C2012/5869, Transcript of Proceedings [2014] FWCTrans 152 (28 March 2014)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 1049698-1

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

C2012/5869

s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute in relation to flexible working arrangements

Health Services Union
and
Liviende Inc
(C2012/5869)
Tasmanian Disability Services Industry Multi-Employer Enterprise Agreement 2011

(ODN AG2011/9819)
[AE886423 Print PR510883]




Launceston - Supreme Court

9.36AM, TUESDAY, 18 MARCH 2014

Continued from 17/03/2014

PN1606

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, everybody. Please be seated.
Mr Cameron.

PN1607

MR CAMERON: Sorry, just a preliminary housekeeping matter. We've changed facilities from yesterday obviously. Mr Eddington and I discussed it and we've got the witnesses in the jury room, which is double-doored and supposedly soundproof. I believe there's no other facilities really outside for witnesses to wait. We have got other witnesses that will be coming but they will just have to wait at the time when they arrive. We do have a number of witnesses here ready to go at the moment but they're in that room rather than outside.

PN1608

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Is that okay?

PN1609

MR EDDINGTON: I'm fine with that. I've just got another minor housekeeping matter as well. Yesterday in part of the documents that we tendered we had the new position description. That was the one from June 2012. There was a problem with that, in that it was not photocopied correctly. In fact it was a double-sided document and that double-sided wasn't incorporated. I've now just got that document in its whole form and I was wondering whether I could replace the problematic document with the one that's the full copy of it.

PN1610

THE COMMISSIONER: You must have read my mind. Thank you. Mr Cameron, I assume you have no objection to that.

PN1611

MR CAMERON: No, no objection.

PN1612

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Eddington, thank you, that's very helpful. Mr Cameron, I think you're on duty today and - - -

PN1613

MR CAMERON: Yes, it's an easier role today.

PN1614

THE COMMISSIONER: And whom would you like to call, please.

PN1615

MR CAMERON: Mr Paul Byrne.

<PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE, SWORN [9.39AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [9.39AM]

PN1616

MR CAMERON: For the benefit of the commission, Mr Byrne, could you please state your full name and address?---Paul Anthony Byrne, (address supplied).

PN1617

And your occupation?---CEO of Veranto.

PN1618

You've filled that position for a number of years?---Coming up to 20 - well, it's over 25 years.

PN1619

If I could show the witness this statement. This is attachment 1(c), Commissioner. Do you recognise that document?---Yes, I do.

PN1620

Is that your signature down the bottom?---It is.

PN1621

Is that the evidence that you'd be prepared to give in this commission today under oath?---Yes, it is.

PN1622

Mr Byrne, in that you indicate that you employ disability support workers at level 4, pursuant to the multi-employer enterprise agreement, that's the situation?
---It is.

PN1623

Have you done a transition of your employees since the introduction of the social and community services stream in the award?---We certainly have, yes.

PN1624

With your particular organisation, where did your level 4 employees transition to in terms of - - -?---We translated people to level 2.

PN1625

Level 2?---Yes.

PN1626
**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XN MR CAMERON

Thank you. Nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1627

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Eddington.

PN1628

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you.

PN1629

MR CAMERON: I'm sorry, just before Mr Eddington starts - I apologise, but another housekeeping matter - Mr Fabian Brimfield is at the bar table with us today on behalf of the company. My apologies, Commissioner and Mr Eddington.

PN1630

MR EDDINGTON: That's all right.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [9.41AM]

PN1631

MR EDDINGTON: Would you agree the general principle that in workplaces the staff can rise up through the ranks as they gain more experience and become more knowledgable and are capable of exercising greater responsibility?---And where positions are available for them to move into and they're successful in their application, yes.

PN1632

So when there's a position available, such as a level 4 position, somebody might apply to move into that position?---Sorry, are we talking level 4 of - - -

PN1633

Level 4 of the multi-employer agreement, for example?---Okay. Where a position were available, if somebody had the appropriate skills, knowledge and training, yes.

PN1634

And you would make a considered and a reasoned assessment of whether they're capable of performing at that level and if so, people would be appointed to that level. Is that correct?---As I said, where there's a position available obviously. The process that we would undertake is to determine, based on all of the applicants, who was the most suited for the job and whether the person had, as I said, the appropriate skills, training and qualifications.

**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1635

But in the past your organisation signed a multi-employer agreement that has a classification or a set of classification descriptors ranging in relation to disability support ranging from 1 to 5?---Yes.

PN1636

And some people have been employed at level 4 according to that classification descriptors. Is that correct?---They were, yes.

PN1637

So you've made a reasoned assessment that those people that if appointed to that level are capable of performing the tasks and the duties that are described in the classification descriptors at that level?---As we required them to.

PN1638

As you required them to. You expected that they would be able to perform those tasks - - -?---Yes.

PN1639

- - - when they were appointed. In relation to this matter and your service entirely, is it true that you have received advice from James O'Neill and Associates?---Yes.

PN1640

You have? Have you met with - - -?---Sorry, in relation to?

PN1641

In relation to this matter and this dispute?---Yes.

PN1642

When you've met with James O'Neill and Associates, who has it been from James O'Neill and Associates that you've met with?---Generally James, but it's generally been an industry meeting as opposed to a direct Veranto/James O'Neill and Associates meeting.

PN1643

But you've met at a common location. There's been CEOs from - - -?---Yes.

PN1644
**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON

- - - the rest of the industry. It's James - - -?---From a number of organisations.

PN1645

James O'Neill has been the one that's provided you advice?---Generally, yes.

PN1646

Did you have any input or any say into how Liviende has translated their staff to level 2 of the award?---Absolutely none, no.

PN1647

Other than the fact that, did you indicate in those meetings that, "Well, we've translated our people to level 2. We'll leave it with your decision"? You didn't have any say about that?---No, the process that Veranto undertook - what Liviende did, I have no idea. But the process that Veranto undertook was to seek the advice and then to go through the process of looking at each position and translating it accordingly.

PN1648

Did Mr O'Neill provide you any advice on the result of the question that we had determined by Johns C in relation to section 206?

PN1649

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, I query the relevance of this in relation to any information provided to Veranto about that matter.

PN1650

MR EDDINGTON: I think it is relevant. I'm trying to work out exactly why or how the advice that James O'Neill has provided to the group of employers of which Mr Byrne is one and I'm trying to get to the nub of that advice and try and understand as to whether he followed that advice in terms of how he actually classified his employees or translated his employees.

PN1651

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that a better question, the last bit?

PN1652

MR EDDINGTON: All right. I will ask - - -

PN1653
**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON

THE COMMISSIONER: As to how Veranto got the process they went through.

PN1654

MR EDDINGTON: Okay, I'll ask that.

PN1655

THE COMMISSIONER: And what was important and what did they take account of.

PN1656

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you I will ask that question. Thank you.

PN1657

THE COMMISSIONER: Otherwise Mr Cameron will jump up again and I will have to agree with him?---So the question I'm being asked is what process Veranto went through?

PN1658

Correct, and what did you take account of?---The process that we went through was to look at the requirements of the positions and the classification descriptors and align the two. So what we took account of were the requirements that each employee was to fulfil.

PN1659

MR EDDINGTON: Did you consider what the object or the purpose of the employment of those employees at level 4 was?---Well, the object of the employment of those people at level 4 was to fulfil the functions of their position.

PN1660

That's right. Johns C said that that object or purpose is described by the classification descriptors or is incorporated in the classification descriptors.

PN1661

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, I don't wish to be too technical but that's not what Johns C's decision said at all. He says the descriptors can assist an employer in determining but he didn't say that the relevant purpose is set by that. That was in his earlier decision and he removed that clause in his subsequent amendment.

PN1662
**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON

MR EDDINGTON: Would it help if I showed the particular areas of the decision and asked whether Mr Byrne agreed with those and whether those parts of the decision were taken into account?

PN1663

If I could just show you EB-I, and if I could just take you to paragraph 65, 66, 67 and 68. If you'd like just to take a minute or so just to read those sections?
---Okay.

PN1664

At 69, Johns C says, "This is the comparison exercise that the employer should now undertake to determine what it should have been paying residential support officers." Is that the comparison exercised that you undertook, what was just described at 65, 67 and 68?---As I said previously, the comparison exercise we undertook was to look at the requirements of the position.

PN1665

So you didn't consider at all the classification descriptors in the multi-employer agreement that you signed?---We looked at the classification descriptors, what the requirements of the position were and where those positions aligned.

PN1666

In terms of the classification descriptors, do you agree that the classification descriptors at level 4 of the multi-employer agreement best align with level 3 of the award?---I haven't done that comparison. It's two years since we did that work. So I haven't recently read those descriptors per se.

PN1667

But you just said a moment ago that you used the classification descriptors in part to make the current translation now?---Yes, and I was responding to a question around process, I thought.

PN1668

No, I'm asking you the question: when you did this translation exercise now or as of last year you had to, according to this decision, consider the object or the purpose. The object or the purpose is the classification descriptors are representative or go to show what the object or the purpose of employment is. So what I'm asking you is, did you look at the classification descriptors when you've done your translation exercise now - - -?---No.

**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1669

- - - or recently? You didn't?---No.

PN1670

So you didn't consider Johns C's decision at all.

PN1671

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, I think that Mr Byrne indicated they did this in 2012, which is some - - -

PN1672

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I was just about to say that.

PN1673

MR CAMERON: - - - 18 months before Johns C's decision.

PN1674

MR EDDINGTON: Do you now suggest that, given Johns C's decision, you may have been in error in the way that you have done - - -

PN1675

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, I don't think that's an appropriate question. They've done the transition. If Mr Eddington or the union wants to bring Veranto to the commission and dispute their findings and transition then do. A subsequent decision is hardly relevant in terms of what they did on 18 July 2012.

PN1676

MR EDDINGTON: I think it's a fair question. It's something that the - we have, at the very early on in this matter - this dispute has been going on since November 2012 - the issue of how to translate people has been a constant source of dispute. Mr Byrne has been briefed throughout that dispute by Mr O'Neill. We, over quite a lengthy period of time, had to wait until we've finally got some determination on this question of what section 206 means. So it's been quite a fluid process in terms of how employees are to be correctly translated. That's why we brought the dispute initially in relation to Liviende but it has equal applicability to Mr Byrne.

PN1677

THE COMMISSIONER: It may have equal applicability in the union's mind to Veranto but the matter before me here concerns Liviende and that's all I'm worried about.

**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1678

MR EDDINGTON: All right. Thank you.

PN1679

Can I just put one thing to you: if the classification descriptors in the agreement point to the purpose or object for which a worker is employed, then surely the classification that most closely aligns with the award would in turn most accurately point to the purpose or object for which a worker is employed. Would you agree?---Sorry, can you repeat that?

PN1680

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want to break it down a bit?

PN1681

MR EDDINGTON: I will start again.

PN1682

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1683

MR EDDINGTON: If the classification descriptors in the agreement - that's the MEA - are used to point to the object or the purpose for which a worker is employed, is it correct then that the classification descriptor that most closely aligns with the award would in turn most accurately point to the purpose or the object for which the worker is employed?---I would look at the purpose for which the employee is employed. The classification descriptors that were developed within the MEA, my recollection is that they were to be reviewed. As a matter of principle, if we were to undertake that process, we would seek advice as to what we were doing.

PN1684

I'm not sure that you're answering the question that I'm asking you and I will admit that it is - - -?---I'm not sure that I'm getting the core of your question.

PN1685

- - - quite a long question. I guess if I can summarise my question, is that if the classification descriptors - the parties to this point - and I understand you're not a party - the parties to this point in time have agreed that the classification descriptors at level 4 in the MEA best align with level 3 of the modern award?
---Right.

**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1686

What I'm saying is that if those classification descriptors best align, doesn't that show that the object or the purpose of the employment is more closely aligned than - the classification descriptors more closely aligns with the award and that it most closely and most accurate points to the object or the purpose of the employment?---Okay. So my understanding of what you're asking me, just so we can clarify, is that the descriptors within the classification are what you would look at in terms of classifying an individual in terms of alignment with any classification that you are translating - - -

PN1687

I'm asking the closest object or when we try to work out what the object of the employment is, the classification descriptor that best suits or best aligns is the best indicator of what the object of the employment is?---Yes, I would agree on the basis that looking at an individual then it's what you're requiring them to do within that classification.

PN1688

I've got no further questions. Thanks.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [9.58AM]

PN1689

MR CAMERON: Mr Byrne, you have position descriptions for your staff?---We do.

PN1690

If you're going to employ somebody, do you employ them and say, "We'll get a level 4 person and then work out what they do," or do you work out what you require someone to do and then work out which appropriate level they'd be classified as?---The latter.

PN1691

The latter?---We look at what the requirements of the position are and then appropriately classify them.

PN1692
**** PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE RXN MR CAMERON

So the purpose of the role would be what you require them to?---Yes, absolutely.

PN1693

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1694

THE COMMISSIONER: Interesting line of re-examination, given none of those questions were asked in cross.

PN1695

MR CAMERON: It's was only Mr Eddington referred to PDs and the classification Mr Byrne referred to, looking at the descriptors and the classifications, but it's on the record.

PN1696

THE COMMISSIONER: Aren't you lucky.

PN1697

Mr Byrne, thank you for your evidence. You are released. You may step down?
---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [9.58AM]

PN1698

MR CAMERON: Sorry, your Honour, I was just wondering if Mr Daily had arrived outside so I could call him next, but he hasn't. We would call Ms Peterson. Thank you.

<CAROL MARGARET PETERSON, SWORN [9.59AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [10.00AM]

PN1699

MR CAMERON: Ms Peterson, for the record, can you state your full name and address?---Carol Margaret Peterson of (address supplied).

PN1700

What's your occupation?---I'm a consultant in the disability field.

PN1701

What's your background and experience in the disability area?---I've worked in disability for 15 years. I have a broad background in disability, having worked in the two states, in both policy and operational matters. Particularly in relation to this matter, I have operational policy and procedure management for the whole of Victoria. I develop manage that unit. I have managed a program of review, Quality and Operational Clinical Governance. I've developed a training study for this sector in Victoria. I've been involved in organisational restructure and classifications of staff in both operational and policy. I've worked in a not for profit organisation responsible for training audit quality improvement and systems improvement. So I have a broad and deep knowledge of the disability sector.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XN MR CAMERON
PN1702

You were contacted by Liviende Inc to prepare a report for them in relation to their transition of employees from an agreement to the award?---I was approached last March to see if I would be available or interested in providing advice to Liviende and to a union core project to see if I'd be available for that in looking at the translation that had been made of the residential staff. When I commenced the actual project, it was only to Liviende - I was informed it was only to be to Liviende as circumstances had changed.

PN1703

Prior to that, had you had any contact or working relationship with Liviende or any of its staff?---No. I had met the CEO fleetingly in various conferences and work committees at a national level but had nothing to do with Liviende.

PN1704

You have got a copy of your report with you?---I do.

PN1705

That's attachment 29, thank you, Commissioner.

PN1706

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN1707

MR CAMERON: You prepared that report and I think it's fairly obvious as to your processes and procedures. In preparing that report, did you look at the roles that these people were playing in terms of what Mr Eddington will refer to as the descriptors - supervising, training, initiative, problem solving? Did you look at those areas when you prepared this report?---I particularly looked at those areas.

PN1708

Can you tell us what you found in relation to that?---I found that there was some confusion as to what staff understood that those terms meant, particularly in relation to supervision in relation to their role authority. The complexity of the work that they were doing, they were confused about what constituted complexity. They were also a little confused about the difference between advocacy and reporting and their role within that; most of which is detailed in your report. I was also interested in - there's a really big confusion across the country in the differences between direction and guidance. So I went to what people did. I asked people what they actually did and what they didn't do. I found in a couple of very significant areas that direction had to be given and was not welcome around some compliance areas, such as the admin of medication, food safety and pantry management - fairly basic household running issues - and that there had to be very clear directions given across the organisation. Also some confusion about people's role in policy and planning, such as if a personal centred planning; who's actually doing it. Although, generally people were very clear that there was a role designated to manage the personal centred plan. So some confusion around those things. I put that down to change brings its confusion. But certainly there was enough there for me to be convinced that people were not in a place to make good judgments around areas that would be expected to be made good judgments at level 3. But I did find that the coordinators were available, other than one clear instance, which was a bit more distanced. The coordinators were there and were certainly very present for consultation and I also checked that up against the records of on-call which were depersonalised and provided to me and they seemed to be consistent with what you'd expect coordinators to be involved with. So I think I've said most of that in the report. I just would like to emphasise they were things that stood out to me, your Honour. So - - -

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XN MR CAMERON
PN1709

And part of your report obviously, Commissioner, is the comparison to what are called the descriptors of the level 3 of the SCHADS Award?---I certainly wouldn't say that the staff were operating at level 3, and they certainly seemed to be working - and you will see also I went to other organisations, both in Tasmania and on the mainland, and their expectations of their role was fairly consistent with that expected of level 2 across the board. Where the level 3s seem to come in and where organisations have made the decision to pay at level 3 was where there was a level of community liaison and responsibility for development of relationships and having judgment in those areas - in other organisations.

PN1710

What documentation were you provided with by Liviende prior to and during your assessment?---Position description. I already had the award. I was given the Tasmanian former agreement but I was actually looking at what awards as is they were doing and I was given an organisational structure.

PN1711

Were you given any policies and procedures?---I wasn't given them by Liviende management per se but when I went to the houses I asked to see people (indistinct) referenced what was there, what were the ones that they used regularly.

PN1712

Nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [10.08AM]

PN1713

MR EDDINGTON: Ms Peterson, can I show you a memorandum that Liviende provided to their staff and it's at evidence book O. This is from human resource manager Rachel Jansen. In the second paragraph she states, "We are pleased to advise that we have received the report from Carol, who took into account all relevant matters - the position descriptions, the requirements of Johns C's decision and SCHADS Award classification structures." Would you believe that she's correct in that regard?---No. I was aware of Johns C's decision which came out fairly early on in the project but I didn't address that in the report. I understood what Johns C was saying but I did not address that and I wasn't asked to. It wasn't there when I was commissioned.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1714

Can I show you also EB-N, and this is a letter to me from the CEO Janette Martin. She writes, three paragraphs from the bottom, "The independent assessor was provided with a copy of the decision and the amended decision of Johns C and this was taken into account when preparing the assessment"?---I took it into account but it wasn't the objective of the assessment and I do apologise, I was provided a copy of that. I must say I didn't mention that when you asked me before, but I was provided with - but that came later on; that wasn't at the beginning. But, yes, you take it into account because you pay attention to what the Commissioner said, and I agreed with what the Commissioner said.

PN1715

You agreed - - -?---In terms of the clarity of the award and the semantics used and how you actually manage the tension between words that are arguable and actual tasks. That's what I took into account, which is what I was doing anyway.

PN1716

Can I just show you Johns C's decision again. That's EB-I?---Do you want this back? Okay.

PN1717

Johns C makes some findings, and if I take you to particularly paragraph 65 through to 68, and he suggests that, "The level 4 descriptors in the agreement are relevant because they assist in ascertaining the principal purposes for which RSOs have been employed. The employer having employed employees at level 4 or promoted them to level 4, the level 4 descriptor in the agreement, is evidence of the essence or object of the work of RSOs." That's a finding of Johns C. We say it's an important finding and that the descriptors are important because he effectively - he does certainly say that the descriptors in the agreement go to the object or the purpose of the employment. But you haven't mentioned that at all in your report. I put it to you that that is quite a considerable deficiency of your report?---The descriptors, as I've said before, are arguable. What's - - -

PN1718
**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON

THE COMMISSIONER: Why are they arguable?---The difference between direction, ma'am, and general guidance.

PN1719

We're talking about the agreement descriptors - - -?---Yes, okay, the agreement.

