thank you.

PN715

Subject to that particular matter, Commissioner, the evidence of Mr Gough, his evidence-in-chief, is the witness statement and I would not seek to take any further questions at this point.

PN716

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN717

Yes, Ms Forbath.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS FORBATH [10.05AM]

PN718

MS FORBATH: Just a matter of process before I begin, Commissioner, the last time we were before you Mr Schurink was in the witness box. Mr Meredith pursued a somewhat unusual way of dealing with his examination-in-chief in that he simply took the witness statement, I cross-examined and then Mr Meredith proceeded to do yet more - in what should technically have been a re-examination, he proceeded to present more examination-in-chief through his witness. I wanted just to clarify whether we were going to proceed in that way this time; if that was Mr Meredith's intention, because I may have something I wish to say about that. But if all of the examination-in-chief is before us, then that's fine. I can begin my cross-examination.

PN719

THE COMMISSIONER: Well do that, Ms Forbath, and if issues arise in the re-examination that you think trench into new areas in a way which is bad or tease out some point in a way that requires you, in your estimation, to be given the opportunity to put further questions, make that position plain and I will consider it. I will hear Mr Meredith and I will make a ruling in the normal way. Go on, Ms Forbath.

PN720

MS FORBATH: Thank you. Could I ask that the witness be given Mr Gunn's statement with its various attachments, and that would have been F2, with its attachments?

PN721

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN722

MS FORBATH: I will be referring to that from time to time.

PN723

Before I begin, Mr Gough, perhaps what I would ask you is if you could describe for the Commission the role that you played in regard to Mr Gunn's appointment, consideration and lack thereof; perhaps if you could describe that process for us so that we can understand that?---As part of the current RAV procedure for recruitment and selection that was in play at the time, my job is, as the reviewing officer, to consider recommended applicants for a position.

PN724

Right. Now in the case of Mr Gunn did you receive a report from the interview panel?---I received a file from Mr Schurink, who was part of the process for selecting the senior COMS officer position for Ballarat.

PN725

What did that file contain?---The file had information in it regarding the interview process, as to my main review was in discussion with Mr Schurink about the interview process and the basis on which the panel had made the recommendation.

PN726

Yes, that is not quite what I was asking you. In the file that you received from Mr Schurink, did it contain a report which had the reasons for the interview panel's recommendation?---It's a long time ago, Ms Forbath. I see lots of files. The normal file has that information in it but I cannot recall.

PN727

In the ordinary course of events, when an interview panel conducts its interviews, whether it's Mr Gunn or any other person, what sort of note-taking occurs by the members of the interview panel?---The interview is based on a behavioural interview technique which is aimed at looking at key aspects of the position. The people on the selection panel have notes, there's a completion of an interview panel report that forms part of the interview panel's recommendation. That then is taken to the reviewing officer or goes through a process for review before being authorised or approved.

PN728

Was Mr Schurink, in a sense, the head of that panel?---He's the convener of that selection panel.

PN729

Right, and was it his duty to pull together the report that went to you?
---Mr Schurink, as the convener of the panel, would bring the file or would have the file sent to me for those sorts of positions for review.

PN730

Would the report that Mr Schurink send to you, which was contained in the file to which you keep referring, also include the score sheets by the other members of the interview panel?---Yes, it would.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN731

Just so that we are clear, would it be correct to say that then you received a file with the score sheets from members of the interview panel, together with a report from Mr Schurink about the panel's recommendation?---That would be the normal process.

PN732

No, I'm asking you did you receive that in regard to Mr Gunn?--- Ms Forbath, as I indicated, I see lots of files. To actually sit here and say that I remember exactly what was in that file, going back at that time, I can't say that with complete veracity.

PN733

I'm not asking you to give me all the details of what was in the report; I'm simply asking you in the file that you received from Mr Schurink was there a report by him about the decision of the interview panel, together with their individual score sheets?---Again, Commissioner, my comment is that without going back and looking at the file again I can't sit here and say what the exact content was.

PN734

Mr Gough, I find this unusual. You are the director of operations. This matter has been before the Commission for a very considerable period of time. I can appreciate that some of the minute detail of things may have escaped the memories of a lot of us here in this room today, but in general terms, surely you would be aware - and in coming to give your evidence today - whether a report existed or not?---Ms Forbath, I haven't - - -

PN735

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment, Mr Gough. Yes, Mr Meredith.

PN736

MR MEREDITH: Commissioner, that's about the fourth occasion that the question has been put, with respect. I mean, Mr Gough has responded on several occasions most insistently that to the best of his knowledge he can't recall.

PN737

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN738

MR MEREDITH: That is the answer.

PN739

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. I think that was put in the past tense. Certainly what you say is right, Ms Forbath. I know you would be conscious of that but it struck me that you had asked a slightly different question then. Was your question intended to be whether he recollects whether there had ever been a report? Is that what you asked? Perhaps you could show me whether I am right.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN740

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN741

THE COMMISSIONER: I am usually wrong in my recollections of these things. I am not bad with longer term but short term seems to be a bit of a challenge. But is that what you are asking; whether he has a recollection whether there was ever a report on the file?

PN742

MS FORBATH: Yes, that's right.

PN743

THE COMMISSIONER: Why do you not answer that, Mr Gough?---I don't recall.

PN744

No. Well, I understand that. His evidence is that he does not remember, he does not recall, Ms Forbath?---Yes. If I had time to review the file I would recall.

PN745

MS FORBATH: Yes?---Which is something that I haven't done.

PN746

Let me take you to the document that is attached to Mr Gunn's statement, which you have in front of you there. That's HR3107, and that's the recruitment and selection procedure. That's attached to Mr Gunn's statement and it's marked AG7; you are familiar with that document, are you, Mr Gough?---Yes.

PN747

Mr Gough, in that document there's a number of pieces of information about the way in which people are selected for positions. I will just first of all take you to 5.3, which is on page 4; do you see that section?---Yes.

PN748

Thank you. Now, 5.3.1 states:

PN749

The selection criteria for any position will be directly related to the role and responsibilities as defined in the relevant position description.

PN750

Commissioner, do you have a copy of that?

PN751

THE COMMISSIONER: No, the witness has mine, Ms Forbath. I am looking now - I do have another copy of Mr Gunn's statement so I am scrounging about to see if it will help me understand the man's evidence, otherwise it will be done by reading all the transcript in time.

PN752

MR MEREDITH: Commissioner, if it assists, I have also tendered that same exhibit in the earlier proceedings.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN753

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN754

MR MEREDITH: I believe back in approximately March or April 2004 in the very early proceedings in this matter. So you have a document as a separate exhibit.

PN755

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well I will see if I can locate it, but go on for the time being, Ms Forbath. This is the policy material?

PN756

MS FORBATH: Yes, it is.

PN757

THE COMMISSIONER: From the personal manual which is used.

PN758

MS FORBATH: Yes, it is. I will be going to that in some detail, Commissioner.

PN759

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN760

MS FORBATH: So it is important that you have that in front of you.

PN761

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. How long is it? I will have a copy made.

PN762

MS FORBATH: You do have?

PN763

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I say a copy will be made now rather than delay us.

PN764

MS FORBATH: Right. I have got a copy here. It was marked M1. It must have been a - this must have been one that was tendered by - - -

PN765

MR MEREDITH: By me.

PN766

MS FORBATH: By Mr Meredith.

PN767

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN768

MS FORBATH: So perhaps I will get this back from you later.

PN769

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I have got M1. Yes, you see they are given the name for that very reason. Here we are. Here is M1 at the top of all the M's. Off you go.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN770

MS FORBATH: Yes. It's got two exhibit numbers in some respects. I think probably the official exhibit number would be M1.

PN771

Anyway, where we are up to, Mr Gough - I'm sorry about that interruption - is the selection criteria - and I quoted from and at 5.3.3 it refers to the fact that the - and I will just quote part of 5.3.3 and that is:

PN772

The selection criteria will be made transparent to all applicants.

PN773

Mr Gough, were there selection criteria for Mr Gunn's position?---Yes, there were.

PN774

Was that selection criteria made available to Mr Gunn prior to the interview?---I presume so. I can't speak from being present at the time.

PN775

So that's not something you would be aware of?---That would be handled by the people handling the recruitment process.

PN776

Is the selection criteria a document that is different from the position description or is the selection criteria the same as the position description?---The position description outlines the principal duties of the position. The selection criteria is - from my recollection is based around the position description that's put out; the job as it's advertised with the key requirements of the position, and those are built into behavioural style interview questions that are used at the time of interview.