PN1720

- - - not the award?---Not the award. No, I didn't take the agreement into account because I was looking at what is, not what was - what people were doing. I concentrated on what people were actually doing.

PN1721

MR EDDINGTON: But that's the point, I'm asking because Johns C specifically says that you are to take into account the classification descriptors because they go to serve, to show what the purpose or object of the employment is?---Yes, I understand what you're saying but this - I was already in my project doing what I was doing. I took into account some of the concessions that came out of this. I understand where you're coming from but I wasn't commissioned to report against the Johns C's report. That wasn't my commission.

PN1722

No, but when his report or when his decision became known and you were asked to look at it, you - - -?---I wasn't, I was shown it.

PN1723

You were shown it?---Yes.

PN1724

And you didn't take into real consideration his findings?---I looked at it. I took into consideration. My focus was on what people were doing, not on words that can be argued.

PN1725

In relation to your report - you've still got the report, have you?---Yes, I do.

PN1726

Can you read the title on the first page of your report?---Can I read the title?

PN1727
**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON

Yes?---Level Assessment Report?

PN1728

No, the full title in bold?---Liviende Inc.

PN1729

Liviende Inc Work Level Assessment Draft Report. That's the correct title?---No, actually that would be a typo. It should be Final Report.

PN1730

I put it to you that you made no change whatsoever to your assessment after Johns C's decision; that the same report, that wasn't a draft, became the final report?---Johns C was in September. Yes?

PN1731

Yes, that's correct?---Yes, and this was in October, and so it came in after. As I said, I wasn't commissioned to assess Johns C's decision.

PN1732

The question I'm asking is, the report is entitled a Draft Report. I'm suggesting the draft report just simply became the final report. You made no alteration to the work that you had done. I think you say you were commissioned in March and you did your report some time after that. That that report was the final report and you - despite what happened - - -?---No.

PN1733

- - - with Johns C, you made no changes to it?---The original draft report was prior to me interviewing other organisations. The draft report came out before I'd interviewed other organisations. The final report which - and this is a typo - the final report was after I'd interviewed other organisations and I've referred to it. They were the two reports I produced. So there was a change, but if you're asking again if I'd altered it in reference to Johns C's findings, no, I didn't.

PN1734

When you made your report, did you actually observe any of the RSOs or any of the employees actually doing their work?---Yes. Whilst I was interviewing mostly in the houses, I was in situ, people were working around me. Residents were there. I was there sometimes around meal times - by agreement, not just dropping in - and sometimes it was vacant and maybe residents (indistinct) home but there were a variety of times I was in the residences.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1735

When you've done this report, you've assessed against level 3 but you haven't done any assessment as to whether level 2 is appropriate. Is that correct?---I believe level 2 is appropriate, yes.

PN1736

But you haven't done any assessment - - -?---I have.

PN1737

- - - in relation to it?---And then I made a comparison with level 3. But as I said, the words in the descriptors are not helpful in this award.

PN1738

You haven't but you haven't actually gone through in the same process as what you've done with level 3 in terms of going through each of the descriptors?
---Well, I've provided the level 3 descriptor because that was what I was asked to question.

PN1739

In your report, if I can just take you to I think the third page and the third paragraph, there was talk from both RSO staff and coordinators that some former classified RSA staff - - -?---I'm sorry, I beg your pardon, is that the - maybe we've got different page - - -

PN1740

So it's - - -?---What's that heading?

PN1741

I don't have page numbers but you've got your first page, Liviende Work Level Assessment Draft Report. The second page starts with Assessment Criteria?
---Okay.

PN1742

The third page of mine starts with Several Liviende Staff.

PN1743

THE COMMISSIONER: It's under Interview Findings.

PN1744
**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON

MR CAMERON: It's the fifth paragraph under Interview Findings.

PN1745

MR EDDINGTON: Yes?---Yes, I've got - yes, thank you.

PN1746

So the third paragraph from the top of that page, the fifth paragraph of Interview Findings, it talks about, "There was talk from both RSO staff and coordinators that some former classified RSA staff did not want to be considered at level 2 under the SCHADS Award." Yesterday we've had quite some discussions on the fact that former RSA staff seem to be reprofiled to level 4 of the agreement. Did you ask any questions about that. Did that come up at all?---I asked what people did and what was the differentiation in the work that they saw. Does that answer the question you're asking?

PN1747

Yes, vaguely. I put it to you that there were people that used to be RSA staff, that when you make the comment that they did not want to be at level 2, that it's entirely possible that they were RSA staff at level 3 under the agreement and that they had no desire to actually be promoted to level 4?---There were staff who felt intimidated by the circumstances, who openly said that to me. They felt that because of some dissatisfaction by people who were formerly seen to be supervisors, that they should not assert themselves. There certainly was that feeling of distance in between what they're expected to do and what they've been classified as. Some were saying, "I'm too old to go through this training," which is a natural response. However, when asked, "Has anything changed in the work that you do?", "No, we work as a team. We do what we did before. When one can't do something, the other one steps in."

PN1748

But you would expect that normally under most enterprise agreements that if somebody is acting at a lower level, they may not necessarily want to apply if a position becomes available at a higher level if they don't think they're capable or don't want to accept the responsibility of that higher level?---You make that assumption that this was what was talked about in the discussions I had with people; that they essentially had been doing the same work and whilst some were a little intimidated by the circumstances, others were saying, "It's about time we got recognised for what we do."

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1749

Can I just take you to the - - -?---And may I also say some were quite pleased to be that level because they felt that some former long liner staffers - I think they call them colloquially - weren't actually pulling their weight.

PN1750

In relation to the organisations that you've interviewed, which is on the fifth page, you said you interviewed staff of Tasmania Inc. Could you tell me how they made the assessment from their existing level 4 employees and where they translated in - - -?---I can tell you what that they told me, which was that the translation, as with some other organisations, was around the residential staff were purely residential. But if you had some involvement in the community liaison and had some authority in that space, then you would be placed at level 3. So there were people involved in individual plans who would be taking some authority within those plans, who were to be recognised at a higher level, as I believe Liviende has with some staff as well who were out doing individual plans.

PN1751

I put it to you that all the staff classified or translated all their support workers?
---Well, then they would all be doing that. I'm reporting on what they told me.

PN1752

Even if they're not doing the community liaison?---I'm tell you I am reporting what was reported to me.

PN1753

Can I take you to the - you've made some notes against each of the classification descriptors?---Could you bear with me, I didn't bring that in with me.

PN1754

I can give you a copy?---Thank you.

PN1755

B.3.1, which is a characteristic of the level, states that, "A person employed as a social community service employee level 3 will work under general direction in the application of procedures, methods and guidelines which are well established." You then find that RSOs acted in well-established practices at the appropriate level. I put it to you that your comment in relation to that isn't actually addressing the descriptor at all?---Again, that comes down to the words, doesn't it - "general direction" and "well-established practices". They were very clear and staff could point to well-established practices, not general direction, which is clearly "clean, manage, do". Define "well-established" as, "This is how you do it. This is how we expect you to manage. This is what we expect you to do generally." There were clearly evidence given consistently - and that's the other part of the report, I would like to make a point of this - pretty consistent across the board. There were examples given where the practices - well, the general direction certainly hadn't been followed and well-established practices hadn't been followed at a fairly basic level. So whilst I say RSOs "act within", they're expected to act within but they don't always act within. If they were in general direction, they would have known that. There would have been a higher level of understanding that they were not within well-established practices.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1756

I don't have access to the transcript but I'm sure under examination-in-chief you did indicate that employees - and you spoke a little bit about the difference between just guidance and direction?---Yes.

PN1757

And you indicated that the employees do work under direction?---And - and - well-established practices. Of course you get direction, of course you get guidance, but it's what you actually are expected to do I'm talking about, and how you do it. It's not a part of choice of how you clean a pantry, administer medication. They're well-established practices.

PN1758

The descriptor is not suggesting that they're not operating within - - -?---Yes.

PN1759

- - - well-defined, well-established practices. It's just suggesting that they work under general direction in the application of procedures, methods and guidelines. That's correct, isn't it?---Well, it's such a vague term. "General direction" is there but they need more than general direction. They need actual instruction on how to do fairly basic tasks. If it was just a general direction to go and do something, you would expect some initiative in doing that, an understanding of the compliance and the rules and the procedures, but they have to be instructed and reminded of those. So therefore it's more than general direction.

PN1760

I put it to you that people who have been appointed to the position of an RSO or the old level 4 and when they were appointed they were appointed according to the classification descriptor. It may be a bit of a general term to say but a lot of them are very experienced and have a lot of knowledge of the industry. I put it to you that they don't need close instruction on every aspect of the work they do as a support worker?---And I put it to you they actually do. I was disappointed.

PN1761

The second one, you go on to B and we talk about, "The general features of this level would involve solving problems of limited difficulty using knowledge, judgment and work organisational skills acquired through qualification and/or previous work experience and that assistance is available from senior employees and employees may receive instruction on the broader aspects of the work. In addition, employees may provide assistance to lower classified employees." The only comment you make there is in relation to that they're not required to assist lower classified employees and there's no volunteers?---Mm.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1762

You don't address all the - the sentences prior, do you agree that RSO or the level 4 employees do meet those requirements?---Again, you would expect them to; it's the level to which they're expected to. I think there is a difference between a previous job description and the current job description too. So we're not talking about the level 4s, we're talking about level 2's under the new award and under new position description. So I commented on the most obvious part of that, that limited difficulty - yes, limited difficulty. "Acquired through qualifications and/or previous work experience" - well, you'd expect that in the job anyway. It goes without saying. That's the difficulty of the descriptors in this award. So therefore I've gone to the facts.

PN1763

But you now say that they do meet that descriptor?---In a vague sense, yes, but not the full descriptor - absolutely not the full descriptor. There was confusion around how they related to other employees, among some - among some, not among all.

PN1764

If I go to C, which allows, "Positions at this level allows scope for exercising an issue within the application of established work procedure," you make the comment that, "RSOs do not have authority nor scope for exercising initiative outside their interaction with residents." Obviously your finding then is that in the interaction with residents they do or are able to exercise initiatives?---Yes, within the scope of their position. They're not, for example, expected to exercise initiative in changing plans or programs or other responsibilities that are not in their scope of authority.

PN1765

But with their interaction with residents they do exercise initiative?---To a level, yes.

PN1766

You find that they do not establish goals and objectives and outcomes for their work program or project?---No.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1767

But they would work with their coordinator and as part of a team in establishing their goals?---That's a different thing. They're part of that, yes.

PN1768

I put it to you that it's not a different thing. It's that they're part of a team and that they are establishing their goals and objectives?---And they're not responsible for establishing those. They contribute to it, that's what team work is.

PN1769

That's right?---At the end of the day, it's the coordinator's supervisor's job to make sure those are established.

PN1770

But the coordinator can't do that without the - - -?---And that's what the management and team management is. They contribute, as they would, to a personal centred plan but they're not responsible for that plan or the development of the plan; as they would in taking residents to the doctor's or to a day program but they're not responsible for that liaison or coordination or negotiation of programs or plans.

PN1771

You finally find there or one of your findings is that, "They operate under clear supervision and direction from coordinators and client services manager." The word you use again there is "direction". Is that correct?---That's the word, yes.

PN1772

So you're suggesting that they're directed from their coordinators rather than guided from their coordinators?---Supervise is pretty close to being directed and guided and all the words that are pretty vague around this descriptor. They are advised, directed, read, trained, supervised to do the work that they have to do.

PN1773

The difference is important because the differences in the terminology that's used between - the difference between level 3 and level 2 is level 3 is talking about employees at that level being directed by higher classified employees, whereas level 2 talks about them being guided by higher classified employees. You've described that they're actually directed?---Can I say you can have one without the other. If you want to have direction, you can't have supervision. It's all part of the same approach to management and nitpicking around - and I understand the need for it in awards; I'm not criticising the need for clear words - but the general term of, "This is the direction we're going in and this is your role, this is what you must do," is part of general management.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1774

In terms of operating under clear supervision, I put it to you that a coordinator that on a particular given day might be the Hobart-based coordinator is not going to be in a position to provide effective supervision at a disability support home in Launceston.

PN1775

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, the evidence has been that the person in Hobart is an on-call coordinator, not the daily coordinator.

PN1776

MR EDDINGTON: Whether the person is on-call or the daily coordinator, you're suggesting that - - -

PN1777

THE COMMISSIONER: There's a bit of a difference.

PN1778

MR EDDINGTON: They're a coordinator - - -

PN1779

THE COMMISSIONER: Isn't it a question of timing? Isn't the on-call after 5 pm.

PN1780

MR CAMERON: Yes, after-hours.

PN1781

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, after 5 pm. "After office hours", I think was Ms Martin's description.

PN1782

MR EDDINGTON: So after 5 pm then, the person that's the on-call person, you're suggesting that they are able to be supervising the RSO that's working in a disability support home?---I was referring to coordinators here, not on-call. On-call is a back-up. Coordinators are managers and supervisors.

PN1783

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, between 9.00 and 5.00?---Between 9.00 and 5.00, absolutely. Then the organisation - - -

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1784

It's a 24-hour service?---Yes, and then after-hours there's a provision by the organisation to provide support after-hours. I agree there's a tyranny of distance and certainly from Hobart and Hobart staff, they really felt that that was an issue but that's a management issue. That's not a classification issue. Most organisations have the same structure of after-hours and the same response after 5.00 for the 24-hour service. I mean, the 24-hour service is generally sleeping for most of the after-hours.

PN1785

MR EDDINGTON: I put it to you that the supervision cannot be all that effective if it is only simply somebody that's far removed from the actual workplace?---Well, it seems to work in other structures around the sector. This is the general approach to after-hours, not 24 on-call supervisors in situ. That's the practice of the industry.

PN1786

In relation to D, we have this vexed issue in relation to supervision of lower classified staff. Is it your finding that the level 4 of the RSO staff simply did not supervise other staff because the other staff were deemed to be at the same level, that there were no supporting staff?---Supporting or supervising? There was mutual support given but there was no supervision expectations. In fact my finding was there was a general lack of understanding of what formal supervision is.

PN1787

So did you happen to be, when you were doing your interviews and at a home at a particular time, did you happen to see any staff that may have only had a few days' experience?---No.

PN1788

But that was a possibility. Was it explained to you that, "We do employ staff and after two buddy shifts they would be working at exactly the same level as somebody with far greater experience"?---In that house - that's a common practice. How else would you employ staff? That's what happens. I'm not sure of the turn-over or how often that might happen. I did have one experience where one person told me that when casuals came through and they were new casuals, that was an extra burden on staff generally in order to orientate them to the house. But other than that, of course you will have staff who have not been in that house before that may come from time to time as new staff; that's the general practice.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1789

In that circumstance, you would expect that if there were two people on shift and one has considerable experience in how that house best operates and how clients are best cared for and looked after, you would expect that that person would be able to provide some advice and instruction in relation to the other staff member that maybe has come in cold and has no idea in terms of how to actually go about those tasks as - - -?---I wouldn't call it instructions, I would call it orientation. I would absolutely expect that, as you would somebody who's filling shelves at Coles. When somebody is new to a place, they need to be orientated to task and orientated to place of course - of course. But that isn't necessarily the, as you call it, more experienced staff; it's whoever's on would be giving that.

PN1790

If I can move on. At B.3.2, Responsibilities, "Responsibilities indicates" - and this is in the award - "to contribute to the operation or objectives of the work area. Position at this level may include some of the following" - would you take the word "may" then to suggest that it wouldn't be an expectation that a particular employee fulfil all those responsibilities at that level?---Are you asking for my interpretation of the word "may"?

PN1791

Yes?---I would say, yes, that's fair enough.

PN1792

In relation to B, "Exercise responsibility for a function within the organisation." I put it to you that the descriptor does not indicate, as you have indicated, that you have to have responsibility for specific functions but the descriptor does not actually indicate specific functions, it just says, "responsibility for a function within the organisation"?---It's odd, isn't it? Where do you stop that? So I tried to interpret that with the words "within the organisation". My questioning was around what functions in the house that you might undertake. For example, you might be responsible for occ health and safety. You might be responsible for a particular aspect of emergency management, maintenance. Those questions I asked. But then I took it to within the organisation, "What functions do you contribute to the organisation?" in an attempt to clarify for myself what that might mean. Other than some but not a lot of representation on perhaps occ health and safety committees, I didn't see functions within the organisation from what I would expect from an organisational perspective. For example, I didn't see perhaps projects designed for quality improvement. I didn't hear it - I asked, "What projects you might be involved in? What other functions you might have that have a broader impact than just this residence?" and I didn't get any responses into that.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1793

But the test is not talking about broad functions, is it? It's just talking about functions?---Yes, and I was really trying to clarify what they may be contributing in a function. It's what does "function" mean? So that was my attempt to be as clear as I could be.

PN1794

You indicate at C that, "The initiative exercised at RSO level is rudimentary"?
---Yes.

PN1795

And that, "It just involves cleaning, escorting residents to appointments - - -"?
---For example - I perhaps should have been clearer, that's for example. There's no initiative expected out of established work procedures.

PN1796

I put it to you that there is. That work procedures cannot cover the full gamut of - - -?---Of course.

PN1797

- - - what happens with a disability support worker?---I agree with you but there are procedures for calling on for help and calling for assistance, calling for advice as well. So if in doubt, pick up the phone.

PN1798

That's right but the particular person on shift has to make that decision themselves?---Yes.

PN1799

And that in a way is solving a problem, isn't it?---Yes, but they're not robots, are they? They're people that should be able to make those basic decisions.

PN1800

I agree. If we go through, just in terms of the responsibilities, there is some descriptions there relating to secretarial and administrative support work?---Mm.

PN1801

And in our experience, people that actually work in administration in organisations such as Liviende are also encapsulated by these descriptors. So those particular descriptors would relate more to the people that have got a job - - -?---Sure, I understand, yes.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1802

- - - that's related to administration?---But I have come across where residential staff may be expected to do banking and financial administration. So I wanted to make it clear that they weren't expected to do that, so that it's clear.

PN1803

In relation to F, Assisting With or Providing a Range of Records Management Services, the RSOs do provide or do handle some records or provide records, don't they?---Yes, and I looked at both those records going onto the computer as well as the daybooks.

PN1804

Can I just take you to the requirements of the job, which is B.3.3. Can you tell me what you mean by, "All of above are required but only to the appropriate level 2, and I refer specifically to the thorough knowledge of work activities performed within the workplace and the sound knowledge of procedural and operational methods of the workplace and the working knowledge of statutory requirements relevant to the workplace." What do you mean that those are required but only at level 2?---Within the household, applying the knowledge and the statutory knowledge within the household and not taking it to a broader - for example, if you have a person that you might be assisting in a residence and you are responsibility for their program in the community. That's in a far broader arena where a level of judgment is required that is you just can't prescribe, but within a household it's easier to prescribe. So within that workplace is within that household appropriate level 2.

PN1805

I put it to you that some of the RSOs, the experienced level 4 employees, would have had not just knowledge of work activities but they would have had a thorough knowledge of work activities because they've been doing them for a long time and have become fairly used to them and good at them and have a very complete knowledge of them. Is that correct?---Possibly. But the expectations of the job are at a certain level and that's what the position description is about. There are lots of people with highly developed knowledge and experience but they're employed to do a particular job - expectations of the job as such.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1806

It's pretty difficult though that once you've got a thorough knowledge or sound knowledge of the procedures or a working knowledge of statutory requirements, it's pretty difficult to suddenly suggest that, "Well, I've got to abandon those and I don't need them any more," because they're there, aren't they? Once you've got them - - -?---Well, it would appear they did because there's certainly evidence that those statutory procedures were not followed to an alarming level. So perhaps there was maybe some forgetting of what those compliance and procedures are.

PN1807

Can I just take you to the last page of your report there at D, Extent of Authority. In relation to those points, you've indicated that, "RSOs act within established practices at the level." I don't think we are debating that but would you agree that they have freedom to act within defined established practices?---I should hope so, yes, as long as they're doing them appropriately - performing them appropriately.

PN1808

Would you agree that problems can usually be solved by reference to procedures, documented methods and instructions, and that assistance is available when problems occur?---That's how I interpret the position description and the operational instructions of the organisation, yes.

PN1809

Thank you. I've got nothing further.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [10.47AM]

PN1810

MR CAMERON: In one of the answers to the questions you indicated that some of what were formerly known as the RSAs said finally they're recognised for what they do. Did they give examples of why that recognition had been absent previously, or why they felt different?---I may be misunderstanding you, so correct me, please, but the general response was, "We work as a team. If one can't do something, the other does it. It's not that we are telling each other what to do; we work together." Generally - generally - the response was that, "We do that well and we're pleased to be recognised that we're doing that as well." Although some were intimidated by the circumstances of the dispute, I think.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON RXN MR CAMERON
PN1811

You also indicated that some weren't pulling their weight. Who were they referring to in that regard?---Some of what they termed the long liners. They are the former 4s, the RSAs. I was actually taken aside by one of the staff and said, "I'm pleased to be at the level now because maybe I can actually address the fact that they're not pulling their weight and they expect other people to do things that they should be doing as well. They've lost the interest in the work and in the clients," which was what was at the core of the person who came to me. She was concerned about the clients.

PN1812

Mr Eddington asked you questions about a supervisor being present. In your experience in the industry in supervision, is it necessary for an employee to have their supervisor in close proximity at all times?---It's not only not necessary, as long as you've got the proper relationships and communications in line, it's industry practice mostly in residential services to have a coordinator cover at least a couple of houses, if not more. I know that causes some confusion. I've been through this process in other places and seen this happen. So I understand but in many ways it allows people to develop and grow and to exercise more initiative in the long-run.

PN1813

Mr Eddington took you through those classification descriptors and your responses, in summary, in looking at that overall, that's how you came to the decision that these people weren't doing the level 3 work?---They're definitely not doing level 3 work.

PN1814

And there are the need for more appropriately based level 2 - - -?---Yes, and then looking at other organisations, similarly, the expectations on people doing the same work were at that level as well.

PN1815

To your knowledge, level 2 also provides that they show some form of initiative?
---If you're working with people, you have to have some form of initiative.

**** CAROL MARGARET PETERSON RXN MR CAMERON
PN1816

Are you aware of the award requirement of their initiative at level 2 or the MEA requirements at the different levels?---The differences in the levels?

PN1817

Yes?---In the exercise of initiative, it's a subjective matter.

PN1818

Nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1819

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN1820

Ms Peterson, thank you for your evidence?---Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1821

You are released?---Thank you.

PN1822

You may step down?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.50AM]

PN1823

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Commissioner. We call Mr Steve Daley, who's outside. Thank you. Commissioner, we've provided a signed copy of Mr Daley's statement and it's on the file.

<STEPHEN JOHN DALEY, SWORN [10.51AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [10.52AM]

PN1824

MR CAMERON: Mr Daley, for the benefit of the Commissioner, cab you state your full name and address, please?---Stephen John Daley, (address supplied).

PN1825

And your occupation?---Executive director of Devonfield Enterprises.

PN1826

Do you hold any other positions within the disability industry?---Yes, I am chairman of the board of management of Family Based Care North West, and I've held that position for some 20 years.

**** STEPHEN JOHN DALEY XN MR CAMERON
PN1827

Have you got a copy of your statement with you?---I have.

PN1828

That document, that's the evidence you'd be prepared to give today under oath to this commission?---It is.

PN1829

Thank you, Commissioner. Nothing further.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [10.52AM]

PN1830

MR EDDINGTON: Whilst this dispute (indistinct) have you had meetings with other CEOs and James O'Neill and Associates and received briefings about this dispute?---We've received up-to-date on what's happening in the dispute. I've not had discussions with anybody in relation to the matter, other than general briefings, as I would expect the IR consultants would provide.

PN1831

So you haven't attended any joint meetings of James O'Neill and Associates?---I attend a number of joint meetings. I'm not quite sure what your question is alluding to.

PN1832

Have you discussed this dispute and this matter in those meetings?---No, the meetings I have attended with James O'Neill and Associates is meetings covering a whole range of IR matters and just the meeting I've attended we've just received an update on where the matter is at the present time. I've not had any discussions with any other party - other than to have a request that I provide a statement - with any other party going into the details of the dispute.

PN1833

So up until this point of time, you were asked to provide a statement but prior to that you had no meetings at all with James O'Neill or other CEOs about the nature of this dispute?---No, with respect, Commissioner, I've said I've attended meetings with James O'Neill and a representative - not only just James O'Neill and Associates but representatives from James O'Neill and Associates - to discuss a whole range of IR matters which we are briefed on and on one of those meetings which I attended - I haven't been able to attend them all - that we were briefed on the current state of play, not discussed in length this particular matter, only a briefing on where we were at - or where it was at.

**** STEPHEN JOHN DALEY XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1834

It was James O'Neill himself that provided that advice?---There were a number of representatives of James O'Neill and associates were there. As to who specifically provided an update, I don't recall that, other than to say representative from James O'Neill. But I must make it clear, Commissioner, that at no stage at the meetings that I attended, either directly or information received indirectly, was I involved in any discussion in any great detail on this matter. It's a briefing I would expect our industrial advocate to give us on a whole range of matters that are currently before the Fair Work Commission.

PN1835

Thank you. I've got no further questions.

PN1836

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Eddington. Any re-examination, Mr Cameron?

PN1837

MR CAMERON: Nothing in relation to anything brought up. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1838

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much for - - -?---Thank you.

PN1839

- - - your evidence. You are released?---Thank you.

PN1840

You may step down?---Thank you.

PN1841

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Mr Daley.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.56AM]

PN1842

MR CAMERON: Unfortunately I don't have the powers (indistinct) but I understand that Rachel Jansen is waiting outside. If we could call Rachel Jansen.

<RACHEL JANSEN, AFFIRMED [10.57AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [10.57AM]

PN1843

MR CAMERON: For the purpose of the record, could you please state your full name and address?---Rachel Jane Jansen and I'm of (address supplied).

PN1844

Your current occupation?---Is the human resource manager at Liviende Inc.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XN MR CAMERON
PN1845

How long have you held that role?---Since February 2009.

PN1846

I'll show the witness this document. Commissioner, that's attachment 3 in our R1. Do you recognise that document?---Yes.

PN1847

Is that your signature at the bottom of that page?---Yes, it is.

PN1848

And your initials are on the page?---Yes.

PN1849

Is that the evidence that you'd be prepared to give under oath to the commission here today?---Yes.

PN1850

Thank you. Commissioner, that is the signed statement of Ms Jansen for the record.

PN1851

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1852

MR CAMERON: And a copy has been provided to Mr Eddington.

PN1853

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you.

PN1854

MR CAMERON: In your role as HR manager, you're involved in the development of policies and procedures, are you not?---Yes.

PN1855

Would all the policies and procedures that you've provided for submission to the commission, you're aware of those policies and procedures?---Yes.

PN1856

Some of those are not particularly dated recently. What's the procedure that Liviende goes under or follows in terms of updating the documentation?---We have a quality assurance officer that looks after our quality management system. It comes under his portfolio to ensure that policy and procedures are regularly reviewed and updated.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XN MR CAMERON
PN1857

The fact that they're not dated any time, does that mean that they're out of date or invalid?---Not necessarily.

PN1858

Are you aware of the house procedure manuals that are provided to each of the house?---Yes.

PN1859

And the nature of those, how would you describe them in terms of the house?---It outlines the requirements of the operation on a day-to-day basis for the staff that work at the houses.

PN1860

Commissioner, I could go through each of those policies and get Ms Jansen to acknowledge them but they were provided by Ms Jansen. So can we accept that she is aware of each of those policies that are in R1?

PN1861

MR EDDINGTON: Yes, I'm happy with that.

PN1862

MR CAMERON: Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [10.59AM]

PN1863

MR EDDINGTON: In the materials that are provided, evidence book at O - I will just give you a copy of the memorandum - in your second paragraph there you write, "We are pleased to advise that we have received the report from Carol, who took into account all relevant matters - the position descriptions, the requirements of Johns C's decision and the SCHADS Award classification structure." I just want to explore with you how you came to know that Ms Peterson took into account the requirements of Johns C's decision?---Look, to my memory at the time, I can't name specifically from October 2013 but I would assume that she would have considered that decision.

PN1864
**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON

You assumed it but she didn't actually indicate to you that she looked at Johns C's decision. I would have to see her report again in detail to recall that?---I put it to you that she hasn't included any discussion at all regarding Johns C's decision or some of the findings in relation to Johns C's decision. You would have read the report quite extensively, I take it. Yes, I have on occasions.

PN1865

And from your memory, you can't recall if there was any discussion of Johns C's decision?---Yes.

PN1866

There was a discussion of Johns C's decision?---No, I can't recall.

PN1867

No, you can't recall?---No.

PN1868

So you're not certain when you made this memo that that wasn't actually correct when you said that she had taken into account the requirements of Johns C's decision?---I assumed that that would be the case.

PN1869

You assumed but do you often write memorandums based on assumptions?---A number of our memorandums around this matter as well we sought advice as to the appropriate wording, so yes.

PN1870

Who did you seek advice in relation to that wording of this memorandum?---I'm not sure whether I did go to James O'Neill on that particular occasion but most often we have done on this matter.

PN1871

So - - -?---To ensure consistent communication.

PN1872

In relation to this particular one, you can't recall as to whether you got the advise or not?---I don't recall.

PN1873
**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON

Can I just take you to point 3 of your statement. You indicate that nothing Chris Eddy nor John Henry's employment records indicate a promotion to disability support level 4 but at some stage they've been appointed to that level. Is that correct?---They have been, yes.

PN1874

All RSOs as they were, the level 4 employees were appointed to that position?
---Correct.

PN1875

Can I just take you to Johns C's decision. Could you just take a moment just to quickly read paragraph 57 of that decision. Would you agree with that paragraph? Would you agree with his finding there?---"Employees are not necessarily promoted to the position of RSO." They were appointed to the position of RSO.

PN1876

Would you agree that at that time of appointment that Liviende, as the employer, has made a - to use Johns C's word - "a considered decision" that employees perform or expected to perform tasks at that level, as they are described in the classification descriptor of the enterprise agreement?---As they are described in the position description, yes.

PN1877

Thank you.

PN1878

THE COMMISSIONER: That's not what Johns C said in it. That's not what Mr Eddington asked. Johns C said that, "Each employee in question performs or is expected to perform the task listed in the position description and at the level provided for in the agreement." It's got both?---Where you employ someone into a particular position, you look at the tasks associated with the position and the position description needs to adapt to align to those tasks. So the level 4 position description reflected the work of the RSO at that time.

PN1879

MR EDDINGTON: When they were appointed to the position?---Yes.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1880

And you've made a considered decision that they're capable of performing those tasks at that level?---Yes.

PN1881

THE COMMISSIONER: Because the position description from an HR perspective not only defines tasks but it defines relative levels of accountability - - -?---Yes.

PN1882

- - - discretion, initiative and all those sorts of things. So is it correct to assume that the PD is about the level at which somebody is to operate and the tasks that are to be performed?---Yes. As long as they're reflective at that time, yes.

PN1883

That assumes that the PDs are updated?---Yes.

PN1884

MR EDDINGTON: Just in relation to Johns C's decision where he says, "It's not relevant if on a particular day the employer does not require the RSOs to perform the task listed in the position description or at the level provided for in the agreement." Would you agree with that?---That it's not relevant? Sorry.

PN1885

That it's Johns C's finding that it's not relevant in terms of assessing what the object or the purpose of somebody's employment is, is that if on a particular day somebody is not required to perform the tasks that are described in their position description or their classification descriptor?---So the position description is a summary of the tasks required. It might not necessarily be that they do that every day that they're working.

PN1886

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that's what Johns C is saying and Mr Eddington's question is, "Do you agree with that"?---Yes.

PN1887

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1888

We will go on to paragraph 4 or point 4 of your statement. You indicate that, "Structural changes commenced following the resignation of a house manager in November 2011." Then you go on to say, "This was an opportune time to implement the structural change without redundancy costs that had been under consideration." What do you mean by that?---When I came into the organisation as it was then - or Northern Residential Support Group in 2009 there was some general discussion around the suitability of the house manager position and whether it was facilitating the requirements to supervise staff, given that they were working on roster. That was the general conversation for a period of time. When we had a house manager resign at this time, we saw that as an opportune time to trial the residential coordinator position, which took them offline off the roster and gave them flexibility to work with staff and at different houses as well. We'd actually trialled it with a contract southern coordinator position as well. So we'd got the essence of it working and took that opportunity without the additional cost.

PN1889

So when you're talking about the "without redundancy costs", it's strictly in relation to the house manager/coordinator?---Yes, certainly.

PN1890

You indicate there that the change was happening as early as June 2011.

PN1891

MR CAMERON: In November.

PN1892

THE COMMISSIONER: November.

PN1893

MR EDDINGTON: No, sorry, November 2011 but there wasn't any evidence that the position descriptions were being reviewed at that time. Is that right?
---That's right, it was general conversation.

PN1894
**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON

And it wasn't until June 2012 that new position descriptions were provided to RSO staff. Is that right?---RSOs or coordinators, sorry?

PN1895

No, the RSOs?---I believe so but I wasn't there at the time. So I'm not sure when they were provided.

PN1896

I can understand that because I will show you now the letter from, I'm assuming your predecessor, Paul Armstrong, which is at EB-F. Have you seen that letter before or have you been made aware of this?---Yes.

PN1897

In relation to the middle paragraph, four paragraphs down, it says, "Please note that the revised position description does not" - bold and underlined - "alter your current duties in any way. Your duties remain the same as they were under the MEA." Isn't that a fairly ringing endorsement that actually not much was to change when a new position description was provided in June 2012?---I didn't make this statement. This is made by Paul, in my absence.

PN1898

No, that's right, but when Paul says that the "position description does not alter your current duties in any way", and he's the human resource manager at the time, would you agree that that is a strong endorsement that the duties were not to change or would not be changing in any way?---If that's what Paul stated.

PN1899

So you're suggesting that that was Paul's position and not Liviende's position?
---I would say he's acting in good faith for the organisation but I wasn't there at the time.

PN1900

Again, you probably wouldn't know but in your role as a human resource manager, would you be discussing such a letter or would you have to seek the advice of perhaps the CEO in relation to a letter like that?---I would consult with the CEO and I would seek advice from an industrial adviser.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1901

If you were to seek the advice of an industrial adviser, it would probably be likely that Mr Armstrong might have done the same.

PN1902

MR CAMERON: This is a question that Ms Jansen can't answer, Commissioner.

PN1903

MR EDDINGTON: I will move on.

PN1904

Your description at 4 of your statement goes on and you describe that there used to be a system of six house managers and a team leader in Hobart and that this was reduced to three coordinators and a southern coordinator. That's correct, isn't it?
---Yes.

PN1905

So in the north of the state you effectively lost six house managers and gained three coordinators, or that was the restructure that happened?---That's the restructure, yes.

PN1906

I put it to you that when you replaced six people with three, that the fact that this would have meant that the coordinators would have had to have taken a more overarching role because there was only half of them as there were house managers?---No, that's not the case.

PN1907

So they were able to do, even though there was only three of them, able to do the same supervisory or overarching providing direction function as the six house managers?---Yes, because they were taken offline and that was one of the key considerations.

PN1908

Because they were taken offline, I put it to you that it would be difficult, in the role of a coordinator, to know the specific personalities of each of the clients and the specific difficulties and areas that they needed to be attended to because there was no-one there to deal with them in a hands-on way. Is that right?---No.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1909

But you just indicated that the coordinators had been taken offline or the team leaders had been taken offline, so they're not doing that work any longer, are they?---They're more available to that work, yes.

PN1910

Are they able to be regularly on hand to observe how a particular client's specific needs are attended to?---Yes.

PN1911

And how regularly would they be on hand?---It's something you'd probably have to speak to a residential coordinator about because their week varies significantly but they work a 38-hour week and they also have the flexibility to work out-of-hours where required.

PN1912

Mr Eddy earlier gave evidence that the coordinators actually had very little hands-on involvement in the house and were not often in the house at all in terms of observing what was happening. Would you agree with that?---No.

PN1913

I will put it to you that because there is now a diminution of roles or a lessening of roles by the restructure from team leaders to coordinators, that there is actually now a greater need for RSOs to be able to solve problems of limited difficulty on shift, use their discretion and act with a degree of responsibility?---No.

PN1914

Would you agree with that?---No. The function of the RSO hasn't changed.

PN1915

But there is no-one now in the house regularly to observe or provide advice in the same way that a team leader was?---It's a requirement of a residential coordinator to be available and regularly at the houses and provide supervision to staff and support clients.

PN1916

That also applies for the people that are on-call, does it? If you're on the after 5 o'clock shift, a coordinator then becomes an on-call person and they have to be available regularly to attend the house. Is that correct?---Yes, we have an on-call procedure.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1917

The person that is sometimes on-call in Hobart is going to be able to attend a house in Launceston?---Should that be the case, then it can be elevated to the program manager and CEO, and I would be the last port of call.

PN1918

But in an emergency or even in a general sense, you're surely not saying that the on-call coordinator is regularly driving from Hobart to Launceston?---No.

PN1919

We're still on point 4 because it is quite a long point. You query our assertion in our materials that, "We promoted inexperienced staff." We heard from Ms Martin yesterday in relation to all support workers had been reprofiled at level 4. What do you take to mean by "being reprofiled"?---Looking at the tasks that are required of a position and summarising what that is, of which the PD should be reflective of that.

PN1920

Would it also mean that in terms of the reprofiling that there is an expectation, from what I understand, that they've been taken from level 3 in the agreement and suggested that they now work at level 4? Is there an expectation that they are capable and do perform the tasks described at level 4 - - -?---Yes.

PN1921

- - - in the enterprise agreement?---Yes.

PN1922

If I can just take you to EB-C, which is the enterprise agreement. You just indicated that upon reprofiling there is an expectation that people can now perform the task at level 4 of the agreement. Can you turn to page 72 of the agreement. Because of the reprofiling and the fact that they now do perform tasks at level 4, you would agree then that they are now capable of supervising employees at lower classification levels?---They are capable.

PN1923

Yes, they do, because of the reprofiling?---No, they don't necessarily but they are - it was in their PD that they are capable and would be trained to do so.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1924

And they work under general supervision and will use discretion within the scope of this level?---Yes.

PN1925

And they undertake work that may be non-routine in nature?---Yes.

PN1926

And be subject to preset objectives for work assignment?---Yes.

PN1927

"Without limiting the generality, supervisors, disability service workers classified at lower classification levels and their clients as defined, including checking progress and coordinating work flow"?---Sorry, I'm just trying to find where you're at there. On page 73?

PN1928

72?---What was that last question?

PN1929

Just in relation to page 72, we're going down the little dash points there because you've indicated that, "Level 3 now perform these tasks," and the middle one there is talking about - it starts, "Without limiting the generality, supervisors, disability service workers classified at lower classification levels and their clients, including checking progress and coordinating work flow"?---Yes, they may be required to do that.

PN1930

And they're accountable for their own work and the work of others?---They may be accountable for that, yes.

PN1931

And they use initiative, they use their discretion and judgment in planning and organising work and techniques for their own work and that of employees at lower classification levels?---They may be.