PN777

Do I take it that you are saying there is the selection criteria is, in a sense, a separate document from the position description?---I don't think that's correct,
Ms Forbath.

PN778

It's not?---My understanding is the position description is available for the position.

PN779

Yes?---the job is advertised with some of the key requirements for the position and a behavioural interview guide is prepared around the key behavioural dimensions - performance dimensions of that position.

PN780

Is that document, the behavioural attributes that you are looking to test and to make some judgment about, made available to the interviewees?---No, it's not.

PN781

It's not. You see, I ask you these questions because Mr Gunn had a copy of the position description in the position of the job advertisement but he was unaware of there being any particular additional selection criteria. You are not sure about that? Are you saying you don't know whether there was a separate set of selection criteria?---I think it'd be very clear from the way in which the positions were advertised and the understanding the majority of people interested in the positions - and there were a number of senior COMS officer positions available at that time - about what the requirements of that position was.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN782

Yes, but that's not the question I'm asking, you see. Certainly there may well have been understandings and interpretations and so forth of what was required, but was there an actual document with the selection criteria on it that the interview panel would have used, in working out their scoring of that individual?---The position description would have been used to build the behavioural interview guide, which is common across RAV. It's the standard process for all positions in RAV. It's not any change in that in this position[sic] or other positions. Those requirements in the PD are built into the guide and that is what the panel use to make the assessment of the candidate.

PN783

All right. So when it says there at 5.3.3 that the selection criteria will be made transparent to all applicants; what do you understand that to mean in regard to the applicants?---My experience would be that people that are interested in the job, when they make inquiries they usually source the position description for the position that they're applying for. They see what the requirements of the position are. If there was a contact officer they would contact that person and make inquiries with them about the position. Generally there are people who are suitably qualified to apply for positions in RAV, however, at times we have people who apply for positions and they don’t have the requisite qualifications for the position.

PN784

Yes. Just on that point that you have just made, do you routinely interview people for positions who don't have the requisite qualifications?---That wouldn't be something that I would do but I understand it has occurred in the past.

PN785

Is that a mistake or is it done for some other reason?---I'm - don't wish to be pejorative on that. I'm aware that there have been positions that have been interviewed in the past where applicants have sought, quite deliberately, to be interviewed and they've been interviewed. But the reality is that they don't possess the key qualifications or meet the requirements for the position.

PN786

Right?---So they won't be appointed to the position.

PN787

Can I take you to 5.5.5 on page 6 of the same document that we are looking at and I quote again from 5.5.5 and that is:

PN788

A structured interview will be conducted of all short-listed applicants. An interview guide will be used to ensure consistency in the conduct of interviews. Questions contained in the interview guide will address the selection criteria identified for the position and gather other employment related information of each applicant. A record of the interview will be completed by the interviewers.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN789

That there refers to the record of interview. So in Mr Gunn's case, even though you are, as you said earlier you can't remember it, there was a report in the file that was sent to you; would you have expected, in accordance with 5.5.5 that a record of the interview would have been in that file that you received?---I think I said that I don't recall what was on the file because it was a long time ago. If I'd been required to review the file prior to coming here I would have done so.

PN790

But would you expect then, it's an expectation of the organization that after somebody has been interviewed that there will be a record of the interview?
---That's correct.

PN791

If I can take you to 5.7.1, which is the - and that's on page 8. 5.7.1 is the paragraph that deals with your role:

PN792

At the conclusion of the selection process the relevant level 3 manager will compile a report to the appropriate divisional director giving details of the recommended applicant for the position.

PN793

That would suggest, would it not, that you would have received a report in that file that you received from Mr Schurink?---In terms of process the people who are members of the interview panel complete their interview guide. That's summed up with a recommendation of the person who's recommended for the position. That's what's referred to as the report.

PN794

Okay, but you are not sure or you can't remember whether that actually happened in regard to Mr Gunn?---I can be certain that when Mr Schurink spoke to me that he would have had information at the time that we discussed about the suitability of Mr Gunn for the position.

PN795

Right, but here today you can't recall whether such a report exists or not?
---Without looking at the content of the file the answer's no.

PN796

You see, Mr Schurink says about the interview report - I just need to access my - you see, when Mr Schurink was cross-examined I put to him that he would have to write an interview report and I'm looking here at - for the purposes of the other parties here - PN445 through to PN448 and I will just quote from that. I will try to summarise just for the purposes of saving time and I put to him:

PN797

You would have to write an interview report or somebody on the interview panel would have had to prepare an interview report that then went over to the director of operational services

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN798

and I asked him if that was correct, and he said:

PN799

Yes, that's correct.

PN800

I asked him if Mr Gunn received a copy of the interview report and he said:

PN801

I didn't - I don't believe so.

PN802

Ordinarily what happens, Mr Gough, with the interview report; does it go onto the person's personal file?---There's - the normal process is to raise a file for a position which contains information about the advertisement for the position, it usually contains a copy of the position descriptions. Once the applications have closed for the position that file is handed to the - referred to the person, the manager, who is going to run the selection process and convene the interview panel, behavioural guides are prepared by HR on the basis of the requirements of the position, derived from the position description. A formal report - if you're asking whether someone sits down and spends time writing a formal report, the answer to that's no. There's a pro forma pack that goes with the interview guides and on the top of it, it's a summary with comments from the interview panel that detail the differences, if any, between the particular applicants that have been interviewed. That's the selection report. That's the subject of discussion.

PN803

Right. What I was asking you, though, is what happens to that report after you have looked at it, you have made your decision whether to approve what the interview panel has put to you; does that report go onto the person's personnel file?---The position file, if we can call it that , is returned to HR and I'm not sure - and I can't speak with certainty whether it continues as a file that is kept for the recruitment of the position or it's split up and put on personal files. You'd have to ask someone from HR.

PN804

Because you see, Mr Gunn has tried to access the interview report on his personal file but - and all employees are entitled to look at their personal file, aren't they?
---Correct.

PN805

When he looked at that file there was no report about his interview for this position; do you have any explanation of why that might be so?---No. I'm not in a position to make comment.

PN806

No?---I don't handle that part of the administration.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN807

Just going back to the transcript involving Mr Schurink, I asked Mr Schurink if the report was generally made available to applicants and his response to that was at PN447:

PN808

I'm sure it's - I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure if they asked to see what's in their file they do have access to their file.

PN809

So I asked would the interview report then be on his personal file and Mr Schurink said:

PN810

That's' where it would ultimately reside.

PN811

So you have not got any explanation as to why it wouldn't be on his file?---I'm certainly not in a position to comment on what Mr Schurink has said.

PN812

Right?---From my perspective I'm not responsible for that part of the administration. Are employees entitled to access their personal file? Yes. Do the contents of the interview process remain on a recruitment file or be distributed on personal files? I'm not in a position to be able to comment.

PN813

Before coming to give your evidence today, are you saying that you didn't have a look again at that file containing the interview report?---Not prior to coming to these proceedings. No.

PN814

Have you had a look at it since you made your decision? You made your decision a very long time ago but have you looked at it subsequently?---Ms Forbath, the reason I made my decisions are evident in the witness statement.

PN815

That's not what I asked you. I asked you have you looked at - - -?---I had that discussion at that time. I've had no reason to go and review the file since that time.

PN816

I'm simply asking you whether you did or not and you say no, that you have not?
---The answer's no.

PN817

All right. There is another issue that arose in regard to Mr Gunn when he was giving his evidence; have you read any of the transcript relating to Mr Gunn?
---No, I haven't.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN818

Have you read any of the transcript of these proceedings?---No, I haven't.

PN819

You see, Mr Gunn gave some evidence that he was unaware of this recruitment and selection policy which you have got in front of you and there was some discussion about whether he should have been aware of it or not. That was a whole set of questions and issues around that and there was evidence from both sides about that particular issue but is it your view, your understanding - perhaps I will rephrase the question. Mr Gough, would you expect that your employees would be aware and knowledgeable about all of RAV's policies and procedures?
---All of RAV's policies and procedures are available to all employees. I'd find it extraordinary, given the discussion that had preceded the development of that policy, that the majority of people who were interested in RAV's recruitment and selection process, or indeed were applying for positions, would not make themselves familiar with RAV's process. In fact, I think that was before this Commission.

PN820

You didn't really answer my question again. Would you expect that people would have knowledge - - -?---Yes.

PN821

Both about all of the policies - of RAV's policies?---You see, Ms Forbath, you say all.

PN822

Yes?---And I don't think it's a perfect world.