PN1932

And understand and use a limited range of non-verbal communication. Is that correct?---Yes, if it's required.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1933

You mentioned there that, "There are a number of staff who now work on the short line, who have been employed with Liviende for some five to 20 plus years." I put it to you that there were former RSAs or people that are employed with Liviende formerly at level 3 that haven't had five to 20 plus years' experience. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN1934

And that there would be, just through how people recruit and how employees are actually appointed in positions, that they are actually people there that may have been appointed that are working currently at level 4, that may have only had a week or two of experience. Is that correct?---At this time, look, sorry - - -

PN1935

We've done this reprofiling exercise?---Yes.

PN1936

And there's people that are now being appointed and we're saying that level 3s are now working at level 4s. But there are people that have come into the organisation and are not - and I don't want to base it all on experience but they might, for example, be young people that may have had no experience in the industry previously. They may have only finished their buddy shifts and they're now working at level 4. Is that correct?---We appoint two - well, it's hard to work in the context of level 4 and level 2 of the current situation but we appoint two - yes, it's hard to answer that, sorry.

PN1937

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm assuming you're employing under the agreement because you're covered by an agreement first and foremost?---Yes.

PN1938

Yes?---Yes.

PN1939

And so do you appoint now you've collapsed - it appears that there are no longer what used to be called RSAs because the organisation has decided to no longer employ people classified or called that?---Yes.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1940

And that you now recruit in as RSOs into level 4 of the agreement?---Yes.

PN1941

Is that correct or not?---The position descriptions specify that we employ to the modern award level 2.

PN1942

But you're also covered by an agreement because you can't just forget about that because you're still covered by it. So therefore what level are you recruiting RSOs at? I have assumed level 4?---Yes. Well, yes, that goes to logic because we - - -

PN1943

Sorry, I can't do logic?---I'm sorry, but my understanding is that, yes, we appoint under the modern award to ensure the pay level is correct and that's what we reference in our position descriptions.

PN1944

Yes, I understand that but you're still covered by an enterprise agreement unless you're off the list of the multi-employer agreement. So therefore the organisation is still covered by that agreement?---Yes.

PN1945

And so what classification level, under the agreement, do you recruit your RSOs to?---4.

PN1946

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you.

PN1947

And these people, once they're recruited - and maybe they've only got a week or two experience - would they ordinarily work what's called the long shift?---It depends on what lines may be available and where we need the requirement.

PN1948

So somebody with a week's experience may well be asked to effectively do the shift that requires the sleepover as well?---Potentially.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1949

Potentially or they do?---Yes, they work across the business on whatever line is available or they need to backfill at the time.

PN1950

THE COMMISSIONER: So you've dropped the distinction, the historical distinction, between people working consistently on the long shifts or people working consistently on the short lines?---Sorry, say that again.

PN1951

As I understand it, previously organisationally your level 3s under the agreement, your RSAs worked the short line?---Mm'hm.

PN1952

And the RSOs, those that you called RSOs at level 4 of the agreement, worked the long line. So am I understanding now that somebody who is employed as an RSO can work either the long or the short line?---Correct.

PN1953

MR EDDINGTON: In your knowledge and experience in terms of in a disability support home, when is the time that a particular employee may be confronted with more challenging behaviours, generally speaking, from a resident?---I really couldn't comment on that. I'm not sort of involved in the client side.

PN1954

THE COMMISSIONER: She's not HR (indistinct) with great respect.

PN1955

MR EDDINGTON: Fair enough.

PN1956

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1957

MR EDDINGTON: At 4 again - I'm still on point 4 of your statement - you indicate that staff were performing the same duties and functions - that is, the level 3 staff, the RSOs and the level 4 staff were performing the same duties and functions - but that wasn't represented in the position descriptions, was it?---Not at the time.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1958

At point 5 you indicate that, "All staff were responsible for buddy shift staff and that they were also employed as RSOs." So really as soon as they start they are the same level as all other support workers. That's your position. Is that correct?
---The RSOs, yes.

PN1959

So in practice that could mean that two staff with one week's experience in the industry will be rostered together. Is that correct?---It could be potentially. It's the potential. I don't have anything to do with rostering and calling people in and who goes where.

PN1960

I put it to you that that would be highly unlikely, though, that two staff with one week's experience would be rostered together in a home?---I really don't know.

PN1961

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that's maybe a question for a later witness perhaps.

PN1962

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you.

PN1963

You argue in your statement that Liviende had very prescriptive policies and procedures for all tasks and duties. How long have the recent suite of policies been in place?---Well, it's a suite so they evolve over time. They are reviewed over time; I couldn't be so specific around that.

PN1964

But even though they're reviewed over time, how long would you say that you could describe them as being prescriptive?---As prescriptive until the time that they need to change, depending on what's going on in the organisation.

PN1965

No, but was there a time when perhaps they were a little bit more basic and they didn't describe in more detail what a support worker is expected to do?---No.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1966

They've always been prescriptive?---The detail is there.

PN1967

And it's always been there. I mean, you've obviously - - -

PN1968

THE COMMISSIONER: As far as you know.

PN1969

MR EDDINGTON: As far as you know. You don't have a - how long have you been - - -?---Five years.

PN1970

So in your time that you've been there, they've been what you describe as being prescriptive?---Yes.

PN1971

I believe that two RSOs in question, Mr Eddy and Mr Henry, I believe were appointed I think in 2008 and 2009. When they were appointed to level 4, they were appointed to a position whereby we've already gone through the descriptors whereby they're required to use their initiative. So at that time that they're appointed, the same prescriptive procedures were in place, were they not?---Yes, and they evolve over time.

PN1972

That's right. But the point is, when you've appointed Mr Eddy and Mr Henry to their role and suggested that, "You have to use your initiative," that they are capable of using that initiative, even though there are prescriptive procedures in place. Is that correct?---No, because the procedures are in place to inform staff of how to behave and provide guidance to what the clients' needs are and what goes on in the house on a day-to-day basis.

PN1973

That's not really what I'm asking. That's what the procedures say but when Mr Eddy and Mr Henry were appointed, they were appointed and one of the tasks that they were appointed to perform was to use their initiative. A lot of the submissions of the respondent to date have indicated that, "You can't use that much initiative because everything is prescribed and we detail point by point as to what you can do." But what I'm saying is that even as those prescriptive procedures were in place, it was still possible for Liviende to say, "Well, we're appointing you and we need you to perform your initiative"?---The commonsense approach would be applied, yes.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN1974

Just generally in relation to prescriptive procedures, I put it to you that procedures are in place but it relies on support workers themselves to interpret those procedures and act using their knowledge and experience in relation to those procedures. Is that correct?---Sorry?

PN1975

In terms of the procedures are in place but each support worker has to use their own discretion, their own initiative in terms of how they interpret those procedures and enact those procedures. Is that correct?---To the extent that commonsense applies. The procedures are very detailed in what the requirements are of each position.

PN1976

But would you agree that you cannot have any raft of procedures that can completely replace human ingenuity?---Commonsense, yes.

PN1977

In relation to some of the classification descriptors in the award, one of the classification descriptors at level 3 states that support workers have - it doesn't say specifically support workers, but "Employees have freedom to act within established practices." Would you agree that that's true?---Yes.

PN1978

Another one of the descriptors describes, "Problems can usually be solved by reference to procedures, documented methods and instructions and assistance is available when problems occur." Would you agree that that's true?---Yes.

PN1979

Another descriptor under level 3 describes a B.3.1C that, "Established work procedures are in existence." The fact that established work procedures exist does not necessarily mean that support workers cannot exercise their initiative in their application, does it?---I think anyone needs to exercise commonsense.

PN1980

Thank you. I've got nothing further.

**** RACHEL JANSEN XXN MR EDDINGTON

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [11.37AM]

PN1981

MR CAMERON: Mr Eddington referred to Mr Armstrong's letter in EB-F. Have you still got a copy of that in - - -?---I do.

PN1982

Where he points out that your duties prior to 1 June don't change, in your knowledge, in looking at reviewing those systems, did the actual work that the employees were doing before 1 June change the tasks they were doing - - -?---No.

PN1983

- - - leading up to that? Therefore they just kept doing that same work?---Yes.

PN1984

That was the same work under the new position description?---Yes.

PN1985

Nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1986

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN1987

Ms Jansen, thank you for your evidence?---Thank you.

PN1988

You are released?---Thank you.

PN1989

You may step down.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.38AM]

PN1990

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Commissioner. We have three more witnesses to call. We have had a slight hiccup in that one of the witnesses who is available, her close friend passed away and the funeral is at 12 o'clock. She can be back here - we're trying to sort of work out - we've got two witnesses that are here present but in terms of her, she's getting back as soon as she can from the funeral, which is only at Youngtown, which doesn't mean much to you obviously but not it's not far out. It's in Launceston. I think she said she'd be back by 2.30 at the latest. I understand you've got a flight at - you need to leave here by 10 to 4.

PN1991

THE COMMISSIONER: 3.30.

PN1992

MR CAMERON: 3.30, sorry.

PN1993

THE COMMISSIONER: That was the six hours yesterday, remember. 9.30 to 3.30, with an hour for lunch.

PN1994

MR CAMERON: Sorry, I (indistinct) We may have to contact her and see if she get back even earlier. The funeral is at 12.00 but she's not staying for the tea and scones, she informed me.

PN1995

MR EDDINGTON: Who is it?

PN1996

MR CAMERON: Tanya Petrie.

PN1997

THE COMMISSIONER: Which I feel awful about.

PN1998

MR CAMERON: Sorry?

PN1999

MR EDDINGTON: It's not a good environment - - -

PN2000

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I feel terrible - - -

PN2001

MR CAMERON: No.

PN2002

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - on her behalf.

PN2003

MR CAMERON: Yes.

PN2004

THE COMMISSIONER: That's awful.

PN2005

MR CAMERON: No, she's willing to come back as soon as she can. But we've got two witnesses here and I'm just thinking if we go through those two witnesses and then have lunch, that may work; or if we have one witness and lunch. We could have an extended - I'm just - - -

PN2006

THE COMMISSIONER: The only question I've got, Mr Cameron, is whether you're planning - in that mix, the degree of difficulty increases if there's a need to fit the final closing submissions in.

PN2007

MR CAMERON: Yes.

PN2008

THE COMMISSIONER: We can manage around Ms Petrie; that's fine. But if you want to put in there somewhere closing submissions by both of you, that's going to get tricky.

PN2009

MR CAMERON: I'm always in favour of doing written submissions. It gives us time to sit down and actually properly put in sequence what's happened, including the witnesses may have only just left the witness stand five minutes beforehand. I'd have to see if Mr Eddington's view as to whether he's happy to provide written submissions.

PN2010

THE COMMISSIONER: I can tell by the look on his face, Mr Cameron, and can you, as to his view. Shall we go off the record while we're doing this bit?

PN2011

MR CAMERON: Yes, thank you.

<OFF THE RECORD [11.40AM]
<ON THE RECORD [11.51AM]

PN2012

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for that short adjournment. We call Jan Gould.

PN2013

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN2014

MR CAMERON: I don't know where they've got to, sorry. Unfortunately there's not really designated waiting areas outside, so they may have disappeared into waiting room or something. I apologise, Commissioner, we understood all three came over together.

PN2015

THE COMMISSIONER: I haven't lost a witness yet, Mr Cameron; I'm not planning on starting. Shall we have a - - -

PN2016

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, could we just ask for a short adjournment and we can ascertain what's happened to our witnesses?

PN2017

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right. We shall have a short adjournment.

PN2018

MR CAMERON: Five minutes. Thank you.

PN2019

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.54AM]
<RESUMED [12.06PM]

PN2020

THE COMMISSIONER: Please be seated, everybody. Thank you.

PN2021

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Commissioner. We genuinely apologise for that, our liaison of witnesses fell apart.

<JAN MARIE GOULD, SWORN [12.06PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [12.06PM]

PN2022

MR CAMERON: For the record, could you state your full name and address, please?---Jan Marie Gould, (address supplied).

PN2023

And your current occupation and position?---Client services coordinator for Liviende.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XN MR CAMERON
PN2024

Could you briefly explain to the commission what that role entails?---My role, I basically plan, coordinate and monitor service delivery given to our clients and ensure they are the correct service delivery for their individual needs.

PN2025

Is that medical services or - - -?---Medical. I attend appointments with all of our clients that go to specialist appointments. When our coordinators are on holidays or elsewhere, I will step in and attend medical appointments when our coordinators can't be there. I go to Hobart and I also go and meet all the OSP clients in Hobart and see if we're meeting their individual needs as well. I go into all the houses and sometimes I do little mini audits around medication to ensure that Liviende have all the processes in place for our clients. I actually will liaise with departments; as in we may have someone going into an aged care facility. I liaise with the doctor, with the aged care facility, back with Liviende and of course the personal responsible, being the person's family. When we have a vacancy within Liviende, I will then liaise with external services. I will then meet the families. I will then put a recommendation into Liviende, whether this person may be suitable for a vacancy within Liviende or not.

PN2026

So you have a broad knowledge of the clients' residences and the staffing?---Yes, I do quite a - - -

PN2027

Can I show you this document. Thank you. It's attachment 30, Commissioner. Do you recognise that document?---Yes.

PN2028

Is that your signature at the bottom of that page 2?---Yes.

PN2029

Is that the evidence that you would be prepared to give under oath to this commission today?---Yes.

PN2030

You've got a copy of that statement as well or you've just reviewed, have you?
---Yes.

PN2031

At some stage we'll arrange for that to be passed - or could we pass that to the commission. Thank you?---Thank you.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XN MR CAMERON
PN2032

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN2033

MR CAMERON: You mention in your statement some examples of where RSOs contact you for advice and direction and guidance. Can you give some examples of those sorts of occasions when they contact you or email you in some form?
---Yes, I am contacted during the day and when I am on-call around client issues.

PN2034

Is that regularly through the day or just spasmodic?---Regularly, on a daily basis.

PN2035

And what sorts of questions and guidance and direction are they seeking?---Well, as on-call, if someone rings me on-call, they may ask guidance around medication, whether it be medication mistakes or even if a client needs to go to service and, you know, there's no vehicle to take them, how would I like for them to get to their day placement. During the day at work, I am often asked about medication, doctors appointments, all sorts of things.

PN2036

Okay?---Wide range.

PN2037

There's an indication that these RSOs use initiative. Contacting you like that is showing initiative or is that showing a lack of initiative by the RSOs in your opinion?---They need guidance. They're seeking guidance to what they should be doing.

PN2038

Each of the houses have a house manual, a prescribed house manual?---Yes.

PN2039

Is it your experience that most of the questions and things that come to you could be looked up on the procedures and manuals that exist in the house?---Half, yes.

PN2040

Thank you. Nothing further.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XN MR CAMERON

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [12.11PM]

PN2041

MR EDDINGTON: As a coordinator, in your statement at point 2 you indicate that you dispute Mr Eddy's statement that coordinators are not responsible for day-to-day on-the-ground tasks. Are you stating now that you do perform day-to-day on-the-ground tasks?---Who; myself or the coordinators?

PN2042

You. You're a coordinator. Is that right?---I'm a client service coordinator.

PN2043

THE COMMISSIONER: No. Yes, it's different.

PN2044

MR EDDINGTON: Right.

PN2045

THE COMMISSIONER: Do the coordinators report to you, Ms Gould, or do they report to somebody else?---They report to someone else.

PN2046

Okay?---I work with them.

PN2047

You work with them?---Mm.

PN2048

I don't think Ms Gould fills the coordinator role that covers two houses?---No.

PN2049

And is the responsible person for the RSOs.

PN2050

MR EDDINGTON: Is that right?---No, I'm a client services coordinator. My first duty is to the clients and therefore to Liviende.

PN2051

So I will rephrase it then. So coordinators in the other role, they are performing the day-to-day - - -?---They do.

PN2052
**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON

- - - tasks. Prior to you giving evidence, we heard from Ms Jansen, who provided evidence to suggest that there had been a restructure at Liviende some time ago. She even suggested in 2011, whereby team leaders were replaced with coordinators. Do you agree that that - - -?---Correct.

PN2053

- - - occurred? Ms Jansen said that the reason that that was to occur or occurred was so that the house managers or team leaders became coordinators and therefore the coordinators wouldn't have to do day-to-day tasks, and that part of their duty was removed from them. Is that correct?---That is correct.

PN2054

So when you say that coordinators do do day-to-day tasks in this statement, that is actually not right?---Well, I personally myself have been on-call and I've asked coordinators to go into the houses to fill shifts. So they have actually gone into the houses and worked the actual shift. That means doing day-to-day tasks in the house.

PN2055

So when the restructure happened to try and remove those duties from coordinators or restructure it so that we don't have house managers doing those duties any more, it was only partially successful. They were still being called in to do the duties. Is that what you're saying?---On occasions I have called them in to backfill a shift.

PN2056

So if a coordinator is on a shift and doing day-to-day tasks and they're directly caring for residents, what happens if there is somebody else that needs to call the coordinator and get what you say is guidance in terms of how to do a particular task?---Would you like to readdress that question?

PN2057

If you've got coordinators that are working and they're working on a shift doing the day-to-day tasks - maybe they're showering or maybe they're feeding or whatever - and I understand that their role is to be available to provide guidance to other support staff or support workers, what I'm asking is, how are they able to provide that guidance if they are actually involved in the day-to-day tasks? Are they available still by the phone?---Yes. They don't always go in for a full shift. Like hypothetically if I was to ring this morning to backfill a shift because I couldn't get another staff member, it wouldn't be part of a shift until someone else could come in.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2058

But - - -?---Like they're still available by phone. Or if it's after-hours, on-call would be answering the phone for any questions from their other houses.

PN2059

So on-call would be doing that but if the coordinator - - -?---After-hours.

PN2060

- - - is on shift, they're not going to be able to provide immediate assistance and guidance to somebody that calls them if at the same time they may be - - -?
---Showering - - -

PN2061

- - - showering or involved in another task. Is that right?---Well, then if a phone call comes directly through to the office, then I would actually address the phone call or Tanya Petrie, obviously.

PN2062

It would be diverted to you - - -?---Or Tanya.

PN2063

- - - instead in that situation?---If the coordinator was unavailable at that current time.

PN2064

What happens if there is a medical emergency, for example, and there's this kafuffle going on around as to who to call and where to call?---Well, as client service coordinator, that is my role. I would go directly to the hospital if the client was on the way to the hospital.

PN2065

But if somebody is trying to make a call, they're confronted with a medical emergency situation, then the ordinary protocol is to call - - -?---An ambulance. An ambulance, then - - -

PN2066

Well - - -?---In the first instance - - -

PN2067
**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON

Do they deliver first aid first or just call an ambulance?---Depending on the level of the emergency.

PN2068

So - - -?---Whether it could be treated in-house or an emergency needs an ambulance. If it's emergency, an ambulance needs to be called.

PN2069

That's a decision that the support worker will be making at that time, isn't it?---We have procedures and policies around if an emergency happens in the house medically, and they need to follow the procedures and policies in that.

PN2070

But they make that decision as to whether they provide emergency first aid. That's a decision that's left to them in an emergency situation, surely?---Yes.

PN2071

And ordinarily you're saying they would get guidance from their coordinator but there's circumstances whereby their coordinator might be actually doing day-to-day tasks at another house and may not be able to be available to be provide guidance, so they need to call you instead. Is that right?---Yes, if it is an emergency their first instance would be to call in the ambulance then ring the coordinator or on-call.

PN2072

Would not the first instance actually to be deliver emergency first aid if that was required, though?---If that was required. I'm saying if it's an emergency where they could not, you know - - -

PN2073

I'm just putting to you that the situation where you have coordinators that are perhaps doing part shifts, it perhaps might not make them immediately available to provide any guidance in relation to a particular issue?---If said coordinator at that time being in the house, there is myself, Tanya Petrie and several other coordinators that will take the call.

PN2074
**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON

Are you responsible for any of the rostering at all?---No, only when I'm on-call and I have to fill shifts.

PN2075

In your knowledge, when there are two employees that have only just completed their buddy shifts and they may only have a week's worth of experience, would they be rostered on together?---No.

PN2076

Never?---Not to my knowledge.

PN2077

Would they be rostered to work if one person, for example, had just finished their buddy shifts would they be rostered to work the long shift?---Please expand on what time frames are we talking.

PN2078

You might know better than I exactly what the long shift is but from what I understand it's the shift that I think commences some time after 5 o'clock and that includes the sleepover?---Are we talking about the buddy shifts?

PN2079

I'm saying say, for example, an employee that has say one week's worth of experience, they've just finished their buddy shifts?---Yes.

PN2080

Would they be rostered to do that long shift?---Immediately within the week, no.

PN2081

No?---Not that I know of.

PN2082

So it would be at some stage later on there would be an assessment as to whether they've got the requisite experience and knowledge to be capable of undertaking a buddy shift. Is that right?---Yes.

PN2083

THE COMMISSIONER: Undertaking a buddy shift or undertaking a long shift?

PN2084
**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON

MR EDDINGTON: Undertaking a long shift, sorry.

PN2085

In terms of solving a problem of limited difficulty, which is a descriptor at level 3, would you agree that that test sets quite a low bar and that that test support workers don't have to solve problems or difficult problems, they've only got to solve problems of limited difficulty? Would you agree that that is a test that RSOs are capable of satisfying?---It depends on the RSO in question.

PN2086

So you're suggesting that there's people that have been appointed to RSOs that aren't capable of solving - - -?---I'm not suggesting that.

PN2087

- - - problems of limited difficulty?---I'm not suggesting that.

PN2088

THE COMMISSIONER: So what are you saying?---What I'm saying is that is everyone has experience. Like, we have staff coming into Liviende that have had a lot of experience in external organisations. They come in as very, very experienced staff and then we have staff that have come in with a different level of experience. So it depends on your experience.

PN2089

MR EDDINGTON: But somebody that has been appointed at the level 4 in their agreement - - -?---Yes.

PN2090

- - - are you saying that they are capable of solving problems of limited difficulty?---Should be, yes.

PN2091

We just spoke about this, but do you agree that support workers may have to make a decision as to whether to provide medical assistance without consent?---What question was that one?

PN2092

I'm just asking you the question?---I'm sorry.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2093

Do you agree that support workers may have to make a decision as to whether to provide medical assistance without consent?---You need consent on dental and other areas of medical. Are you talking about emergency medical or - - -

PN2094

Emergency medical?---They would not be doing medical without consent, unless it's very much emergency, life and death.

PN2095

When a support worker isn't confronted with an emergency situation whereby a client is exhibiting challenging behaviours, do you know what the policy says about and what's the process that they should follow in relation to that?---All houses should have - they have a health care folder and a personal folder and all clients that have challenging behaviours will have a plan in place where all staff should be reading and it will give them guidance on how and when and to assist with the challenging behaviour.

PN2096

In relation to the policies that Liviende have here, there is a number of policies and some of them actually are simply the department policy. You would agree with that?---Which?

PN2097

The department in relation to - I'm not exactly sure of which department - but it's a government department states or provides certain policies and I will provide the particular one that I'm referring to here is 16 relating to - I provide you attachment 16 of the - - -?---Yes, medication.

PN2098

Do you know what that policy says in particular about responding to emergency situations?---I would need to run my eye over it again.

PN2099

So you don't, you yourself, even know - - -?---Word for word - - -

PN2100
**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON

(indistinct) coordinator. It's - - -?---Word for word, I cannot repeat it word for word.

PN2101

No, that's all right. If I take you to 17, page 17, of that policy and it's got, "Responding to emergency situations". Can you see that one?---Yes, 2.3.4.

PN2102

Just to go through it quickly, it's saying - it's 2.3.1?---Yes.

PN2103

"When responding to a potential emergency situation, staff members are expected to protect themselves from injury but are limited by using reasonable for"?---Yes.

PN2104

And then it goes on to say that a staff member who is - "in response to a staff member to a person who is threatening or attempting to injure, it should reflect the seriousness of the incident," and then it goes through some things that they need to consider - crisis communication, evasion and restraint. Is that right?---Mm.

PN2105

So those are things that they have to consider. Where does that policy show a support worker which one of those that they're meant to employ in a particular situation? It says that they're some of the responses that they may employ but where does it say which one they should employ?---They're expected to protect themselves from injury.

PN2106

Look, I will put to you that in the heat of the moment that a support worker has to use their initiative - - -?---Yes.

PN2107

- - - and use their experience and they're the one that makes the call and they have to decide in an instant as to whether they're going to use crisis communication or whether they're going to evasion or whether they're going to use restraint. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN2108
**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON

And that's a problem that they need to solve, isn't it?---I thought it would be just natural to react.

PN2109

Instinctive?---Instinctive.

PN2110

So they're using their initiative?---Yes.

PN2111

If I could just take you to point 5 of your statement in which you make some points around the emergency administration of - - -?---Medication.

PN2112

- - - medication. Again, I ask you, is not the emergency administration of medication - isn't that the performing of a duty or a task or a function with discretion and initiative?---Yes.

PN2113

If I move on to point 6 in relation to say - are you disputing the statement that Mr Eddy has provided regarding, "Responsible for developing and implementing family visits"? Would it be correct that an RSO, given that they have the most involvement with a particular client, that they would be able to recommend to a coordinator that a client would benefit from a family visit and it's they that are making that call?---No.

PN2114

So the person that has the most association with a particular client and may deal with them on a very constant basis, if they get some sense that a particular client may benefit from a family visit, you're suggesting that that person has no involvement in whether that decision as to the family visit should go ahead or not - they have no say in that?---They can recommend to coordinators.

PN2115

If we go on, in relation to the same point, there's some discussion there on, "Staff members will refer residents to their doctor and notify their coordinator." As to whether a doctor needs to be called or not, I put it to you that the RSO is the person that first identifies that issue and makes the call as to whether a doctor needs to be involved. They make the decision?---If they're ill on that - if a resident is ill, sometimes the appointment are - pre-appointments are already made.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2116

If I just go to point 7. You state again in relation to Mr Eddy's point, which was at 15H and which you say is incorrect, he's making the point that, "RSOs will work with coordinators to manage and plan their work." You say that's incorrect. Do you stick by that statement or would you now agree that RSOs do work with their coordinators in managing and planning their work?---I'm looking at this and I'm thinking of something different. The coordinators, yes, work with the staff for planning their work.

PN2117

Yes, they do?---Yes.

PN2118

And I put it to you that coordinators would have a very difficult job managing and planning the work of RSOs or anyone else if they didn't actually have the input of the RSOs themselves as to what the client best requires?---Correct.

PN2119

In point 8 you've again said that Mr Eddy is incorrect and I've set here a scenario where an employee with two days' experience is on shift with an experienced RSO and a challenging behaviour occurs, it would be normal that the experienced RSO that has dealt with that challenging behaviour may take on a role of more responsibility rather than the less experienced person. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN2120

In relation to point 10, you dispute the examples provided by Mr Henry, showing that he is responsible for solving problems of limited difficulty. You dispute that, "If day support, ring Mr Henry and ask his advice in handling a client with challenging behaviours." You dispute that day support would have contacted Mr Henry at all, because they would have contacted you or another coordinator instead. Is that your belief?---Yes.

PN2121

So even though Mr Henry, who has the most involvement with a particular client and may be best suited to provide advice in relation to challenging behaviours, you're suggesting that day support and Mr Henry would not have any interaction or discuss those challenging behaviours together?---Yes.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2122

Isn't it more likely that Mr Henry will have - he's got the acute knowledge of a particular client's behaviours and to prevent a Chinese whispers problem whereby a message might get convoluted, that it might be more appropriate that Mr Henry directly conveys those challenging behaviours and description of those challenging behaviours directly to day support?---Because the first call from day support will go to the coordinator. They are the first phone number to call.

PN2123

When Mr Henry gives evidence to suggest that day support and him have spoken about particular issues, you're suggesting that shouldn't have happened?---I can't comment.

PN2124

When you're doing tasks or when support workers are doing tasks, do you consider that it's possible on a shift that a less experienced employee may gladly take advice on how tasks will be allocated for that day and accept advice from more experienced RSO employees?---They may.

PN2125

In respect of point 15D - this is point 12 of your statement - you indicate that, "This is incorrect. Budgeting is the responsibility of coordinators with input from RSOs." Can I show you the respondent's attachment 7. This is a list of indicative tasks that the respondent has suggested residential support officers do. If we look at additional tasks at the bottom there and then task number 4 states, "Prepare client budgets and assist residents to manage their finances." Is that correct?
---No.

PN2126

So that's been taken off them. Is that correct? Do they assist residents to manage their finances?---The coordinators do the budgets and assist the residents with their finances.

PN2127

But the support worker themselves is actually the one that when they go on outings and things like that, they're the ones that holding the finances on behalf of the client - - -?---Yes.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2128

- - - and assisting them?---Yes.

PN2129

No further questions. Thank you.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [12.37PM]

PN2130

MR CAMERON: Mr Eddington referred you to the Department of Health guidelines and went through those options as to responding to challenging behaviour. You've indicated within the houses there are folders and files for particular clients?---Yes.

PN2131

Are they more specific in relation to dealing with challenging behaviours for particular clients?---Within the folders they do have, yes, sections and some of them are actually set down by the Department of Disabilities - the assessment and the referral, that team.

PN2132

So that would take into account potential behaviours, including violence by a particular resident that had a - - -?---Yes.

PN2133

- - - precondition that may bring that about?---Yes.

PN2134

And it sets out steps and guidelines for them to respond?---Yes.

PN2135

Mr Eddington also referred you to your statement number 7 and the statement of Mr Eddy at 15H. At that point Mr Eddy also talks about managing other staff. Is Mr Eddy responsible for managing other staff?---No.

PN2136

Is that what you meant at your statement of 7?---Yes.

PN2137

Nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.

**** JAN MARIE GOULD RXN MR CAMERON
PN2138

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN2139

Ms Gould, thank you for your evidence. You are released?---Thank you.

PN2140

You may step down.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.39PM]

PN2141

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cameron.

PN2142

MR CAMERON: As discussed, we were to break for lunch after Ms Gould's evidence. Mr Tipper will be here for - depending on how long we set for that lunch and adjourn.

PN2143

THE COMMISSIONER: We had discussed earlier an hour for Mr Tipper and an hour for Ms Petrie and working back from 3.30, that took us to 1.30 for Mr Tipper till 2.30, and 2.30 to 3.30 for Ms Petrie, which means 50 minutes for lunch. But if you'd like to sort of put a bit of padding in there, we can return at quarter past 1, instead of half past 1, if that would be - but I'm in your hands.

PN2144

MR CAMERON: Perhaps we can ask Mr Tipper to be in place by quarter past 1.

PN2145

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you think - - -

PN2146

MR EDDINGTON: I think that's a wise suggestion.

PN2147

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Cameron, we shall adjourn until 1.15. Thank you.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.40PM]
<RESUMED [1.19PM]
<MARK TIPPER, SWORN [1.20PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [1.20PM]

PN2148

MR CAMERON: For the record, could you please state your full name and address?---My name is Mark Tipper. My address is (address supplied).

PN2149

What is your current occupation?---Current occupation is I am a residential coordinator with Liviende Inc.

**** MARK TIPPER XN MR CAMERON
PN2150

For the Commissioner's benefit and others, could you please explain what that role entails?---Yes, I am responsible for two houses with five permanent staff in each. I am responsible for the care and well being of the residents who live in the houses as well as the properties themselves and the staff that are employed to work there.

PN2151

What were you doing before you were a coordinator?---Before I was a coordinator, I was a house manager at one of the houses.

PN2152

As the house manager, you knew the residents fairly well?---Yes.

PN2153

Are they similar residents now or the same residents now, or have they changed?
---I've recently changed houses, I've taken on another house instead of the original one that I managed, but I believe that I do know the clients reasonably well.

PN2154

What sort of contact do you have with clients?---I have contact when I go to the houses. Quite often I will be at the house while there is a shift on, so I will be assisting with preparing for doctors' appointments, any issues in the house, any health issues that the residents have, concerns from the staff, et cetera.

PN2155

We've heard evidence as to the requirement of RSOs to contact their coordinator. Do you have much contact from RSOs when they seek your guidance or direction?---Yes, I have contact via phone and if it's a non-urgent matter, contact via email.

PN2156

Can you give some examples of the sort of information or direction or guidance that they're seeking?---Okay. For example, this week I've had a staff member contact me to say could I give her a call back, "There's a client who's unwell and needs to go to the doctor. We need to make an appointment and I'm letting you know - when do I make it? When are you available?"

PN2157

So in terms of the doctors' appointments, what's your role when a resident has a doctor's appointment?---Wherever possible, I'm required to attend. Sometimes due to illness or a double-booking I can nominate for another coordinator to go along. Specialist appointments are myself as coordinator if available and the client service coordinator Jan Gould go along to those appointments.

PN2158

What about the allied health professionals, the optometrist, physios - - -?---Okay. Allied health professionals are generally the first visit I will attend. Any subsequent visits - for example, with podiatry, the first is always a problem for the client because of the nature of their disabilities, it's a new item, they don't know what's going on. So I attend with a staff member and we all go through the process with the allied health professional; in this case the podiatrist. After that, if it's just a routine visit back, I will not need to attend; it's the house staff that will take the client for their appointment.

**** MARK TIPPER XN MR CAMERON
PN2159

Any decision-making in relation to attending doctors or other allied health professionals, who makes those decisions?---I make the decision as to which - sorry, the decision regarding the doctor's appointment. So I will say, "It needs to be done," or "An ambulance needs to be called," or "This specialist appointment needs to be made." So we organise to go in and see the GP and get a specialist referral.

PN2160

Mr Eddy and Mr Henry gave evidence as to their relationship with the coordinator. Do you get any extraordinary requests from either Mr Eddy or Mr Henry in relation to the assistance or direction?

PN2161

MR EDDINGTON: Commissioner, I guess I've been fairly generous to this point of time in terms of examination-in-chief in asking leading questions. Mr Cameron has been doing it a bit and to a limited extent, but this is starting to perhaps cross the boundaries. I'd perhaps ask that he ask questions in a way that is not inclined to lead the witness.

PN2162

MR CAMERON: I was specifically referring to, "Do you get any messages from Mr Eddy and Mr Henry to classify the witness names that gave evidence?" and I was going to ask what sorts of messages were they.

PN2163

THE COMMISSIONER: How would you prefer Mr Cameron put it, Mr Eddington?

PN2164

MR EDDINGTON: I would prefer it if he put it in a way that examination-in-chief would normally be put - perhaps a general question in relation to how messages are provided rather than a specific one that's leading him directly to the answer.

PN2165
**** MARK TIPPER XN MR CAMERON

MR CAMERON: In referring to the witnesses, they've given their statements. Mr Tipper has seen the statements because he's responded to them in his statement. He knows the names of the particular witnesses and we're looking specifically at their evidence.

PN2166

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and so given that Mr Tipper's statement followed the written statements of Mr Eddy and Mr Henry - - -

PN2167

MR CAMERON: But they also gave evidence in the witness box the other day. It wasn't in their statements and there hasn't been an opportunity for Mr Tipper to address.

PN2168

THE COMMISSIONER: So that's the basis on which you want to ask the next question.

PN2169

MR CAMERON: Yes. They were also asked specifically the questions about emails and they answered those questions in relation to those emails. We need confirmation now from the person who received those emails that that's what happened.

PN2170

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Eddington, I'm comfortable if it's for that reason. I understand what you're saying but what Mr Cameron I think is trying to do is just cover-off oral evidence that came yesterday from the person who was alleged to have been at the receiving end of what was said.

PN2171

MR EDDINGTON: All right. Thank you.

PN2172

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cameron will repeat the question for you, Mr Tipper.

PN2173
**** MARK TIPPER XN MR CAMERON

MR CAMERON: In relation to Mr Henry and Mr Eddy that gave evidence before the commission, can you explain the sorts of questions that you get from them as RSOs?---Yes, I've had from Mr Henry - I will quite often have phone calls, texts or emails which will ask sometimes questions such as, "So-and-So needs to go to the doctor. Are you attending?" "A particular client has a budgetary need that needs addressing," but I've also had such strange requests as, "How do I download a time sheet off SharePoint?" which is the organisation's document controller.

PN2174

And Mr Eddy?---Mr Eddy, I've had emails asking for me to order towels and clothes or budget money for it, for one of the clients out at the house that he's working at. I've had questions such as before, "A certain client is going to the doctor. Are you attending?" and some financial matter ones where a error was made within the house, a client - if I can just sort of go on a little bit - a client had actually purchased some gift vouchers for his family who live in Victoria and the staff member who was asked to mail them off to the family didn't actually do that and they were left in the finance folder at the house. I discovered this, immediately corrected the error and forwarded it on with a letter of apology to the family. Then I received an email asking where the money was from Mr Eddy because he wanted to go out and spend it for the client, and I said, "Well, that was for gifts," and he sort of apologised for thinking that I may have taken offence to the manner in which the email was formatted.

PN2175

As coordinator, do you also do on-call work?---Yes, I do. I am on-call one week out of six on the coordinator roster.

PN2176

Do you also do any other fill in work at all?---Yes, I also do testing and tagging around the houses. I'm also qualified as a PAAR trainer so I teach - PAAR is predict, assess and respond to challenging behaviours. I'm one of the instructors for that and we go through and train our staff on predicting, assessing and managing challenging behaviour.

**** MARK TIPPER XN MR CAMERON
PN2177

In relation to challenging behaviours, is there documentation for that kept in the homes?---Yes, there is.

PN2178

In terms of medical emergencies, do you get calls when you're on-call in relation to medical emergencies?---Yes, I do. Quite often I will get calls to say, "A certain resident is unwell and needs to go to the hospital." Sometimes I will get asked if the staff should take them to the hospital or call an ambulance. In which case I say, "Call an ambulance." Sometimes they will contact me to say that the ambulance has been called and a certain resident is going to the hospital because of the illness.

PN2179

Those sorts of incidents arise while you're on-call?---Yes, we've had medication incidents where clients have been given the wrong medication or, for example, they've had their morning medication instead of their evening, or in some severe cases where actually the wrong person has received the medication. I also receive on-call calls regarding accidents. We've had a couple of vehicle accidents, one of which was actually a car that came through the laundry of one of the houses at about 2 o'clock in the morning.

PN2180

THE COMMISSIONER: We've heard about that.

PN2181

MR CAMERON: What happened when you received that call?---Well, the first thing I did was get out of bed as it was almost 3.00 in the morning, head off towards the house. Before I left the house I tried contacting our program manager, but there was no answer on there so I contacted the chief executive officer to advise that this had happened and that I was unable to get hold of the program manager.

PN2182

What were the circumstances of that incident? How many residents were in the home?---There were four residents in the house at the time and one staff member.

**** MARK TIPPER XN MR CAMERON
PN2183

What level was that staff member?---The staff member was a level 4 in the old school of things. We haven't translated across. So a certificate IV or RSO at that stage, yes.

PN2184

And what was - - -

PN2185

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cameron.

PN2186

MR CAMERON: Sorry.

PN2187

THE COMMISSIONER: Examination-in-chief.

PN2188

MR CAMERON: I'm asking him for his experience as an on-call coordinator and the sorts of incidents that happen.

PN2189

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but I thought we got one version of this incident from Ms Martin yesterday.

PN2190

MR CAMERON: Sorry?

PN2191

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Martin's evidence went to this incident about - - -

PN2192

MR CAMERON: Yes, very briefly. I was asking Mr Tipper as to the circumstances: who was present and what the reactions of the RSO was.