PN823

So what, would there be some policies you would expect somebody not to know about?---As an employer, we make those policies and procedures available to employees. In RAV all of those policies and procedures are available on the RAV intranet. At the time of this matter they were also available in hard copy at every work location in RAV.

PN824

Are you aware of how many policies and procedures there are in RAV; do you know the number of them?---There's several volumes of policies and procedures, as you'd expect in an organization the size of RAV.

PN825

Yes. Does it surprise you that there's some 350 plus policies and procedure documents that people need to be aware of?---That doesn't surprise me.

PN826

Are you aware of all the policies and procedures yourself?---No, but when matters come before me that I need to have an interest in or a particular matter that I need to deal with, then I refer to the policies and procedure, and that would be my general position, that I would expect employees that were involved in particular matters to refer to policies and procedure as well.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN827

Thank you. Let us go to the position description for the senior communications officer and that 's attached, again, to Mr Gunn's statement at - and it's marked AG2 of his statement?---Where are we, Ms Forbath?

PN828

That looks like it?---Is this is?

PN829

That is correct. The position description, if I can take you to the last page of that, and to the second dot point, it says here that one of the relevant qualifications and experience was, "Previous experience as an operational communications officer or at a senior management level".

PN830

The job advertisement, on the other hand, which is at - I'm wondering if Mr Gough could be given F3? The job advertisement invites applications "From suitably experienced communications officers for the position of senior communications officer". Can you explain why there's some difference here in what is in the position description and what is in the job advertisement?---Well, I think they're complimentary, Ms Forbath. The advertisements, by their very nature, are designed to attract people to positions. They're not intended to be comprehensive. The purpose of having an inquiry officer is then to refer them to the more detailed job requirements within the position description. An applicant should familiarise themselves with the requirements in the position description.

PN831

Yes. I'm aware of all that but that's not what I asked you. You see, the position description says that you can, as a relevant qualification, either have experience as an operational communications officer or management experience?---Senior management experience.

PN832

Senior management experience or you can have one or the other?---That's correct.

PN833

But the job advertisement does not reflect that?---I think it's reflected in the supervisory role and most people who read - who are applying for positions that said that it was a supervisory role would expect that that would have a requirement to have some management experience. I think the second line there also reads, "Experienced COMS officers", Ms Forbath. This is a supervisory position in COMS. In fact it's the most senior supervisory position in COMS.

PN834

You see, what I put to you is if Mr Gunn, as the person who was recommended by the interview panel, even though he had no communications training and he had no or very little communications officer experience apart from the odd period in the communications room when he was helping out, that - - -?---I'm not aware of that, Ms Forbath.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN835

Sorry?---I'm not aware of him having odd experience while helping out. I don't understand what that means.

PN836

Well let us say he has virtually no communications experience?---Thank you.

PN837

Or no communications officer training?---Thank you.

PN838

So he doesn't meet this requirement in the job advertisement. But if Mr Gunn, as the recommended applicant, had had senior management experience, would you have had a different approach to him in terms of not exercising your veto over the appointment?---If Mr Gunn had been able to meet what was in my view, exercising my judgment, which is contained and expressed clearly in the procedure, had met the requirements of the job in my opinion, then he would have been eligible for consideration for that position, and I would likely have approved it. The situation clearly that's in my witness statement, that in my view he did not.

PN839

I'm putting to you a hypothetical question?---Well I'm not here for hypotheticals, Ms Forbath.

PN840

You are here to answer questions. I'm saying to you if Mr Gunn had had senior management experience, but he had not had, and does not have, communications officer training or experience, would you have had a different attitude towards him, given the panel's recommendation?---I would have wanted the convener to have explained to me how the senior management experience was going to give him the understanding and the knowledge to be able to operate in a communications centre environment, which is indeed a particularly complex environment in RAV.

PN841

I take it that that answer means that you would consider him or some other person for appointment to that position if the answers to those questions were satisfactory, even though the person had no training and no experience in communications?---I look at the applicant in its entirety. In fact that's my role, to question the convener.

PN842

Yes?---I'm not going to answer the question you're trying to put because it's not the answer I wish to give.

PN843

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Gough, I want your evidence to help me. I am a bit selfish here so what you have to do, unless the answer is improper in some way, you have to answer it. So the best bet is to focus on the particular question that is being posed and if you can answer it then you are obliged to do so. All right? But there if there is some reason why you do not want to answer a question - - -?---Thank you.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN844

You might look to me. It might be personal, it might have some other element to it, which one would have regard for an objection on your part. But normally, unless the question is in some way quite intrusive, you answer the questions. So just focus on what is put to you and do not forget Mr Meredith will object if he thinks a question has some element that is not a correct one?---Thank you, Commissioner.

PN845

Go on, Ms Forbath.

PN846

MS FORBATH: You see, Mr Gough, what I'm getting at here just so that you understand where I'm coming from, is that the job position description which you said earlier in your evidence was really the basis for the selection criteria - that was the selection criteria, there wasn't a separate document headed Selection Criteria. But the position description sets out all the requirements of the job and the person is judged in accordance with that position description. That was your evidence before. What you have in that position description is that you can have COMS training experience or you can have senior management experience. You could be selected for the position on one or other of those. I mean, obviously, if you have both you are up and running and probably a big front-runner?---You'd have very strong merit.

PN847

Yes, you have got a very strong case. But there is the provision for you to select somebody who does not have COMS training?---But does have senior management experience.

PN848

Yes, yes. One step at a time. The point I'm trying to make with you is it's possible if a person has senior management experience but does not have COMS experience, COMS training, that they could be appointed to this position; is that correct?---Possible. Yes.

PN849

Yes, it's possible. Right. When you received the file from the interview panel and on that interview panel you had some very senior managers, Mr Schurink, a senior and respected, experienced person in the ambulance industry and there were two other people on the interview panel who are also in your senior management team. These three people who interviewed Mr Gunn thought he was the best candidate; what did they actually say to you in their report that came through to you? What were Mr Gunn's positive attributes that caused them to make that recommendation?---As I recall, in the discussion with Mr Schurink it was about the way in which the applicants had scored during the behavioural interview process. Now, as I recall, there was a very limited field of applicants for that position and in my view neither of the applicants would be suitable for appointment to the position.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN850

Yes, but again that's not what I asked you. What were Mr Gunn's positive attributes that made the interview panel recommend him for appointment to the position?--- I can't recall.

PN851

You can't remember?---Without reviewing the file. I know what the deficiencies were.

PN852

Yes, and the deficiencies were, in your mind, that he didn't have communications experience?---Well he didn't.

PN853

He didn't have communications training?---He didn't.

PN854

He didn’t, in your view, have senior management experience?---He didn't.

PN855

That's right. But these factors obviously were not in the forefront of your eminent interviewing panel, were they? They were not a concern to your interviewing panel?---I think the significant context - we'd had matters before the Commission over our OPSIMS at the time, which resulted in an agreement being reached and increasing staffing. Part of that was to employ a number of additional senior communications staff as well as COMS supervisors, and in some respects it was a zealous process to fill the positions. My role is to ensure that checks and balances are in place and indeed appropriate appointment decisions are made, and in respect to the senior COMS officers jobs, they are[sic] new positions at the organization at the time and they had - also carried significant responsibility for the quality and performance in those centres and supervising very senior, experienced COMS staff. So yes, I have a particular interest in those appointments.

PN856

Yes, that's all very fine but you seem to be saying in there, if I'm hearing you correctly, that the interview panel was rushed in its processes and stuffed it up; is that what you are saying?---No, I'm not saying that all, Ms Forbath.

PN857

No?---I'm saying that there was a zealous process in place to get people into jobs. The system's checks and balances in this particular case, for these positions, rests with me.

PN858

Yes?---To make sure that appropriate decisions are being made. So the system in fact works.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN859

Yes, because I think you say in your statement that having communications training and some experience was a prerequisite for this position; that's your position, isn't it?---Yes.

PN860

It's just that I'm struggling to understand why these three eminent members of the interview panel, who are experienced and knowledgeable and certainly Mr Schurink had been involved in the appointment of senior communications officer positions in other control rooms throughout RAV - this wasn't the first one. In fact, it was probably the last appointment to be made?---I think Moore was the last, from memory.

PN861

Yes, or the second last. So Mr Schurink had interviewed and looked at a lot of candidates for these positions. What I'm struggling to understand, Mr Gough, is why it was that these three managers, who were on this interview panel, decided that they wanted to recommend Mr Gunn for the position; particularly in face of the fact that the other applicant who was also interviewed was an experienced communications officer and was trained as a communications officer. He met the prerequisites of your job advertisement and he met the prerequisites of the job description, but that interview panel decided not to choose him but to choose
Mr Gunn. It was a very deliberate decision; can you explain to the Commission why they made that decision, because there must have been something in the report that they sent to you that made them reach that decision, or caused them to reach that decision?