PN2193

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not sure that's going to assist me, Mr Cameron.

PN2194

MR CAMERON: Okay. Nothing further. Thanks, Mr Tipper.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [1.33PM]

PN2195

MR EDDINGTON: You've just described medication incidents arising whereby somebody might be given the wrong medication or there had been some problem in relation to how medication is provided?---Yes.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2196

I put it to you that if such incidents occur, it is appropriate to have somebody that is on shift at a particular time that has a lot of experience or quite a lot of experience in terms of how to deal with such issues and has been, over a considerable period of time, used to providing medication to particular clients and that those people can work as a line of defence to make sure that medical incidents don't occur. Is that right?---No.

PN2197

There is no need to have somebody that has got experience in terms of how they administer medication on shift?---In my experience, it is sometimes the - in the past - the old senior staff member in the house who was then an RSO or level 4 who actually had the incident happen to them. So they were the ones who gave the wrong medication and it was picked up by the short shift person, who was then an RSA.

PN2198

Is that more likely to happen though than if a shorter shift person, who has only been on maybe only a week or so employment, they're more likely to pick up the problems or medication errors of the person that's more experienced? Is that what you're saying?---No, what I'm saying is that in your question there you mentioned someone who had just started or come on board in the last week. That wouldn't actually happen in the organisation, unless they already had a pre-requisite administration of medication guidelines certificate, so they'd actually gone through the course. We find that when people go through the course, for the first couple of months they're actually honing their skills, so they're being very, very critical of medication and how it's administered. Now, we have a policy where two staff, wherever possible, administer the medication and sign off. Sometimes we have one staff member in the house because it's an overnight shift and they require late medication, and in that stage we allow only one staff to sign.

PN2199

Employees though from - and we've spoken about this a lot and you haven't been privy to these discussions, but we understand that all employees have now been reprofiled to be at level 4. That's what you understand to be the case. Is that correct?---No, under the new award, it's a level 2. I think this is what we're actually discussing things about at the moment.

PN2200

I mean, we've been through this and I know it's difficult for you because you haven't been subject to it but employees, generally speaking, are subject to an enterprise agreement, aren't they? I mean, you're employed and you look at your enterprise agreement to see where your classification level is. Is that correct?
---Yes, I suppose.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2201

That's right. So what we're suggesting now or what's been suggested to this point of time is that all employees are now being classified, according to the enterprise agreement, at level 4?---Right. If that's what you believe, yes.

PN2202

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that your understanding?---My understanding is that the level 3 and the level 4 positions no longer exist. They were translated over to the level 2 and I understand that the old RSOs and the old RSAs are all at the same level now. Now, whether we look at the old thing and say, "That's level 4," or the new one and say, "It's level 2," they're all at the same level.

PN2203

Thank you.

PN2204

MR EDDINGTON: So that's been put to you by management, has it, that whatever you're classified in under the agreement doesn't exist any more?---No, that was my interpretation of it.

PN2205

But there are people now that - well, I've said it and I can confirm that the respondent has put it to this point of time that there are people that are classified at level 4 and everyone has been classified at level 4. So there are people at that level that don't have medication endorsement yet. Is that correct?---No.

PN2206

All RSOs, even if they've only just finished their buddy shift, are being classified at level 4?---No. I think that they're level 4 when they've - well, the way it used to run was they were level 4 if they had their certificate IV. Some people are working towards their certificate IV, and I believe that a lot of people who were old certificate III or level 3s are working towards their level 4.

PN2207

But that's the difficulty you face, isn't it, because those people are being told by Liviende that, "Even though you don't have your medication endorsement, even though you don't have your certificate IV, we're reprofiling you to the same level as the people that do have those qualifications and expecting that you perform the same functions." Is that how you understand it?---No, I think that it's a learning curve for everyone who comes in, whether it's a staff member who's transitioning into a new house, who's been in the industry for quite a while, or it's a new employee who's just been successful in achieving a position on either a long line or a short line, there's going to be information relating to the house, client, client care, routines, et cetera, that they don't know.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2208

No, that's right, and they have to learn that and they learn that by being instructed and I guess trained on the job by the experienced support staff?---By the experienced support staff there, yes, not the person who's on the long shift or the person who's on the short shift. It's a combination of both.

PN2209

But certainly you're saying that even though people haven't got their medication and medication endorsement, or their certificate IV, they're still required to do the same duties and tasks?---Within legal limitations.

PN2210

But they can't administer medications?---That's one of the legal limitations.

PN2211

So they don't strictly do the same tasks, do they?---No, but then the person who is on shift who is accredited, who may be the person who is doing the short shift, will actually take over at that stage.

PN2212

If I could just go to your witness statement. You've made a - - -

PN2213

MR CAMERON: Sorry, to interrupt but it's probably an opportune time. We didn't actually put the witness statement to Mr Tipper, so it may be an appropriate time that he affirms his statement so that it gives Mr Eddington the chance to address it. My apologies; we got carried away. Do you mind if I put that through? Thank you.

<FURTHER EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [1.41PM]

PN2214

MR CAMERON: Do you recognise that document?---Yes, I do.

PN2215

Is that your signature at the bottom of the last page?---It is my signature on the last page, yes.

PN2216
**** MARK TIPPER FXN MR CAMERON

And your initials on the bottom of the other pages?---And my initials on all off the other pages, yes.

PN2217

That's the evidence you're prepared to provide under oath to the commission today?---It is indeed.

PN2218

Thank you. Do you have a copy of that statement with you still?---Yes, I do.

PN2219

We will provide that then to the commission. Thank you.

PN2220

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN2221

MR CAMERON: Sorry, Mr Eddington.

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [1.41PM]

PN2222

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you. In relation to point 1, you make the point that coordinator roles were implemented 10 months before the Fair Work dispute was raised. Do you agree with that?---I do indeed, yes.

PN2223

But simply the position descriptors remained in tact in terms of they didn't reflect the fact that coordinators had been employed and utilised, from what I understand, in replacement of house managers. Is that right? The position descriptors retained or remained as they were and it took some time for them to be updated to actually reflect that coordinators - - -?---There were documentation in regards to my contract that indicated what my role was to be and my place in the organisation and place in being coordinator of the house.

PN2224

So did you receive an updated PD when you became a coordinator?---Yes.

PN2225

And it's strange to me that you have done this restructure where we've brought coordinators in and you've received an updated PD, yet the same structure that would then influence the PDs of the people below them, the RSOs, et cetera, they haven't been updated at that time. They've only been updated some nine months later in June 2012. Is that your understanding?---In my understanding, that as the transition for the new award came in, the positions were reviewed and the new PDs created.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2226

So it was only due to the transition to the award that caused the position to be reviewed?---Well, it was because we were having the coordinators in-house. So a lot of the old stuff was regarding the house manager being there all the time and online as such.

PN2227

But it's your understanding that because the modern award came into operation on 1 July 2012, that that caused your employer to go through an exercise of restructuring the business. Is that correct? Is that your understanding?---I would believe so, yes.

PN2228

At point 1, and I think you also touch on it at point 5 - I'd like to say that RSOs were appointed at level 4 because they were expected to perform tasks described in the classification descriptor at level 4 of their agreement. Would you agree with that?---Back then we had a RSO and an RSA on shift. The RSA predominantly was a short line and did slightly different tasks but it appeared that in a lot of cases the staff who were doing the short line, who were actually level 3s, were actually doing the same work that the level 4s were doing.

PN2229

But people have to be appointed to the position of a level 4, haven't they? A level 4 position becomes open at some stage and Liviende make an appointment to somebody at that level, somebody that applies at that level?
---A position will become open and expressions of interest are asked. Anyone who is working in the organisation can apply for that position. If there's no-one successful from there, we actually advertise externally and bring people in that way.

PN2230

So when there is an appointment at that level though, would it be your understanding that there would be an expectation that when you're making that appointment that the person perform the tasks or be expected to perform the tasks that are described in the classification descriptor pertaining to that level?---Yes.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2231

And RSA people, who you say do the same tasks and duties, they have a different classification descriptor or they had a different classification descriptor that applied to them?---Yes, they did.

PN2232

When they were appointed to their position, they were only expected to perform the tasks and duties according to their classification descriptor?---Yes.

PN2233

And they weren't expected to perform the classification descriptor at level 4, the higher classification descriptor when they - - -?---Originally, yes, before the changes.

PN2234

Just in relation to your point 2 and you also made at point 6, you indicate that the procedures that are used are comprehensive to assist in emergencies. What do you say the procedures are in regarding a medical emergency when somebody's life or health is significantly at risk?---The procedure which is set down in the house manuals is that triple zero is called to call an ambulance, to get emergency services on the way to treat the resident. Then on-call is contacted to advise and to start the process of making sure that all the correct documentation goes to the hospital; that there's someone at the hospital to assist; that the program manager or the CEO are contacted so that the families can be advised of the situation.

PN2235

You're a coordinator so you would have a very thorough and close knowledge of what the procedures are, I take it, in relation to medical emergencies. That is just as you've described it?---Yes.

PN2236

In fact I will refer you to attachment 16 of the respondent's submissions. If you would turn to page 18 of 26, 2.4, Medical and Other Emergency Situations. Does that include any other procedures, other than what you've just mentioned?---Well, this says, "Medical and other emergencies," and talks about restrictive practices and also documentation.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2237

You indicated that in an emergency medical situation the first thing that you would do is call an ambulance and then call the coordinator. Is that correct?
---Yes.

PN2238

I put it to you that the procedure actually states that, "In an emergency situation where the life or health of a client is placed significantly at risk, staff may proceed with providing medical assistance without obtaining consent." Is that correct?---It says that in there, yes.

PN2239

In truth, staff would actually proceed, in an absolute emergency situation, with providing emergency first aid before they would call an ambulance. Is that correct?---It depends on what way you look at it. If you look at the St John's first aid certification that we all have, there's an acronym that we use which is DRSABCD: danger, which is danger to yourself and others and to the patient; response; S, send for help; airway, breathing, circulation, defibrillation.

PN2240

So that's something that's a decision, though, that the RSO on shift at the particular time, they would have to make that decision, don't they, as to whether they administer first aid in an emergency sense or whether they first call an ambulance? Is that correct?---Well, they have to (indistinct) to make sure that everyone is safe before providing on. Then it's saying, "Response", you respond, you check to see if the person is all right. You then call for help. It's pointless doing CPR on a client if you don't have an ambulance coming. Would you agree to that?

PN2241

I would suggest that in an emergency situation, that you respond in a way that is first of all - and the policy actually says it - is that you are able to provide medical assistance without obtaining consent, and I put to you that you would - an RSO would be more inclined to administer first aid before they called an ambulance?
---They may well be, but somewhere in the line, before it got too pear-shaped, I would imagine they would call an ambulance.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2242

Thrown into the mix of all of this when all of this is happening, you're saying that the RSO is also meant to call the coordinator. When do they call the coordinator?---They call the coordinator as soon as they've contacted emergency services.

PN2243

So in order that they would perhaps deliver first aid, then call an ambulance and then call a coordinator. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN2244

And are those decisions that in the heat of the moment, when something terrible is happening, and it may be a life or death situation, that I put it to you that they have to solve those problems and work out which is the best order and how to go about solving the problem at hand by using their initiative and their discretion?
---That would go with any staff member who was on.

PN2245

Given a coordinator is on the telephone, not present to observe symptoms, I put it to you that the coordinator is largely in the hands of the RSO that may be describing what is happening in terms of the medical emergency?---Yes, but I would put it to you that the ambulance is also at that same mercy.

PN2246

That's right, but whether it's the ambulance or the coordinator, both rely fairly heavily on the RSO's skill and experience in being able to explain what the problem is and how they may have reacted to it?---As far as their first aid training allows, yes.

PN2247

At point 2 you indicate that, "Coordinators supervise the day-to-day running of houses and no supervision from RSOs is required." I put it to you that coordinators are not at homes at all times. Is that correct?---That is correct.

PN2248

I put it to you that it's difficult to supervise whether a new employee is performing tasks adequately or effectively if there is nobody there that is actively supervising how they are doing those tasks?---Okay. For example, you have two staff members who are on shift. The regular long line RSO or level 4 as you like to put him has called in sick and there is a casual who's maybe done two or three shifts in the house. The lower class, as you would have it, level 3, actually supervises the person who is in the higher position for the shift.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2249

But generally speaking, you say if there is an RSO on the shift and somebody that is an inexperienced employee - maybe just a week or two on the job - generally speaking, if there is an RSO on the shift, I put it to you that they would supervise in the sense of showing that employee how best to do tasks and instructing them as to whether they're doing something wrong and providing advice and assistance in a supervisory-type capacity. Is that correct?---I suppose you could argue that point, yes.

PN2250

Again, in relation to your point 2, RSOs, you say, can be employed on a long shift or a short shift. How often would an employee with one week's experience be employed on a long shift?---That depends on the casual pool. It depends on who's working, who's available to do a shift if someone calls in sick. We have people who have just been employed for the long shift positions who don't necessarily have the experience but are learning on the job as well as starting their cert IV training.

PN2251

Ms Gould provided evidence to suggest that employees with one week's experience would not be rostered onto the long shift. You disagree with that?
---Sometimes it can't be helped. Wherever possible we try to get someone who has knowledge and experience in the house. We have quite a good casual pool but sometimes there's no-one available, so you have to make do with the best you can.

PN2252

Also, at point 2 you indicate that promotion does not occur but employees are appointed to positions. Would you agree that in the normal course of employment, when somebody is appointed to a position, that the relevant descriptors in the applicable industrial instrument are taken into consideration and judgment as to whether that employee can perform those functions?---Well, I would imagine that we look at the best person for the job before we offer it to them.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2253

And see whether they can fulfil the task that are expected and what are described in the applicable instrument, which in this case is the enterprise agreement. Yes?
---Well, if we're looking at the old level 4s and level 3s, yes. As everyone is supposedly at the same level now, it would seem that it's the right person for the position.

PN2254

In relation to point 3, and this is a recurrent theme whereby Liviende suggest that, "All aspects of an employee's work is set down by procedures and that there's no scope to exercise initiative in applying the procedures." Do you agree with that?
---The procedures are set down and wherever possible we work to them. There is some adjustment that can be made but normally a phone call will be received by the coordinator to ask if that can happen.

PN2255

But the question is, can you exercise judgment, your own discretion and your initiative within the set procedures? There's no doubt that there is established detailed procedures but my question to you is that individual employees have some freedom to act with initiative and discretion when they're applying those procedures?---There is a certain amount of discretion I suppose. If one of your routines is to shower someone, whether you want to wash their hair first or wash their body first. The standard routines - and we have clients who have set routines for showering procedures, toiletry procedures because of continence issues, et cetera, or behavioural issues, for that matter. A lot of our clients will not tolerate anyone doing their process different. So if we have a client who likes to be showered in a certain way, if someone comes in and showers him a different way, we get a behaviour and that behaviour can be anything from loud screaming to storming out of the bathroom and running off down the street naked.

PN2256

And that's correct in terms of that sort of thing and if you shower somebody in the wrong way can that prompt what's called a challenging behaviour - - -?---Yes, it can.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2257

- - - to develop?---Yes.

PN2258

And what does the policy say in relation to how an RSO should deal with such a challenging behaviour?---Well, if the challenging behaviour happens, the first thing you need to do is try and diffuse the situation. It's behavioural management strategies that everybody is taught how to do.

PN2259

What sort of things are they? How would you diffuse the situation?---It may well be that the client only settles down when they have their favourite teddy bear.

PN2260

Okay?---So you have to know where the favourite teddy bear is and give it to the client. All of the - a lot of - not all, because we have the human factor. So all of our clients are changing all the time. They're getting older, they're developing new behaviours. We have a process in place where if we detect a new behaviour, we actually start recording it. We put a referral through to the Department of Health and Human Services to have a behaviour specialist or if it's an eating issue, a speech - sorry, a speech therapist, yes - I lost my word there for a second. So we have a process in place for actually getting the right help for our client to assist with issues.

PN2261

And who identifies those issues, at first instance?---The issues will firstly be identified through the house. The house will report to me and say, "David is running off down the street naked" - just for an example. "We've got a problem with that because it's upsetting the public and we need to do something about it."

PN2262

Can I just take you to attachment 16 of the respondent's paperwork. Our system has broken down because I've - - -

PN2263

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want me to lend Mr Tipper mine, would that be helpful?---I've got attachment 16.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2264

Have you?---That's because it's one I've already been given.

PN2265

He's had a long day.

PN2266

MR EDDINGTON: We had to recycle all our paperwork after each witness. Just in relation to the responding to emergency situations and challenging behaviours, could you turn to page 17 of that policy. Are you there?---I'm here.

PN2267

In relation to how a staff member should respond when they are threatened or somebody is attempting to injure them, there are three considerations there. There's crisis communication, evasion and restraint as all being options that a support worker could employ. Is that true? Is that correct?---No.

PN2268

So you don't - - -?---There are three things that can be done there. Liviende, formerly NRSG, has had a policy of nil restraint for the entire time that it's been operating. There is no restraint allowed.

PN2269

Here we've got competing policies, because this has been put in the respondent's documents as a policy upon which employees are required to abide by. So you're suggesting that that policy is incorrect?---No, I'm suggesting that that part of the policy we do not use because we do not believe that restraint is a suitable option.

PN2270

The policy says, "If the person is not restrained, he or she or someone else will be seriously injured." So that seems to be a fairly commonsense sort of policy. You're suggesting that even in a situation where somebody is going to be seriously injured, including the client themselves, that you cannot use restraint. Is that correct?---Actually there's a very, very good example of that. If say, for example, you were walking down the road with a client. If it was myself, I'm walking down the road with a particular gentleman that doesn't have any road sense. Now, if my client suddenly darts out into the middle of the road, what do I do? I'm asking you the question?

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2271

No, I'm the one that asks the questions.

PN2272

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?---I'm sorry, I'm not - sorry, Commissioner, but it's just rhetorical.

PN2273

It's a rhetorical question. You can answer it yourself?---Okay. To answer it myself, if my client darted out in the middle of the road I have two options which I can do. The first one is that I grab hold of the client; that's assault. That's also a restrictive practice. We can try to prevent the car from hitting the person but we have to make sure that we keep ourselves safe at the same time.

PN2274

MR EDDINGTON: That's one particular example, but in - - -?---But we will not grab the client and pull them off the road.

PN2275

But that's restraining though, isn't it?---Grabbing hold of someone to pull them off the road is restraint, yes.

PN2276

But you clearly have said that in all circumstances Liviende has a policy where you cannot restrain a client?---Yes, and I said that I would not grab hold of them to pull them off the road because that is restraint.

PN2277

So you're suggesting that if a client was about to run in front - - -

PN2278

MR CAMERON: I think the question has been asked and answered, Commissioner. I don't know that there's any doubt as to the answer.

PN2279

MR EDDINGTON: All right. I'm prepared to move on.

PN2280

THE COMMISSIONER: I thought Mr Tipper's answer was that grabbing hold of the client was not an option; trying to stop the car from hitting the client is something that he would try and do, except it wouldn't be sensible to put himself in the path of the car and get injured?---Yes. So - - -

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2281

So beyond that I don't know what Mr Tipper would do. So I agree with Mr Eddington, although I think the question has been answered.

PN2282

MR EDDINGTON: All right.

PN2283

THE COMMISSIONER: So in practical terms - - -?---Practical terms - - -

PN2284

- - - and given the example that you've just given, you're not going to grab the client?---No.

PN2285

And you may not stand between the client and the car, just in case you get hit?
---We would try to prevent the client from going that way by verbal prompts or trying to signal the driver that there's something going on here that they need to avoid, without getting ourselves injured or the client injured.

PN2286

Does that answer your question?

PN2287

MR EDDINGTON: Vaguely.