PN862

MR MEREDITH: Commissioner, now that the question has finally been framed, I submit that on two grounds it's not an appropriate question for Mr Gough to be able to respond to. Firstly, Mr Gough has previously responded on a number of occasions that he cannot recall the precise contents of the particular report that was given to him. He is now being asked to recall from the report that he can't recall, what was in the minds of a panel that he was not a member of. I appreciate we are somewhat relaxed with respect to rules of evidence and legal processes, but it's not a question that this witness can - it's not a question, in my submission and in my objection, that can be reasonably put to this witness, nor can it be reasonably expected to be answered.

PN863

THE COMMISSIONER: What is your second ground, Mr Meredith?

PN864

MR MEREDITH: I have given them both, Commissioner. The question relates to - the question seeks to have Mr Gough interpret or offer an explanation of what was in the mind of a panel of which he was not a member.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN865

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN866

Mr Gough, it is clear you do not recall the report that was likely, very, very likely, about which you had an expectation to have been in the file that came to you, but you did have the discussions with Mr Schurink?---That's correct., Commissioner.

PN867

It might be that arising from your discussions with Mr Schurink you are able to cast some light on the area of interest that Ms Forbath has asked you about. So I understand that you do not remember the report and I am not going to require you to answer it. I recognise that you do not remember what was in the report. From your recollection of your discussions at the time with Mr Schurink, and any subsequent discussions, are you able to indicate - do you have a view about what it was that led to the panel coming to the view they did?---The - I'm happy to give my account, Commissioner, as best I can. My recollection is that in discussion with Mr Schurink, that there was discussion about the suitability of both applicants indeed, and in fact the panel had inquired of both applicants in detail, using the behavioural interview process, about aspects of their experience, situations that they'd been in before that may have some application to the position which they applied for. But I do recall the conversation being around - on, you know, tight assessment of the positions, whether indeed either of the people really met the requirements or were the sort of people we were looking for, for those positions.

PN868

Yes, and the focus of the question, as I recollect it, was what is your knowledge, what is your recollection about why it was that the panel had put forward - - -?
---Mr Gunn - - -

PN869

- - - the recommendation for Mr Gunn?--- Yes. Mr Gunn rated more highly than the other applicant. It didn't necessarily mean that he met the requirements of the position that we discussed and on - in the discussion with Mr Schurink, Mr Schurink agreed with that view, and that was the view that was conveyed to Mr Gunn.

PN870

Go on, Ms Forbath.

PN871

MS FORBATH: Very well?---Commissioner, if I may? Clearly the - both applicants were assessed. Clearly the panel thought that Mr Gunn was ahead of the other applicant and that's the basis that it was brought to me, but whether indeed he met the requirements of the position was really the matter under discussion with Mr Schurink.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN872

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Of course, one is well conscious of that and I am sure everyone here is, if they are paying close attention. But Ms Forbath is asking questions at various plateaus, you see, and so that is what happens. One does not always just make generalised observations and the questions that you are required to be responsive to are a bit more detailed than that.

PN873

Go on, Ms Forbath.

PN874

MS FORBATH: Just to go back a step in this whole process. When the position was advertised - Mr Gunn has given evidence about this and so has Mr Schurink. Mr Gunn had a couple of discussions with Mr Schurink about whether he should apply for the position, given what the job advertisement said about having communications experience and training, whether or not it was, in a sense, a waste of time. A bit like me applying for a position as a brain surgeon at the Alfred Hospital and I don’t have the qualifications. I can apply for it, I can write a letter, but I mean it's a total waste of my time, isn't it?---Yes.

PN875

Yes, so - - -?---But you may still choose to apply.

PN876

I may still choose to apply if I'm silly enough. Now, when Mr Gunn and Mr Schurink had these conversations prior to the interview, Mr Schurink is quite clear about this in his evidence that he still believed - even though Mr Gunn didn't have the qualifications, didn't meet the prerequisites - that he should still be interviewed; that he might have something worthwhile to contribute to the job. When Mr Schurink was pressed on that he referred to Mr Gunn being a very experienced MICA officer ..... MICA officer, and that his intellectual capacities and his ability to make quick decisions, his clinical understandings, all of these things were important attributes in the control room. A lot of the matters that he dealt with in the health and safety field were also important considerations. So Mr Schurink advised him to apply for the position, so there was nothing - that he would be seriously considered for the position. Of course, it depended on who else applied and what the competition was going to be like for the position. I will put this question to you. Was a mistake made back at that actual moment; should Mr Gunn have been interviewed at all for the position?---If - those conversations occur all the time in ambulance, where people express an interest in applying for positions. I mean, the general view from a lot of managers and a lot of senior staff is to encourage interest in positions. But if reflect on what you said before, at the end game it's about whether you meet the requirements of the position and you can perform in the role. This is snot a first level supervisory position. This is a senior supervisory position.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN877

Yes, but that's not the question I asked you. I asked you whether Mr Gunn should have been invited in for an interview at all, given that he didn't meet the prerequisites for the position?---That calls for me to be pejorative, Commissioner. I wouldn't have done it. However, I accept that in the organization people do encourage employees to go, you know, apply for positions and at least go through an interview process and that builds their experience with the process as well. They may or may not get the job.

PN878

The other question, just before we move off the question of the file and the interview report, I have just got one more question with regard to that. You say in your statement that you received the report from the interview panel in February, in late February 2003. Can you explain to me why it took until the middle of April 2003 for Mr Gunn to be informed that he didn't have the position?---Yes. I've got no response to that Ms Forbath. Apart from the discussion I had with the convener, again the administration, the machinery of what takes place, is a matter for the convener.

PN879

So basically you are saying there is no explanation of why it took that amount of time?---There's no hard and fast rule.

PN880

No particular reason?---There's no hard and fast rule. Not to my knowledge. I'm not aware of anything.

PN881

I want to take you to another attachment to Mr Gunn's statement and it's AG3. This is the letter that Stephen Ford - - -?---Where are we?

PN882

It should be AG3. It may be that that's not marked. First of all you will have that letter. No, it's not that one. Then there's the job description. That would be the one, the one signed by Mr Ford?---Yes.

PN883

Have you got that in front of you?

PN884

Do you have that in front of you, Commissioner?

PN885

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that attached to Mr Gunn's?

PN886

MS FORBATH: Yes, it is. So you don't have that?

PN887

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you say again what it is, please?

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN888

MS FORBATH: You don't have that?

PN889

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I do not think I have got it in front of me, but what is it?

PN890

MS FORBATH: This is the letter that Mr Ford wrote to Mr Gunn on 17 March 2003. It's the crucial letter that there has been a lot of evidence about in regard to Mr Gunn possibly withdrawing from the Wendarie Station officer position.

PN891

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well I am familiar with that letter and I will ask my associate to hand me the exhibit and I will re-familiarise myself with it. Yes, Ms Forbath.

PN892

MS FORBATH: Mr Stephen Ford is the area manager at Ballarat; correct?
---That's correct.

PN893

Known as area 3?---That's correct.

PN894

It would be reasonable to expect, would it not, that Mr Ford would be aware of what was happening in terms of appointments in his area management team?---I presume that if he had an interest in people applying for positions, eh would have some knowledge. But you'd have to ask Mr Ford that.

PN895

I understand why you say that. I'm asking you in your role as director of operations what your expectation would be of your area managers and their involvement and knowledge of what was happening in their own area in regard to appointments. That was the thrust of my question. Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly, but would you have that expectation of your area managers?---It's - really, the extent and nature of interest in positions in their area is really up to the area manager, to determine how much they want to be involved.

PN896

Right?---In some cases they hand it off to other people to take responsibility for handling vacancies.

PN897

So I could conclude from that then that you don't have any particular expectation?---That's correct.

PN898

Are you saying that it would have been perfectly reasonable for Mr Ford to have had no knowledge about Mr Gunn's offer or selection or recommendation - I will use all of the terms that are hotly disputed in this case - that he would have had no knowledge about what was going on in regard to Mr Gunn?--- That calls for a level of speculation but I would presume that Mr Ford would be aware that
Mr Gunn would be - was being interviewed. But as I understand, Mr Ford wasn't a party to the selection panel or the process. In fact, that was being handled by Mr Schurink, because these were important positions.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN899

Yes?---I would - the relationship from there is between the convener and me, not with the area manager.

PN900

From your broad understanding of how all of these processes work, would Mr Ford have known that Mr Gunn had been selected by the interview panel; would he have known about that?---I don't know.

PN901

You don't know? Right. In that letter that you have before you, dated 17 March 2003 to Mr Gunn from Mr Ford, you would agree, would you not, that Mr Ford refers to the offer of the senior communications officer position at Ballarat Operations Centre; do you see that?---That's what's written.

PN902

It is couched in terms of an offer; do you agree with that?---That's what's written.

PN903

So in fact if Mr Ford had written this letter to Mr Gunn, you could conclude from that, could you not, that Mr Ford was quite knowledgeable about what was going on in regard to Mr Gunn's appointment to the senior communications officer position? He would have had some knowledge, otherwise why would he have written the letter?

PN904

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment, Mr Gough. Yes, Mr Meredith.

PN905

MR MEREDITH: Commissioner, the questions, whether they are intended to be hypothetical or not, that Ms Forbath is putting to Mr Gough are entirely at odds with the transcript of the evidence of Mr Ford. I won't quote from that transcript, given that Mr Gough is giving witness evidence and has responded earlier that he has not read the transcript of any earlier proceedings, Mr Ford was asked a series of questions back in July 04, both by myself and by Ms Forbath, in our respective examinations, going to his knowledge of the selection process, his knowledge of the outcomes and indeed his role as a referee for Mr Gunn, in the application that Mr Gunn had made for the senior communications officer position. That evidence is before the Commission in that transcript. The questions that are being posed are clearly contradictory to the evidence that's already before you. In my submission, they are not properly put.

PN906

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Do you want to be heard about that, Ms Forbath?

PN907

MS FORBATH: Not a great deal turns on that. Perhaps if we just move on and we leave that question for the moment.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN908

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well.

PN909

MS FORBATH: In that letter, Mr Gough, you have before you, Mr Ford is suggesting to Mr Gunn that, given that he has this offer of the senior communications officer position, does he want to continue to pursue another application that he made for the Wendarie station officer position. Mr Gunn, of course, subsequently withdrew from the interview process for the Wendarie station officer position. Can it be safely concluded from this letter that in writing to Mr Gunn in this way, it led to a situation where Mr Gunn actually withdrew from that interviewing process for the Wendarie station officer position and therefore possibly missed out on another promotional opportunity?---This letter, as I read it, is something that's been written between Mr Ford and Mr Gunn at the time. On face what's written there is what's written there. I don't know what occurred in the conversations or discussions with Mr Ford. But as an area manager Mr Ford also should be aware of RAV's process and unless a person has actually received a formal offer for a position in writing, they haven't received a formal offer for the position.

PN910

I understand that is your position in regard to this. But you would agree, would you not, that having withdrawn from that Wendarie interview as a result of Mr Ford's letter to him, that Gunn[sic] has suffered some disadvantage as a result of that?---Again, you're asking me to speculate, Ms Forbath. I don't necessarily agree. I don't understand the context of this letter or the conversations with Mr Ford.

PN911

Yes?---What I do know is that Mr Ford knows, as most of the - all of the senior managers should know, that a formal offer is actually put in writing to employees for positions.

PN912

Yes, well it would appear, of course, that Mr Ford perhaps didn't understand that at the time?---That may be the case.

PN913

Yes, and in writing this letter to Mr Gunn, it caused Mr Gunn to feel confident that he had the senior communications officer position, confirmed his feelings about that, and so he withdrew from the other line of promotion that he was seeking. So in that sense the letter did lead to some disadvantage for Mr Gunn; would you agree with that?---Well, that's what you're putting to me. I'm not aware of Mr Gunn's circumstance or the conversations or what sits around this letter with Mr Ford and again, I presume that they will both be asked those questions.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN914

So are you saying you don't agree with me on that point?---I'm not prepared to speculate on it, Ms Forbath. I don't know Mr Gunn's feelings. I don't know what occurred between Mr Ford and Mr Gunn.

PN915

Well, what we know occurred between Mr Ford and Mr Gunn is this letter that you have in front of you. I'm saying it's a well known fact that Mr Gunn didn't proceed with his application for the Wendarie station officer position and then later found out that in fact he didn't have the senior communications officer position either. So at the end of the day he was left with nothing; you would agree with that, wouldn't you?---Well, I think if Mr Gunn had been made a formal offer, if he'd received this letter from Mr Ford and he hadn't received a formal offer from RAV, which is clear in the procedure that those offers are made in writing, then I don't know why he would take action on the basis of that letter.

PN916

So you are saying it was really his own fault?---I'm saying Mr Gunn and Mr Ford would be - should be both aware of procedures that apply in RAV. But if you hadn't had a formal offer made to you, I can't see on what basis you'd take action on a letter from an area manager who wasn't even part of a selection panel for the position that he was applying for.

PN917

Right. So Mr Gunn was just a bit lackadaisical about it, do you think?---Well, there may be discussions that occurred between Mr Ford and Mr Gunn. Again, I don't know.

PN918

Just one other thing. In these proceedings we have heard from Mr Wayne Dyer about an investigation that was conducted by WorkSafe regarding some complaints that Mr Gunn made to WorkSafe, that his employment prospects were being - promotional opportunities with RAV were being affected negatively because of his pursing vigorously various health and safety issues. There was an inquiry by a WorkSafe officer about that. I would ask you, were you involved in that inquiry?---No, I wasn't.

PN919

Do you know the outcome of the inquiry?---I don't recall.

PN920

You don't?---I don't. No, I don't.

PN921

You don’t know the outcome?---No.

PN922

Are you aware of Mr Dyer's evidence to this Commission?---No, I'm not.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN923

You're not? You haven't read the transcript in regard to it?---No, I haven't.

PN924

If I tell you that Mr Dyer made statements to this Commission that Mr Schurink admitted to him, admitted to Mr Dyer, that indeed he had said to Mr Gunn to keep his head down, by the health and safety issues, if he wanted to end up in a senior COMS officer position. He indeed agreed that he had said that to Mr Dyer, according to Mr Dyer's evidence. Mr Schurink, of course, hotly denies that. again, according to Mr Dyer's evidence, when WorkSafe investigated or inquired into this whole matter, the WorkSafe officer asked Mr Schurink whether indeed he had said that. Mr Schurink replied, "No", he had not said that. So you have these apparently two contradictory positions that says one thing to Mr Dyer and Mr Schurink says quite another thing to the WorkSafe officer. That's Mr Dyer's evidence and it has been, and I'm sure will continue to be, hotly contested. But if, as the most senior operations person in Rural Ambulance Victoria, you had been aware of that would you have instituted some sort of internal investigation about that?

PN925

MR MEREDITH: Commissioner, with respect, if Mr Gough was made aware of what?

PN926

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I think that is really just too broad. I do not understand. Do you mean all the things you just said or do you mean the fact that Mr Gunn had made a complaint or the fact of Mr Dyer's evidence leading to the conflict in evidence that you have spoken of?

PN927

MS FORBATH: All right.

PN928

THE COMMISSIONER: Even then, I want it to be relevant to my purpose.

PN929

MS FORBATH: I will narrow it down. There's two pieces of evidence before this Commission from Mr Dyer. One that Mr Schurink admitted to him that he had told Mr Gunn to keep his head down and so forth, but the other piece of evidence being that when WorkSafe inquired of that, he denied that he had actually said that. So there is two different positions that Mr Schurink has taken in regard to this question.

PN930

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. It is all right. There is no need for you to hop up, Mr Meredith.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN931

I think it is very important that the witness not be misled and I do not know that that is really your intention there, but it is not the case. I do not know. It is really quite a different footing to postulate that there is inconsistencies or different positions adopted by Mr Schurink. Whatever conclusions one reaches about Mr Schurink's evidence, it strikes me that that is really not what you wanted to put to the witness. If it is, well then we will have the witness out and we will have a discussion about it.

PN932

MS FORBATH: All right. I'll step back from that then.

PN933

Are you aware of whether any internal investigation has taken place within RAV about matters that were raised in the WorkSafe inquiry, over Mr Gunn's complaints in 2004; are you aware of any inquiry within RAV about that?---It's my recollection, at this point in time, I have no recollection.

PN934

No?---There may well have been. I don't know.

PN935

Thank you. I will leave it?---Ms Forbath, just to understand. What are you actually - which event are you talking about? There are many matters in RAV.

PN936

Yes. I'll leave the question?---Thank you.

PN937

You were not on the WorkSafe investigation inquiry team?---No.