PN2288

THE COMMISSIONER: Really, is your question about - I think I got side-tracked in that (c) is not an option, even though it's written in the policy, as Mr Tipper is saying. So aren't you wanting to ask about (a) and (b)? I am moving you along here.

PN2289

MR EDDINGTON: Yes.

PN2290

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay? I'm being subtle about it.

PN2291

MR EDDINGTON: So we will move to - so restraint is not an option then. You say only crisis communication and evasion are options, regardless of the situation and the importance of the proximity I guess to somebody getting seriously injured?---Yes.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2292

And even though just for some reason due to a client experiences an extremely challenging behaviour, the health and safety of another client may be brought directly at risk if evasion and crisis communication are the only tools available?
---That is because we have a non-restraint policy.

PN2293

I put it to you that if you have two sets of policies assumingly that contradict each other, but that is not a suite of prescriptive policies that provide a very clear description of how an RSO is required to act in particular circumstances?---I didn't see that as actually being - what they're saying, the third bit at the end, which is restraint, which we don't do. We're still using the first two. We just choose not to have a restraint process in place.

PN2294

Okay?---There are occasions when a client will need certain equipment to stop a behaviour; for example, to prevent them from exiting a moving vehicle, some may have seatbelt guard so that they can't get themselves out and jump out of a moving vehicle. Normally that goes through the office of the senior practitioner to have approval for that.

PN2295

I will put to you that these are examples that - the situations where you use either crisis communication or evasion, I put to you that in the heat of the moment that these are examples of where a support worker has to use their initiative and use their discretion in deciding the best course of action. Is that correct?---Most of it would seem commonsense to me.

PN2296

Again, at your point 3 and you also mention at point 13, can I seemingly paraphrase or try and paraphrase what you're saying. Are you effectively saying that support workers have freedom to act but within established practices?---I would say that, yes.

PN2297
**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON

Are you also saying that problems can usually be solved by reference to procedures, documented methods and instructions, and that assistance is available when problems occur?---Yes.

PN2298

You're aware that those are descriptors at level 3 of the modern award?---They may well be.

PN2299

In regards to your point 4, I put it to you that both day support and coordinators both defer and seek the knowledge of experienced support workers regarding particular issues. Is that correct?---This is section 4?

PN2300

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this in paragraph 2 or is it paragraph 4?

PN2301

MR EDDINGTON: Paragraph 4 is, "I dispute the statement in relation to paragraph 15(b). The coordinators - - -"

PN2302

THE COMMISSIONER: (indistinct)

PN2303

MR EDDINGTON: Sorry. Are we right with that?

PN2304

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. My apologies.

PN2305

MR EDDINGTON: Sorry, yes.

PN2306

Sorry, do you want me to put it again?---Thank you, that would be nice.

PN2307

I put it to you that day support and coordinators both seek the knowledge and experience of support workers regarding particular issues that relate to clients. Is that correct?---We're talking about day support organisations. There are two types of day support. There is the - Liviende provide the day support for some of our clients and most of our other clients go to other organisations. They all have their policies and procedures on what they do. They will quite often contact whoever is in the house as a first point of contact to say that there's an issue. The person who's in the house will then contact the coordinator or, if it's Liviende day support, they will contact the program manager directly.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2308

So they will contact somebody in the house as their first port of call?---They will contact that - sometimes it's actually myself who gets a direct call.

PN2309

But you are aware of day support and RSOs being in communication about particular issues of - - -?---Yes, there's communication required as part of handover at drop off and pick up. If a client has had a bad morning, the staff member who is dropping them off will, as a matter of course, inform the day support person because there may be behaviours that escalate or that come out of having morning routine met. The same as in the afternoon, when the clients are picked up, the day support might have had an especially good day or an especially bad day and will actually let the staff member know that this happened. When the staff member gets back to the house, they will note it down and quite often make a phone call or shoot me an email.

PN2310

Also, on point 4, can I ask you that when two employees start a shift and if they are one that happens to be a more experienced employee and one may be less experienced, I put it to you that they will allocate tasks for a day and it's more likely that the employee with the RSO level 4 classification that will make a more thorough input into how those tasks will be allocated.

PN2311

MR CAMERON: Commissioner, again the terminology, as Mr Tipper said, they're all RSO 4s now, so the question doesn't make much sense.

PN2312

MR EDDINGTON: I will rephrase the question then.

PN2313

The employee that was formerly an RSO level 4 employee, they would more likely have an input into how the task would be allocated rather than say, for example, an employee that may only have a week or two's experience?---Yes, but that's a week or two experience.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2314

THE COMMISSIONER: That was the question?---Mm.

PN2315

MR EDDINGTON: At point 5 you indicate that you believe assistance is available from coordinators. Is that correct?---That is correct.

PN2316

I don't expect you - I'm not going to refer to it directly now but I will say to you that section B.3.1B of the award states in the classification descriptor those exact words, that assistance is available from more senior employees. So when you say that assistance is available from coordinators, that effectively is meeting that descriptor, isn't it?---That assistance is readily available, yes.

PN2317

Is assistance available or is assistance readily available?---Assistance is readily available.

PN2318

So if there is an incident in relation to how somebody is being showered and whether they're being showered correctly, that assistance is - coordinators are able to readily provide that assistance, are they?---I can receive a phone call straightaway from a staff member and if it's during - if I'm not on-call and it's any time during the week - sometimes on weekends - I can organise to get up there straightaway.

PN2319

But sometimes there's coordinators that can't get up there straightaway?---Yes, there is and sometimes we will issue instructions on what to do.

PN2320

It's a bit difficult in terms of a practical application though, in terms of how to shower somebody correctly. It's difficult to exactly relay those instructions. I would have thought it would be far easier if somebody was on hand to show somebody how to do that?---Yes, that would always be the case. If you had someone there 24 hours a day for a moment's notice to be there in case the teddy bear was needed, so to speak.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2321

So assistance is available but it's not readily available?---Well, I believe that calling up a coordinator and having them answer the phone in a few seconds, I'd say that's pretty readily available.

PN2322

It's not going to be effective assistance, is it?---I believe in a lot of cases, yes.

PN2323

I will just move on to point 6. You indicate that RSOs do not budget on behalf of clients. Is that correct?---That is correct.

PN2324

I will show you attachment 7 of the respondent's submissions. Under the heading Additional Tasks, which is down the bottom there, number 4 says, "Prepare clients' budgets and assist residents to manage their finances." These are the indicative tasks that have been provided by the respondent. Is that correct?
---These are outdated ones. There is a - - -

PN2325

But RSOs would still assist residents to manage their finances?---As far as the residents manage their - sorry, the RSOs or level 4s, or whatever you want to call them, to manage the finance, it is a ledger system that we have at the house which has money in/money out. The requirement is that if the resident needs their day support money or they want some spending money, that the staff member signs the money out, gives it to the resident, then the resident goes off and spends it. When the money comes back, any change that comes back into the house is documented and any receipts provided. That's as far as it goes with the RSO level 4s in-house.

PN2326

Just in relation to your point 7, you dispute, as you dispute just about everything in Mr Henry's statement, that he says that level 4 employees are prominent in establishing their goals and objectives for clients. He says that they're realigning them to higher classified staff for formalisation. You disagree with that?---Yes, I would disagree with it.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2327

So even though Mr Henry has the closest involvement with a particular client and therefore that would have some effect in terms of the goals and objectives for those clients - wouldn't he? He's got the most - - -?---Okay. The information for preparing a personal centred plans, which includes their goals, is a joint effort. It involves input from all staff in the house, not just one RSO or an RSA in the old terminology. It also includes other stakeholders such as day support agencies, persons responsible, family members, as well as day support workers. There are a whole heap of interested parties in assisting our clients to reach any of their goals.

PN2328

That's correct but you're not right in suggesting that Mr Henry is part of that team that - - -?---I'm not denying he's part of the team. He provides some information and assists when required.

PN2329

That's right but he's just helping to establish the goals and objectives, isn't he? Then you relay them to you as a coordinator and then you formalise those goals and objectives?---We take all of the suggestions, wishes from the resident, the family, all other interested parties as well as the staff, and we put them together and then we work out what goals are achievable and then a time line to do them.

PN2330

At point 9 you indicate that client functions such as birthday parties and family outings are approved by the coordinator, but I put it to you that the level 4 employees will have a significant role in planning and coordinating those functions?---No.

PN2331

They don't?---No, not a significant role. They will say that, "Said client has got a birthday coming up. The client has either expressed the wish or the family have expressed a wish or day support have expressed a wish of something that they believe the client might like." That will get run past me for approval and then I will say, "Okay. If we're going to do that we need to put together a activity plan for it," which we do. Any in-house activity plans I can approve. Any external ones need to go through the program manager for ratification. Then when the approval has been given, we organise to make the party happen. Now, as far as Mr Henry goes, I have asked him to phone up a pub and book a particular party room for 35 guests.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2332

So he's played a role in that?---Most of the staff has played a role. We've had another member who's gone out to buy him a birthday present. We've had another one who's done the invites and sent them out. We work as a team to get the job done.

PN2333

At point 10 you indicate that RSOs are no longer required to manage and plan their own work. Mr Henry simply makes the statement that the managing and planning of their own work is done in conjunction with the coordinator. Is this correct?---Managing and planning their own work in coordination with me, yes.

PN2334

Correct. So that - - -?---They will say, "I want to do this. Can I do it?" and I will say, "Yes" or "No".

PN2335

So he's actually correct in that statement then?---So long as it's been cleared first, yes.

PN2336

Point 12, in relation to exercising responsibility for a function within the organisation, I would suggest to you that disability support workers level 4 do exercise a responsibility for a function and that is in itself providing disability support work but also in relation to more specific functions such as administering medications. Is that correct?---Administering medications is for all staff who are medication endorsed. That is not dependent on whether they're level 3 or level 4. It's dependent on whether they have the qualification to say that they are allowed to assist with the administration of medication.

PN2337

At point 14 you say that the key worker position doesn't exist. Do you know when that was disbanded?---That's been disbanded for I think anywhere between 12 and 20 months. I couldn't give you an exact time.

PN2338
**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON

I put it to you that in the position descriptor that was provided when RSO or level 4 employees had their new position descriptions provided in June 2012, that the key worker position was described in that. Would that be correct?---It may well have been. I don't have the document in front of me.

PN2339

MR CAMERON: I don't think it was described; it was mentioned, and it was a "may be required".

PN2340

MR EDDINGTON: Also at point 14 I put to you that the classification descriptor - and that's at B.3.2D is uncontroversial because it says that, "To meet this description an employee has to assist in a range of functions." You would agree that that descriptor is met, wouldn't you?---I would say they assist in a range of functions, yes.

PN2341

At point 15Q, you - that's in relation to Mr Henry at point 15 - and then in relation to Mr Henry's 15Q, you dispute that Mr Henry's statement where he says that, "Staff are required to have knowledge of work practices and procedures." Do you agree that some staff may have better knowledge of work practices and procedures than others?---I do.

PN2342

And that those that have maybe sound knowledge of practices and procedures or thorough knowledge of practices and procedures, that once they've got that sound and thorough knowledge that it's very difficult to unwind that. That once you've got those things, you can't then just pare that back to just having knowledge. Is that correct?---Well, I would say that everyone gets knowledge in doing everyday things.

PN2343

But once you have a lot of knowledge, you can't then just wake up one day and not have that knowledge?---I'd probably argue that point, being as I had a TAA not so long ago and I found it difficult - some of the knowledge that I had had disappeared.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2344

So somebody that's been working with work practices for quite a long period of time you're suggesting that even though at a point of time they have got sound knowledge, that they could potentially lose that knowledge?---Well, there's medical reasons why people can, yes. But anybody working in a position might - I could say one good example would be - let's see - Mr Eddy, for a start, Mr Eddy was with the organisation a while ago and was at house manager level. He left the organisation to pursue his dreams and came back a few years later as a level 4 RSO, doing the long shift at the house.

PN2345

You're suggesting that he does not have sound knowledge?---No, I'm suggesting that he has a lot of knowledge that he no longer needs to use.

PN2346

THE COMMISSIONER: That wasn't the question, Mr Tipper. What was being put to you by Mr Eddington was that - and I think you answered it earlier - was that there might be a medical reason for why you may go from having thorough knowledge to one's knowledge not being quite so thorough. That was really the question. I mean, basically Mr Eddington was saying, "Well, you can't turn off half your brain. So you go from thorough knowledge to knowledge when you walk in the door every day." That's a fair assessment, I would have thought?
---Yes.

PN2347

Except for the medical issue that you - - -?---But - yes. And, Commissioner, we have some staff members who have recently become RSOs under the new award who have been with the organisation and sometimes in the same houses for 15, 16 years. Some of them have level 4. Some of them are even diploma level but they're working in that position.

PN2348

That's not the point. The point is about the knowledge?---Yes.

PN2349
**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON

You've got two minutes, Mr Eddington.

PN2350

MR EDDINGTON: Yes, thank you. I've just one final question.

PN2351

Point 17, this is again another point which you dispute Mr Henry's statement. Mr Henry at paragraph 15S says, "I operate as a member of a team." Then you say, "We all work as part of a team." Where is the dispute there?---I believe we have a team. Everyone in the house works together as a team and the coordinator is the head of the team.

PN2352

That's correct and my point is that even where there is no dispute between you, you're still saying that you're disputing?---May I have a look at the one - let me just double-check my answer and get - - -

PN2353

Yes?---Because I don't have the actual - - -

PN2354

I think yours is at point 17 and Mr Henry is at point 15S. So I have to get Mr Henry's.

PN2355

THE COMMISSIONER: It's the last page, Mr Eddington. Do you want me to give mine to - - -

PN2356

MR EDDINGTON: It might be quicker, yes.

PN2357

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?---Thank you. According to the dispute that I raised, it was that Mr Henry supervises the team.

PN2358

MR EDDINGTON: But his general statement that, "I operate as a member of a team," you'd agree with that?---I'd agree that he works as a member of a team, yes.

**** MARK TIPPER XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2359

Thank you. No further questions.

PN2360

THE COMMISSIONER: Any re-examination, Mr Cameron?

PN2361

MR CAMERON: Mine is 15 seconds. Nothing further, thank you.

PN2362

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN2363

Mr Tipper, thank you for your evidence. You are released?---Thank you.

PN2364

You may go.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.33PM]

PN2365

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Commissioner. We call Tanya Petrie.

PN2366

THE COMMISSIONER: Is Ms Petrie okay?

PN2367

MR CAMERON: I understand so, yes.

PN2368

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you.

<TANYA PETRIE, SWORN [2.34PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON [2.34PM]

PN2369

MR CAMERON: Ms Petrie, if I could show you this document?---Yes.

PN2370

Do you recognise that document?---Yes.

PN2371

Is that your signature at the end of that document?---Yes.

PN2372
**** TANYA PETRIE XN MR CAMERON

And your initials on the bottom of each page?---Yes.

PN2373

Is that the evidence that you'd be prepared to give under oath in the commission here today?---Sorry?

PN2374

Is that the evidence you'd be prepared - - -?---Yes.

PN2375

- - - to give under oath at the commission? Yes?---Yes.

PN2376

Have you got a copy of that statement with you?---Yes.

PN2377

Commissioner, that's the signed statement that we can hand up as attachment 6.

PN2378

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN2379

MR EDDINGTON: Ms Petrie, can you advise the commission what your current occupation and role is?---Program manager with Liviende.

PN2380

What does that role entail?---I'm responsible for the day-to-day operational management of the service.

PN2381

And that includes?---It's - - -

PN2382

We've been doing obviously with the homes. It is other areas that you have responsibility for?---Yes, we have the group homes, we have the day support service and we have a community support service. My responsibility is for the overall management of those services. I have direct supervision and responsibility for the day support service. It's anything to do with clients. I have a management team with coordinators as well that assist with that.

PN2383
**** TANYA PETRIE XN MR CAMERON

In relation to the group homes, what involvement do you have with the group homes and the staff employed within the group homes?---It's more responsibility to make sure that the things that are required to be done under the PD and under the policies and procedures of the organisation are being done; that the care for the clients is being done in the highest manner; and that their safety is assured and they're given the quality of life that is the reason that we exist as an organisation that we're funded to do. If that makes any sense.

PN2384

And your association with the residents? Do you have much to do with the residents or - - -?---My role? Me? Yes, I have. Not as much as the coordinators but I do know about the residents. I have met all the residents. I have semi-regular contact with our residents and involved where there is - involved more individually where there's issues that occurring with a resident that may be health or behavioural advice.

PN2385

Nothing further at this stage. Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON [2.38PM]

PN2386

MR EDDINGTON: Thank you, Ms Petrie. Is it Ms or Mrs?---Ms. Tanya is actually fine, if that's easier.

PN2387

At point 3 you indicate that (indistinct) submissions is excluding all the support positions within Liviende and only focusing on RSOs." Do you understand that throughout the course of this whole dispute that this dispute has not been about how level 3 employees translate to the modern award?---I understand the actual case, yes. I don't agree that - what I've written there is that I don't like the division that's occurred in the submission. That's exactly - I've written there what I feel.

PN2388

We can't be making submissions on things that we're not in dispute about or it would be irrelevant to be making submissions in relation to that, wouldn't it?---If you say so, I guess, yes.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2389

It's not a - - -

PN2390

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Eddington is talking about a process procedural thing?---I do understand that, yes. I just find that division between - we don't have RSAs any more and the submission is talking around the RSAs/RSOs, hence the reason I put the comment in.

PN2391

So it's more that RSA/RSO type issue?---Yes, and throughout the witness statements that I've actually responded to it's still referring to people who are level 3 and subordinate to others. We don't have subordinates; we have everyone employed at the level 2 SCHADS. That's in the residential support officer position.

PN2392

MR EDDINGTON: We've struck some difficulty throughout - and again, you haven't been present in relation to a lot of the previous evidence that's been provided but there is an issue in relation to it seems as though that management at Liviende has informed people such as yourself that, "The classification descriptors and your agreement in the actual existing enterprise agreement classification descriptors no longer apply, or don't exist, or aren't pertinent at all to your employment." Is that what your understanding - is that what management has effectively informed you. I am management. I am part of management. I'm part of senior management and, no. I don't totally understand what you're saying, that management have informed me of that. Would you like to repeat that again so I can - - -

PN2393

I'm just - - -

PN2394

THE COMMISSIONER: How about the impression I've had from senior members of the organisation is that there is a view that it's almost as if the agreement, the multiple employer agreement no longer exists in terms of the RSOs because I keep on being told, the commission keeps on being told, that all that's relevant is the SCHADS Award, the modern award, and it's as if, from my perspective, Ms Petrie, that the agreement ceases to exist. Is that a correct perception or am I misunderstanding things?---My understanding with my involvement was that's not how I understood, so thank you for clarifying that. My understanding from my involvement is that the payment and the classification comes under the modern award or the SCHADS Award but that we still have the conditions under the MEA. That was my understanding but I haven't been - although I'm part of senior management, I haven't been too closely involved. I've been - does that answer that?

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2395

Thank you. It does.

PN2396

MR EDDINGTON: Just related to that point, you've indicated at point 5 this reprofiling of staff and you say it's for equity?---Yes.

PN2397

Does that mean that they were upgraded to fulfil the tasks and duties expected of a level 4 employee under the agreement?---They were recognised for that, yes, because all of them were basically working that and we've had the people that were previously employed at the RSA level, they were saying that they were doing the same work as people that were RSOs.

PN2398

So you've looked at what they do and say, "Right. We now want you to do what is expected of level 4 employees under the agreement"?---To recognise that they were working the same.

PN2399

So level 4 employees do things like exercise initiative?---No.

PN2400

You didn't reprofile them to do those tasks at all.

PN2401

MR CAMERON: Excuse me. I think, Ms Petrie, saying that the tasks and the duties being performed were the same?---Yes.