PN938

You are not aware of any internal investigation that went on subsequent to that, regarding Mr Gunn's complaint to WorkSafe about being affected in his employment, through is health and safety activities; you are not aware of anything of that nature, is that what you are saying?---I'm trying to recall. There are many matters but I haven't - at this time, no.

PN939

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Gough, are you aware of the fact that Mr Gunn had made a complaint, the complaint which has formed the latter part of the question that was put to you? Are you aware that Mr Gunn had made a complaint that he had been disadvantaged or something happened to his detriment, affected his career prospects and so on, by virtue of his occupational health and safety activity?---Commissioner, I'm not trying to avoid the answer. As I've said, there is a number of matters that affect a lot of people, including Mr Gunn, that come up regularly. But on that particular point, there may be something but I don't recall at this - - -

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN940

You either remember or you do not?---I don't recall at this time.

PN941

You see, Mr Gunn made a complaint. He said, "Bad things are happening to me as a consequence of my occupational health and safety role". Then a whole lot of things followed, some of which I have evidence, to which you have been taken; and Mr Schurink's evidence is by way of contrast?---Mm mm.

PN942

But you do not know about that?---The detail, no. There may well have been. I don't - I can't recall.

PN943

Yes, I am not so much asking about the detail but are you conscious of the fact that Mr Gunn made such a complaint?---I can't recall.

PN944

All right. Thank you.

PN945

MS FORBATH: Just one last question and that is, were you ever involved in any discussions about how this dispute with Mr Gunn might be resolved?---I'll have to turn my mind to that. I mean, I don't - not that I recall, Ms Forbath.

PN946

No. Thank you. I have got no further questions.

PN947

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Meredith.

PN948

MR MEREDITH: Would a five or 10-minute adjournment be reasonable at this stage, Commissioner?

PN949

THE COMMISSIONER: I think it is a very good idea, as long as I do not have to suffer any litanising(sic) about the delay and so on. But we will reconvene not earlier than 10 minutes from now. I should say, if you could resume your seat, Mr Gough; that during this adjournment you can do normal things but you cannot talk to people about this case and you might be asked about that?---All right. Yes, I understand that, Commissioner.

PN950

Thank you.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.27AM]
<RESUMED [11.51AM]

PN951

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Meredith.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH XXN MS FORBATH
PN952

MR MEREDITH: Thank you, Commissioner.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEREDITH [11.51AM]

PN953

MR MEREDITH: Mr Gough, perhaps to commence and perhaps to assist the Commission, you were asked a number of questions about whether you had considered any of the earlier proceedings in this matter; whether you were aware of the evidence given by any particular witness. Have I, at any stage, advised you not to read transcript or familiarise yourself with the witness evidence of others, in advance of your witness evidence?---You have.

PN954

Have you, in fact, heeded that advice?---I have.

PN955

So your actions are you have chosen not to study any of the transcript or any other material associated with these proceedings, from their commencement?---That's correct.

PN956

Ms Forbath also asked you a number of questions over your knowledge of the policies and procedures. She asked you, in the latter part of her questioning, a number of questions with respect to your expectations of Mr Ford as an area manager. To assist the Commission I'm just going to put some questions to you, going to, if you like, the dimensions of your role within RAV. The title of your position is general manager, operational services?---That's correct.

PN957

Approximately how many employees are located within the operational services division?---Approximately fifteen hundred or more, full time and volunteer staff.

PN958

So that is qualified ambulance paramedics, ambulance community officers; do you also include the more recent SERT teams in that number?---Yes.

PN959

Do you include area management teams in that number?---Yes.

PN960

Those fifteen hundred employees; approximately how many workplaces would they be located at?---Approximately 130 full time - volunteer or full time locations and another 22 SERT locations.

PN961

As general manager, operational services, are you responsible for the performance of those fifteen hundred employees and officers?---Yes, through a management team.

PN962

Are you responsible for clinical standards of those fifteen hundred employees and volunteers?---Yes, through a senior manager.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN963

Are you responsible for the resources and the facilities at those 150 work locations?---Yes, in conjunction with corporate services.

PN964

Are you responsible for the fleet of approximately 800 vehicles that g o with those positions?--- Yes, through a senior manager.

PN965

Is your job a busy one?---Yes, it is.

PN966

Do you recall the contents of each and every meeting that you may attend?---No.

PN967

Do you recall the contents of each and every file that went across your desk?
---No.

PN968

You say, in your witness statement - do you have a copy there?---Yes, I do.

PN969

In paragraphs 10 and 11 and through to paragraph 12 you talk of a meeting, initially between yourself and Mr Gunn, and then latterly involving Mr Schurink, and you make it fairly plain - most particularly at paragraph 11 of your statement - the contents of your remarks and your conversation with Mr Gunn; can you tell the Commission how that meeting came about?---It was coincidence of meeting[sic]. As I recall I was in our previous corporate head offices in Albert Street. Mr Gunn had been there, either at a meeting, and had come across me in the hallway. He asked me whether he could talk to me about his non-appointment to the senior COMS officer's job. At that time I took Mr Gunn into my manager, operations support's office and sat down with him and had a conversation with him about the senior COMS officer's job.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN970

You say in your witness statement that you refer to the specialised nature of the communications environment and you say that you inquired of Andrew whether he sought a change of career stream; can you tell this Commission the essence or as much as you can recall of the conversation between you and Mr Gunn about his interest in a change of career stream within RAV?---Andrew's general experience in RAV has been as a paramedic on the road, more in recent years as a senior clinician, as an intensive care paramedic. He - in the discussion that we had, I asked him whether he was - words to the effect of serious about making a change from a clinical - a detailed clinical area, where he was practising clinical skills, providing clinical services on the road, to an environment that really removed him from that and putting him in - put him in an OPSEN environment. There are quite distinct differences in the workplaces for the two types of position. He indicated to me that he'd been giving some thought to it. As I recall, he had indicated that he'd been doing work on the road for a long period of time. There were the requirements to, you know, respond in the early hours of the morning. You know, there's certainly a lot of shift work involved in that and he was considering a change.

PN971

Did you press him on this apparent interest in a career change?---I don't understand the question, Mr Meredith.

PN972

Did you further question him; did you perhaps seek to satisfy yourself that this was a genuine desire that he was expressing to you?---Not more than what I asked him. Did I ask him about whether he was serious about making that sort of a change and what that would actually mean to him?

PN973

Was it your view, then, that he was expressing a genuine desire to you?---That he wanted to make a change?

PN974

Yes?---Yes. He said he'd been considering doing it.

PN975

This topic of conversation between the two of you, that arose after you had put to Mr Gunn the reasons why you did not accept the recommendation that had been made for him to be appointed to the senior communications officer position; that's correct?---That's correct.

PN976

What did you say to Mr Gunn as far as - and again, to the best of your recollection - what did you say to Mr Gunn were the reasons for not accepting the recommendation that had been made, that he be appointed to the senior communications officer position?---I indicated to Mr Gunn that these were positions of significant responsibility in RAV. They were newly created positions in RAV and the people that we were seeking had significant supervisory and man management, people management experience. That people had the experience n the communications environment, because it's very detailed and complex and that the role really required a manager who was capable of supervising people, in effect, that were already supervisors. The reasons for him not getting the position, in my view, when I reviewed the matter with the convener, were centred around the responsibilities of that level of position, and that being that he had limited, if very scant, supervisory experience. He had never before indicated any interest in working in or changing his career to work in an OPSEN and thirdly, he had no formal training in the OPSEN environment.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN977

Just on that point, Ms Forbath established in one of her questions that there were five senior communications officer positions created; do you recall that series of questions that Ms Forbath put to you, that these positions had been created following some degree of industrial disputation in the OPSENs?---I think I actually made that statement.

PN978

Again, without going in to or identifying individuals, can you give the Commission a thumbnail sketch of the experience and the attributes that the other four senior communications officers took with them when they were appointed to those other positions, the other equivalent positions in the other operations centres?---Ostensibly all of the people who have been appointed or had been appointed at the time were either in a full time senior or in station officer supervisory positions within RAV and the majority of them were actually coming out of an operation or communications centre - communications centre environment.

PN979

Can you recall whether any of those that were appointed in fact had supervisory experience as a station officer but did not have extensive communications room experience?---No.

PN980

Returning to your discussion with Mr Gunn in your office in April 2003, when you put those concerns to Mr Gunn what was his response to you?---Mr Gunn was obviously disappointed in the process and I can understand that from any employee that goes through a process, with the expectation that they're going to be in a job that they're seeking to be appointed to. But I was at pains to seek
Mr Gunn's intention about changing his environment within the ambulance service and although he wasn't suitable for that position, in my mind, that if he was going to make that sort of change, what opportunities may RAV put to him to get him some experience, if indeed that's what he wanted to do.

PN981

At the risk of repeating myself?---Yes.

PN982

Other than expressing his disappointment, did Mr Gunn offer any other comment to you when you enumerated the reasons why you did not accept the recommendation; did Mr Gunn perhaps suggest to you, "But I think I am well qualified" or, "I think I could do this job". Were there any exchanges of that nature, as best you can recall?---There may have been, Mr Meredith. What I - there are some points of that discussion, in general discussion, that I do remember clearly.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN983

In that discussion, either in your presence or latterly when Mr Schurink joined you, did Mr Gunn say to you at any stage that the position had been offered to him?---Not that I recall.

PN984

You have given evidence, in response to Ms Forbath, of your knowledge of how formal officer positions and/or promotions are made within RAV; had Mr Gunn said to you, "Wait a moment. This position's been offered to me. I've accepted it", do you think that it would have stayed in your mind?---I believe it would.

PN985

Why would that be, Mr Gough?---Because we would have been having a, you know, a detailed discussion about that. I mean, I think it's reasonable to say that Andrew was disappointed, that he was disgruntled with not getting the position. But again, the reasons that I vetoed - exercised my right and my judgment to do that, stands for itself. The discussion really centred around about if he wanted to make a career change, how could he do that, how could he give effect to that and what other opportunities were available to him in RAV. And I might add that, to be clear about what I'd said to him, was the reason that I invited Mr Schurink into the meeting to repeat what had been said to him.

PN986

Again, you do not recall Mr Gunn, at any stage in that discussion, claiming that the position had been offered to him?---Not that I can remember, Mr Meredith, that level of detail.

PN987

From that meeting, what emerged was that Mr Gunn indeed was offered - he was made an offer to undertake communications officer training?---The discussion in the presence of Mr Schurink was largely centred around current vacancies in the organization for station officer communications position and that's the normal entry level for working in the OPSEN environment; that people would apply for that level of position, which is really a station officer greater than 10 staff. They come into those positions, learn the OPSEN environment, gain the experience in that environment. Usually the process would be to give them the initial training then have them work under supervision of a senior communicate - another communications officer with extensive experience, until they - you know, their competency had been observed in the role; and we did talk about those things and that conversation was passed off to make arrangements, if any, with Mr Gunn between he and Mr Schurink.

PN988

To your knowledge did he subsequently commence training as a communications officer?---From my recollection he did sign up to do that OPSEN training.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN989

At the time that he undertook that training, do you have any knowledge of the rate of pay that was paid to him?---The rate of pay that normally applies to those positions would be to pay at a substantive rate within the training - there are some arrangements. If they're in the OPSEN environment as an extra position, doing training, then they don't receive the station officer greater than 10 rate. If they're actually in there sitting in a position doing the training, then they do.

PN990

Is station officer greater than 10 a higher rate of pay than Mr Gunn was in receipt of as an on-road MICA paramedic?---Yes, it is.

PN991

Do you have any idea of approximately how much greater?---The margin's a 15, 20 per cent increase in pay.

PN992

Are you aware of any conversations that went to Mr Gunn maintaining his MICA loading whilst he undertook the training or whilst he acted as a communications officer?---RAV's practice has generally been people appointed to those position maintain those loadings.

PN993

Do you know if that loading has been maintained in respect of other paramedics that may have gone from on-road into an operations centre?---I can recall one other appointment to a senior COMS officer position and that person, who has moved on to another role, was paid the MICA loading as well as the station officer greater than 10 rate of pay.

PN994

The reason I'm asking you that, Mr Gough, is Mr Gunn's evidence, in part, has been that these particular arrangements were made for him as a sweetener because in fact the job had supposedly been offered to him; what do you say to that?
---Well, I think appointments made prior to Mr Gunn applying for this position, in those roles - and as I said, one of the people who were appointed to a senior COMS officer's job indeed was a MICA paramedic and maintained that rate of pay, as well as the senior station or the station officer greater than 10 rate of pay.

PN995

Ms Forbath asked you a number of questions regarding the location of a file, that being the file - - -

PN996

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Meredith, are you going off that point now, of the meeting?

PN997

MR MEREDITH: I am, Commissioner.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN998

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, it might be useful. I have got a question or two to ask about that and if there is anything that follows from it you can then incorporate that in your re-examination.

PN999

Mr Gough, at the end of your witness statement you speak about the fact or your evidence is that in that meeting in late April you did not and no one else present - I assume that is a reference to Mr Schurink, I do not know if anyone else was there - put something to Mr Gunn which led him to the expectation that with some COMS training, he could go into the senior communications officer position; is that a proper understanding?---That 's absolutely not, Commissioner. The - what the discussion centred around was giving Mr Gunn the information about why he wasn't suitable to be appointed directly into the senior COMS officer's job and I accepted responsibility entirely for making that decision at the time, which is indeed appropriate for my position in the organization.

PN1000

Yes?---The second part was about how he could gain experience and we weren't going to advertise the senior COMS officer position immediately but in the fullness of time it would be available again. Now, if Mr Gunn had pursued his interests in the communications environment and indeed completed the training and indeed took up an officer - an offer to be appointed to the COMS officer job a the substantive rate of pay, and the position was subsequently advertised, again he would have been considered on his merit against other applicants for the position. I mean, RAV wouldn't have closed him out in the future as being a potential applicant when the position was re-advertised, providing he went through the process and obtained the training and the experience that we were looking for. It didn't mean he'd get the job then either.

PN1001

Mr Gough, has anyone said to you that Mr Gunn believed, some time after the meeting that you are referring to, the April meeting where Mr Schurink joined you after a little while, that he had an expectation that he would go into the senior communications officer position, without facing other candidates again; that is, the job being readvertised? Has anyone ever suggested that to you, that that was what Mr Gunn believed?---I'm aware subsequent to the meeting that I had with him - as I said, it was coincidence that the meeting occurred in the first place.

PN1002

I am aware of that?---But I was aware of discussions about Mr Gunn's contentions about not being appointed, that were made after that, but my view was here's an employee that wants to make a change - I mean, clinical practice is a very important part of ambulance. Absolutely no doubt about that, but resource management , controlling our resources, is equally as important.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN1003

Yes?---And we were about providing him with opportunities, without prejudice, so that he could gain the requisite skills if he wanted to pursue that career.

PN1004

All right, and when later you were told that it was being put by Mr Gunn, or by the officials of the union, that he had that expectation; did you ask anyone about that? Did you make any inquiries to Mr Schurink or anyone else as to why Mr Gunn might have had such an expectation?---That matter was largely handled by Mr Schurink and our HR people. Again that - from my point of view, in my position, that's a matter of process. I'm - I deal with aggrieved employees on a regular basis.

PN1005

So do I, Mr Gough?---Without getting positions - - -

PN1006

Yes. Did you ask Mr Schurink how it could be, or why it was or whether it was, that Mr Gunn had such a belief, that he would be somehow given a bit of training and then slip into the position?---That wouldn't occur, Commissioner. That just wouldn't occur that way.

PN1007

All right, Mr Gough. My question is do you remember having a conversation with Mr Gough(sic) about how it could be that Mr Gunn would - I am sorry, Mr Schurink, as to how it could be that Mr Gunn would have such a view or whether indeed any undertaking of any sort had been given to him?---Apart from trying to understand why the situation had occurred, you know, why we had a recommended applicant or indeed a couple of applicants who, you know, you wouldn't appoint to the position, and dealing with it as a matter of process, a matter of a grievance - when we left that meeting I was under the impression that Andrew was genuinely interested in changing his career, genuinely interested in undertaking the training and was giving serious consideration to taking or taking a vacant position that we had for a station officer in COMS.

PN1008

Yes?---In later time it unwound and there was no acceptance of it.

PN1009

Yes. It goes a bit further because my understanding, the impression that I am forming about your evidence, Mr Gough, is that certainly you formed the view - and it might be thought reasonable, if you accept your view, that Mr Gunn should have equally formed a view that his COMS training saw him as at an entrant level into the COMS centre and even though he was disgruntled and those other things that you said about what had transpired, that his status did not have a special tag attached to it as a duded employee or an aggrieved employee who was owed something, and that he was a preferred candidate. When I look at your paragraph 13?---Yes, Commissioner.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN1010

You say:

PN1011

It was my clear understanding that this training would be a starting point to assist Andrew with the change in career stream -

PN1012

and you have told me about all the genuiness and so on?---Yes.

PN1013

- that he stated he was seeking.

PN1014

My question is at some stage later - we do not have to be too forensic about when it was or who told you, but when someone said to you, "It's said Mr Gunn has got insult added to injury. He says he's been injured again because he'll do the training, he'll go in - or has done some - and he's not now to be given the senior COMS officer role". You deal with that at point 14, do you not, because you disavow any knowledge of that?---That's correct.

PN1015

In a sense that you did not say it at the meeting and no one did at that meeting?
---No.

PN1016

When you did hear about that whole complaint, that secondary complaint, if that is meaningful to you?---Yes.

PN1017

That Mr Gunn thought, "Gosh, there was a special status attaching to me and I was going to be a preferred - I was going to in some way slip in or ease into the senior COMS officer role"; my question to you is did you ask Mr Schurink or anyone else how it could be that Mr Gunn could have had such a view? Did you inquire about that?---There've been lots of bits of conversations but the answer would be no. But again, the whole process was geared at making - I mean, he wasn't going to get a senior COMS officer job, that's very clear about that. But he was going to be given opportunities to actually experience in the environment that he indicated that he wanted to move to. The position would be advertised at some later stage and if he wanted to apply based on his experience, and other things that he might bring to the position at that time, he could be considered on his merits against other applicants. But again, from my perspective, that doesn't mean, you know, that there's any carte blanche that he's just going to be appointed directly to the position. I would not make that statement to Mr Gunn because that wouldn't be within RAV's processes.

PN1018

All right. Thank you, Mr Gough. Yes, Mr Meredith.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN1019

MR MEREDITH: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1020

To your knowledge, Mr Gough, did Mr Gunn commence communications officer training in May 2003?---My understanding is yes.

PN1021

If I can take you to one other matter. Mr Gunn has given evidence - and
Ms Forbath asked you some questions about the complaint that Mr Gunn made to WorkSafe, and apart from the brief evidence of Mr Dyer, you were asked your knowledge of that complaint. You are aware that Mr Gunn is a health and safety representative?---That's correct.

PN1022

Can you tell the Commission to the best of your knowledge how many elected health and safety representatives there are within the operational services division of RAV?---Mr Meredith, that's a maths question. There are approximately 60 health and safety representatives in RAV.

PN1023

To your knowledge does Rural Ambulance Victoria provide regular forums at area and at state level, for occupational health and safety representatives?---Yes. We have two levels of forum.

PN1024

Do you have anything to say about the allegation that has been put by Mr Dyer that there was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Andrew Gunn was not promoted because Andrew Gunn was an active health and safety representative?
---I don’t see the relevance of that, Mr Meredith. The answer's no. There should be no prejudice in the reason why. I mean, we've got a whole range of health and safety issues in the organization. People represent those vigorously or otherwise, but in this case that's not what this was about at all.

PN1025

You just used the word prejudice, that leads me to perhaps the final question; Ms Forbath asked you about Mr Ford's letter to Mr Gunn and Mr Ford's language in that letter. Ms Forbath suggests that Mr Gunn suffered further prejudice by withdrawing his application for the Wendarie station officer position; to your knowledge how does the pay rate for Wendarie station officer position compare to the pay rate for a communications officer, station officer?---They're equivalent rates of pay.

PN1026

Do you have any knowledge of the number of applicants there may have been for the Wendarie station officer position?---No, I don't.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH RXN MR MEREDITH
PN1027

Do you have any knowledge of when an appointment was made to that position?
---No, I don't.

PN1028

I have nothing further, Commissioner.

PN1029

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Ms Forbath, I can certainly give you the opportunity to ask questions about any of the issues that I have raised and there might be something else that you want to take issue with, having regard to your earlier comments. I do not invite you to do it but I am happy to hear you if there are questions arising from either of those categories; firstly, my series of questions?

PN1030

MS FORBATH: No, there's nothing arising from anything that you put to the witness, Commissioner. There's only one - there was only two points that I wanted to raise with Mr Gough, arising from Mr Meredith's re-examination. Two points.

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS FORBATH [12.20PM]

PN1031

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. What is the first?

PN1032

MS FORBATH: You gave some evidence to say that at the meeting with Mr Gunn in April, you said that obviously Mr Gunn was disappointed and that you discussed with him other positions or other opportunities that he might pursue in regard to achieving the career change that he was wanting to do; what were those other positions that you discussed with him?---In the context of the senior communications officer job, what was put to Mr Gunn was the reason that I'd exercised my right not to appoint the position. At the second level, what was riding off the back of that was the discussion about his genuineness in wanting to make a career change and discussion about the meaning of that, in moving away from an extensive career in clinical practice to going into an environment that is completely different. So before wanting to get into that with Andrew, about any propositions or any way forward, in him being able to achieve what he wanted to achieve, was to establish that he was actually genuinely wanting to do it; which he indicated that he had been thinking about it for a while, for the reasons that I've said before. The next part was about how do you actually do it? Clearly he didn't have any communications centre training. He'd never expressed any interest previously in it and I think I even made the statement to the effect that to apply for the senior COMS officer job, supervising highly experienced COMS officers, was akin to putting a student paramedic in charge of MICA paramedics, in an ambulance environment. You actually needed to build your experience base. You needed to develop your bona fides for the other people that you were going to be managing. You just don't drop people into those jobs with no experience.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH FXXN MS FORBATH
PN1033

So the other positions that you were discussing with Mr Gunn was essentially, "Go up and get the communications centre training and become a communications officer and get experience in that area"?---At the time there were station officer - because we'd had all these positions to fill, beside the senior COMS officers job, which is the senior, senior position, there were also station officer positions, who are paid the station officer greater than 10, because they're managing RAV's resources and making decisions in a discrete area, so it's a substantive position, a higher position than what Mr Gunn is currently renumerated at.

PN1034

Yes?---But, you know, this wasn't a position of forcing Mr Gunn into there. The first thing he needed to do if he wanted to do that was actually do the OPSEN training.

PN1035

Yes?---And sometimes people do that in those environments and then they opt out and they say, "This is not for me". At the same time, I understand that there were discussions about a vacancy that had been advertised there for a COMS officer's job and I understand Mr Schurink was going to put that to Mr Gunn.

PN1036

Yes, I understand that. Other than communications officer positions, were there any other positions within RAV discussed with Mr Gunn?---Not that I discussed with him.

PN1037

Thank you. Another point that was raised by Mr Meredith was the fact that Mr Gunn was paid the station officer rates of pay once he had completed his communications centre training?---I can't say that with prescription but the normal practice is if someone's undertaking training as a third person in the OPSEN - normally it's staffed by two people, 24/7, as a minimum and then maybe some call takers as well, at different periods in there. But if they're in the position as a third person, not the people who are doing the job, to learn the role and do it, they're not normally paid as a station officer greater than 10. If, however, they're in the environment, sitting in the second chair in there, under the supervision of the more experienced communications officer, then they're paid at that rate; and from my recollection, that was the arrangement with Mr Gunn when he was actually working in there as the second person.

PN1038

Okay. Are you aware that Mr Gunn was actually paid station officer rates of pay before he commenced the training as a station officer - sorry, before he commenced the training as a communications officer?---I don't know.

**** STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH FXXN MS FORBATH
PN1039

You have no knowledge of that?---I don't know.

PN1040

No. That's all, thank you.

PN1041

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Gough - unless there is something arising from one of those questions?

PN1042

MR MEREDITH: No, nothing further, Commissioner.

PN1043

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN1044

Mr Gough, thank you for your evidence, you can step down. You can go or stay?
---Thank you, Commissioner. Would you like your exhibit?

PN1045

There is no way you will get away from that box. My associate will follow you. Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.25PM]

PN1046

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Meredith.

PN1047

MR MEREDITH: Commissioner, that concludes the witness evidence that we have sought to bring on behalf of Rural Ambulance Victoria.

PN1048

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1049

MR MEREDITH: My assumption is that we proceed to final submissions but I wondered whether there might be some profitable discussion, off the record, about how we program that?

PN1050

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well.

PN1051

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN1052

THE COMMISSIONER: We will go off the record.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.25PM]
<RESUMED [12.32PM]

PN1053

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. A further hearing in this matter will be adjourned until 9.30 tomorrow. The Commission is adjourned.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY 9 MARCH 2006 [12.32PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH, SWORN PN701
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MEREDITH PN701
EXHIBIT #M15 STATEMENT OF STEVEN THOMAS GOUGH PN709
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS FORBATH PN717
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEREDITH PN952
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS FORBATH PN1030
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1045