PN2402

I don't think she was looking at anything other than the duties in that part of the witness statement?---The only thing that was different between the RSA and the RSO PD was that the RSO PD had the function of a key worker and the function of being involved in the personal plans; everything else was the same.

PN2403

That's not strictly true, is it, because clearly the PDs differed in that the RSOs provided supervision to the RSAs?---Mm.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2404

I put it to you that that's what the PDs did say. You're saying that that's wrong?
---I'm saying that I don't agree that that's what's been happening and I haven't got the PD in front of me.

PN2405

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but it's just you started off by saying, "The difference in the PDs was"?---The key worker role for the - the RSA didn't have a key worker role or the role involved in personal planning. In reality they were doing that.

PN2406

But in terms of the evidence that's before me, the old PD for the level 4 had a clear supervisory role, to provide supervision of any residential supporter assistants on shift, and the level 3 didn't have that?---I didn't recall that.

PN2407

Paragraph 9 or point 9 of your statement, you say at the end of the page, "I am firmly of the view that following induction and the buddy shifts, a new employee can undertake the duties required of an RSO." Can I just put to you generally how many positions you have filled in your career?---I've been in the disability sector for 28 years. I can't give a number on that. During that time I've employed a number of people. I can't give you a number.

PN2408

Can I put to you that when you started in the disability services industry, can I ask you as to whether you felt as effective and as competent and able to act with the same degree of responsibility after one week in that role than say after three or five years in that role?---That wasn't the point I was making there but - and I will clarify that if that's okay in a moment but I will answer your question. It depends on - you're talking about me personally? I don't know that that's the best way to ask, but anyway. People come into the sector with knowledge, skills, values and attitudes already existing. It depends on those as to how well you can develop into the role. We hope that our interview process covers that off and that we have the best people for our clients. In terms of being in the role for - did you say one week or five years?

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2409

Sorry, after one week, are you generally speaking - and I will use you as an example but I could easily use myself or anyone else in this room - that after one week in a role, are you able to act with the same confidence and degree of responsibility than say after say three years?---People differ. I don't believe I can answer that. Since I'm needing to talk honestly, people do differ in their roles and experience.

PN2410

THE COMMISSIONER: That's correct, people do differ in terms of their experience but the question that was being asked was whether there would be a difference between specifically somebody who's had a week employment with somebody who's had three years' employment in the same house?---In my experience, we've had some people that have been in the sector and that - although my comment there appears ambiguous when others read it, the intent was that - we've had people that have been in the service or sector over my career for about five, 10, 15 years and we can have some new employees that will come into the service. They will be full of confidence - whether that's effective or not - full of confidence, full of enthusiasm and full of ambition in terms of providing the best for our clients, and the person that's been there for five or 10 or 20 years may have not kept up to date with the skills that - or the benefits - generally I could say, yes, a person with five years' experience would have more knowledge and have more confidence. That's a generalisation. I'm not - - -

PN2411

MR EDDINGTON: I'm relating it to disability support work?---I'm relating it to that as well; that's the only thing I know.

PN2412

I could use my own example but it probably wouldn't be a good one. Some people might say, "You're no better now than what you were after a week," but - - -?---That's why I find it difficult to - - -

PN2413
**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON

MR CAMERON: That's on the record. I will send it to your employer.

PN2414

THE COMMISSIONER: You're all heart, Mr Cameron.

PN2415

MR EDDINGTON: Look, I will move on.

PN2416

Just in relation to, I think it's point 7. I seem to have a problem with a typo there. In relation to it, you've taken the position that no supervision is required because all employees are equal?---Yes.

PN2417

So an employee that may have just finished their buddy shift training, you're saying is equal to a more experienced employee. Is that correct?---They don't require supervision from another RSA, yes.

PN2418

No, they're all on the same level?---Yes.

PN2419

If that experienced employee observes that the new employee may be doing something wrong or suggests ways that they are capable of improving what they are doing and perhaps showing them - it may be an example of showering a client in a particular way - you're suggesting that that function is not supervisory at all?
---No, I'm not. I am suggesting it's not supervisory.

PN2420

Isn't it appropriate though that somebody be on shift or available in a hands-on capacity to show new employees how things are done?---Yes.

PN2421

And if they observe them doing something wrong, explain to them and ask them and suggest to them ways of how to improve what they're doing?---Yes.

PN2422

That's a form of supervision then, isn't it?---No, not in my understanding of supervision. Supervision, again in my experience, is not what you've just described and it's not training either. It's a familiarisation, it's becoming known to the client and to what's required. We've had new staff who have found difficulty with the way that - I'm not referring to them as experienced but people that have been there for a long time. They're saying that there's different ways that things could be done and better ways that things could be done and more respectful at times. Now, I'm not saying that's everybody, but it does happen. People that are new aren't always the ones that are the ones that - you're saying are lacking the experience and they make lack experience of time in the service but I don't agree that it's supervision.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2423

Just in relation to again your point - I'm probably jumping all over the place here - your point 3. You indicate that Mr Henry and Mr Eddy have been appointed to level 4?---Point 3?

PN2424

Point 3 and I've got point 25 you touch on the appointment of John Henry?---Yes.

PN2425

At point 25 you indicate that John Henry and Chris Eddy were not promoted to the position of RSO?---No.

PN2426

So they're not promoted but they've been appointed to that position?---Yes, they're not promoted.

PN2427

But you agree though at the time of their appointment that Liviende has made a considered and a reasoned judgment that they were expected to perform the duties and the tasks that are described at level 4?---Yes.

PN2428

That's correct, is it?---Not just Mr Henry and Mr Eddy but all employees that we've appointed, yes.

PN2429

All RSOs, all - - -?---All people that were appointed, yes - all RSOs.

PN2430

So that's the old level 3s and the level 4s are all now expected to perform the tasks and the duties in the enterprise agreement classification descriptor at level 4?
---Yes.

PN2431

At point 9 of your statement you mention climate, plans?---Yes.

PN2432

I put it to you that support staff do contribute to the drafting of a personal support plan?---Sorry, can you say that again.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2433

That support staff do contribute to the drafting of a personal support plan. Is that correct?---Where are you with this?

PN2434

We'll go to point 9 of your statement?---Yes, point 9.

PN2435

So the points are quite long?---Can you point me to the exact sentence you're at.

PN2436

MR CAMERON: Two-thirds of the way down.

PN2437

MR EDDINGTON: "Liviende engaged project officers to develop personal support plans - - -"?---Yes, I've got that.

PN2438

"- - - and goals. Personal support plans are not contemporary documents or current language used in the sector"?---Yes.

PN2439

Is it your position that RSO employees do contribute then to the drafting of the personal support plan?---Yes, along with a whole team of people.

PN2440

That's right, but they do contribute?---Yes, they contribute. They don't develop and implement. They're part of that team.

PN2441

At point 9 you're again critical of Mr Eddy's statement and you suggest that experience is a determinant in a lot of respects but can also be detrimental. I think that Mr Eddy in his statement is suggesting that some staff accurately fulfil some of the classification descriptors at level 3 rather than classification descriptors at level 2 in the modern award. In that respect, can I put to you that RSO staff work under general direction. Is that correct?---General direction compared to?

PN2442

The question I'm just asking you is, do they work under general direction?---RSOs work within a framework of the policies and procedures that we have in place. They report to their coordinators and there's a general - well, actually it depends on what "general direction" is. They do have quite a solid framework.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2443

That's all right, but there's got to be somebody - and I'm suggesting it's probably coordinators - that are actually providing them direction in terms of what they're doing and how they're going about their tasks. Is that correct?---Not necessarily. It's the framework that they work under. In terms of the supervision, they're under the supervision of a coordinator but the direction does come from the coordinators, the management, the framework that we have in place in terms of policies and procedures and the everyday tasks.

PN2444

That's right. So in combination with the polices and procedures, then the direction is coming from coordinators to the RSOs?---That's what I've said. I believe that's what I've said.

PN2445

I put it to you that level 4 employees are capable of solving problems of limited difficulty using knowledge, judgment and work organisational skills acquired through qualifications and/or previous work experience. Do you agree with that?
---Yes. Very limited, but yes.

PN2446

I put it to you that the level 4 employees do have assistance that is available from senior employees. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN2447

But they don't have assistance that is readily available?---I disagree.

PN2448

So if there is an issue in relation to something that happens on shift, and in particular say - and we keep going back to the example of how a particular person is being showered at the time - that assistance is readily available in terms of being able to provide some assistance, is it?---I don't believe that a coordinator would need to go in there and readily assist a staff member who has been shown how to do that as part of their experience to shower. It is part of the - most of our clients have plans in place. They have a number of plans. If a client needs to have assistance in the shower, and that's physical assistance, then the staff member would be doing that. I don't understand - and I'm sorry if I don't understand - is that you would suggest that a coordinator would need to be readily available to assist a client or a staff member to shower someone. I'm just not getting what you're saying.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2449

I'm suggesting that coordinators, because they are removed from the group home and they're essentially operating on a phone call system, if there is an issue or something, they get a call. I'm suggesting that that is not being readily available?
---I again don't agree with you. I think that - and taking away from your example with the shower, a coordinator or myself can be available within however long it takes to get there if there is something that's critical that's required, but in terms of the day-to-day responsibilities of an RSO, of any employee, there are certain things that need to be done that they should be able to do.

PN2450

I will move on?---But as a coordinator - sorry, a coordinator would be available if necessary if somebody really was struggling. We're not just available on the phone.

PN2451

But not all coordinators are based in the same city, are they? There's a coordinator - - -?---The coordinator that's allocated to the houses is based in the same city. Can you clarify?

PN2452

From what I understand, and I may have misinterpreted previous evidence, from what I understand is that one of the coordinators is based in Hobart. Is that - - -?
---And the coordinator is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Hobart sites. We have residential support in Hobart and she's responsible for there. There are three coordinators in Launceston that are responsible for the sites. After-hours we have an on-call system which you're aware from - - -

PN2453

That's right. But she could actually be the on-call person, though, for - - -?---But that's different to saying that the coordinator - and again, with all due respect, I may not be really getting what you're saying but the coordinator as such is responsible for two to three houses. The coordinator - - -

PN2454
**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON

THE COMMISSIONER: I think Mr Eddington was referring to the on-call coordinator. So after the 9.00 to 5.00?---Yes.

PN2455

Then his question was that there's not going to be readily available assistance?
---The assistance from on-call is available via the phone, and again I apologise. I didn't realise you were talking about on-call, but the on-call coordinator can be anyone. I can be on the on-call roster and for the people that are in Hobart, they may have an on-call coordinator that's in Launceston, and often do because we have four people that are rostered on-call in Launceston and one in Hobart.

PN2456

MR EDDINGTON: That's the point, isn't it; it's because they're rostered in different cities, then they can't be readily available. They certainly can't come to the house, as you suggested earlier?---It doesn't have to be the on-call coordinator that goes to the house. What happens is that there's an on-call number after-hours and for weekend and there's a roster developed so that the same person is not doing it all the time and when an issue occurs or a shift needs to be filled or a major issue occurs, the staff member rostered in the house is to call that number. They don't necessarily know who's rostered on because it's the one number. So they get whoever they get and then if the coordinator happens to be in Hobart - and there's a lot of focus on our southern coordinator but as I said, the people in Hobart tend to get people in Launceston. They deal with the issue that's being presented. If there's an issue that the southern coordinator has that's coming through the on-call phone, they will then call me. If they can't get me and there's an issue in Launceston that requires attendance, they then go to our CEO or they call one of the other coordinators out of hours to go. There has not been - I shouldn't say any occasion because you will probably remind me of one, but there's been very, very few occasions where if attendance is required, that it hasn't been attended to. There's a better way of saying that. That nobody would be available - there's a difference between readily and the availability. When we had a serious - - -

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2457

THE COMMISSIONER: That's what Mr Eddington was asking.

PN2458

MR EDDINGTON: I think that that's my point and I think you've answered it, that there is this reasonably complex system of calling people; that if somebody is not available, we call the on-call system and then if they're not available, then you will go or you will call - and it then goes all the way up to the CEO. The question I ask, in my mind that doesn't actually constitute assistance that's readily available?---I don't agree. Again, I don't agree. I don't believe it's a complex - - -

PN2459

THE COMMISSIONER: Keep going.

PN2460

MR EDDINGTON: That's fine. Thank you. Just in relation to - would you agree that level 4 employees have a thorough knowledge of work activities?---Not all of them, no, but generally, yes.

PN2461

So when they've been appointed to that position, ordinarily you would go through an assessment of them at the time of appointment?---Yes.

PN2462

Would it be of some concern if they didn't have a thorough knowledge of work activities?---Yes, I suppose - no, I don't suppose. I was referring to, in my mind, the fact that sometimes we have - and sadly we have some staff that have been there for a long time that have become complacent and that forms whole different things that some work activities are missed but - I don't know that I've answered your question.

PN2463

That's all right. Can I just move on?---Yes.

PN2464

In terms of knowledge of statutory requirements, do RSOs have a working knowledge of statutory requirements or are they just developing that knowledge?
---They're developing it. I wouldn't say that they have a working knowledge.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2465

Do you consider - - -?---They would have - sorry.

PN2466

I mean, the statutory requirements in relation to the Disability Act and the various occupational health and safety - certainly in the disability field are fairly important, aren't they?---Yes.

PN2467

Would it be concerning that all your staff are only developing that knowledge and that none of them have actually that knowledge?---There's varying degrees and we'd have to access each of them to know if they have that. Our policies, procedures and our framework and practices encompass the legislation that's there, so it's not critical for an RSO to have a thorough working knowledge of the Disability Services Act that's just been brought in. We have done some workshops with people when the new Act, the State Act, came in to familiarise people with that. But mainly the new employees are the ones that come in with that because they've just completed their cert IV and they've done that.

PN2468

Can I ask you just in relation to point 10 of your statement, are employees with just one week's worth of experience, are they rostered on long shifts?
---Sometimes. One week of experience in Liviende or one week of experience in the whole sector?

PN2469

One week of experience in the whole sector; it might be their first job?---No.

PN2470

Doesn't this suggest that in relation to those particular employees that you don't have confidence in them to work at the same level of authority as the more experienced employees?---No. It's not as simple as no, but in terms of confidence it is about learning. If the person is very new to the sector, they need to learn. But if we've got people new to Liviende, as new employees, it depends on - sometimes we have got people onto the long shift - the long shift, the short shift - it's not about that.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2471

Yes or no, sometimes you do put them on the long shift?---Yes.

PN2472

You earlier said, no, you don't put them on the long shift. Which one is it?---It's, yes, I sometimes have put new employees onto the long shift but generally not. So as I said, I can't answer a straight "Yes" or "No" to that one, but if you'd like to ask that - - -

PN2473

Ms Gould earlier gave evidence that suggested, no, that they're not put on the long shift. So she's not correct?---I wasn't here for her evidence but there have been occasions that I have rostered people on but it is rare, which is what I've said to you.

PN2474

So you're not comfortable doing it?---Not comfortable putting a person who's very, very new to the sector after one week - you're referring to one week?

PN2475

That's right?---Yes. No.

PN2476

But you were suggesting earlier that all employees are equal?---They are.

PN2477

So shouldn't you have just as equal confidence in rostering them on the long shift? Shouldn't they, just in equal numbers, be rostered on the long shift?---There are some people working on long shifts that I don't have confidence in, but that's a whole other matter in terms of - at times.

PN2478

I will move on. At point 10 you say that the policy in regards to medical emergencies is to call an ambulance if it is warranted?---Yes.

PN2479

And then to call after-hours to advise and inform. Was that the entirety of the policy?---No.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2480

In relation to medical emergencies, is there anything else anyone would do?
---Now you're reading point 10. If there's a medical emergency, it's far more important that the client's needs are taken care of immediately than ringing the on-call to ask for advice. Is that what you're asking?

PN2481

That's right, yes?---Yes.

PN2482

So you've left that bit out of statement though and, "by attending to the client's needs", do you mean that you would actually or an RSO would actually administer emergency first aid if the situation required it?---I haven't got Mr Eddy's statement in front of me to refer to but I think, if I can recall, that a medical emergency can happen at any point of the day or night, regardless of the number of staff available. Is that what you're referring to?

PN2483

He may well have - I suspect that's probably what he said but - - -?---Mr Eddy was saying that, if I recall - again, I haven't got his statement in front of me - but that the more experienced staff - all staff are inducted - again, it's my recollection because I don't have his statement in front of me - but the people on the long shift are the ones that are experienced. All staff induction - in terms of calling an ambulance if a client has a medical issue, you take immediate action and most of that - at induction we advise people that if ever in doubt, they call an ambulance. They're the experts, not us.

PN2484

That's right. But before you call the ambulance though, they would make a decision as to whether they have to or could administer emergency first aid. Is that correct?---Yes, because they're all first aid trained, so they should. But again, in Mr Eddy's statement he referred to a client - if I recall again - a client having a seizure through the night when people aren't available and there's no emergency medication or first aid that would be given, apart from I mean the medication he was referring to.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2485

You indicated that you thought Mr Eddy - he's made the wrong decision there. Is that - - -?---If he's administering medication to a person who's had a seizure in the middle of the night, whilst they're having a seizure, yes, I have - I do think that that's the wrong decision but I don't recall that occurring in my time. So I don't know - - -

PN2486

Just in relation to medical emergencies generally, I put it to you that the decision as to whether to deliver first aid, call an ambulance, when to call a coordinator, these are all problems that need to be solved using the discretion and the experience of the employee that's actually on shift. Is that correct?---Not entirely, no. If a client - what I have said and I just said it before, is that if a client - if ever in doubt, they're to call an ambulance. The worst thing that can happen is - and that's what we tell people at induction - the worst thing that can happen is the ambulance service then refer to me and say, "Look, this was an issue," but they never have and I don't believe in my time they ever will.

PN2487

But they may have to use their initiative in deciding prior to that as to whether to deliver first aid and then call the ambulance?---Which is why they're first aid trained but if first aid needs to be administered for something that's - what my understanding of a medical emergency is may be different to yours. But a medical emergency would require the calling of an ambulance and the expertise of people other than us who are not medically trained.

PN2488

Thank you. I will just move on. Point 4, "Developing and implementing family visits - - -"?---Can you tell me where you are, please.

PN2489

I'm going to point 12 of your statement?---12. Thank you.

PN2490

You do speak about developing and implementing family visits?---Yes.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2491

I put it to you that an RSO will use their initiative in first determining and then advising as to when and how a client may benefit from family visits. Is that correct?---No.

PN2492

So a coordinator who has the most contact with a particular client and may be able to glean, because of that the sheer amount of contact with them, when a family visit is appropriate, that they have no role in advising the coordinator or anyone else as to the appropriateness of a family visit?---I don't see that as initiative.

PN2493

No, I'm just asking the question, is that something that they do? Do they have that role? Do they have any - - -?---There were a number of other people but it's minimal. Mainly the families initiate that contact or the client make - as I've said there, the client may initiate that contact. It isn't just down to the RSO.

PN2494

Just also in relation to point 12. Do you admit that - - -?---Point 12 now?

PN2495

Point 12?---Yes.

PN2496

You admit that level 4 employees identify behavioural issues or health issues. Is that correct?---They may exercise level (indistinct) initiative by identifying that a client may have behavioural or health issues.

PN2497

So they - - -?---But they refer to their coordinator, yes.

PN2498

You admit that in identifying that they are exercising initiative?---I may a different understanding to initiative to you but it's part of the role to be working with the client for eight hours or four hours or whatever the shift requires. So there are going to be behavioural issues identified and there is a process and a framework that people need to report.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2499

In relation to point 13, your comment in relation to again Mr Eddy's statement. Mr Eddy has made the point that level 4 employees work with higher classified staff in order to establish goals and objectives and outcomes for their own work program?---Yes.

PN2500

Do you agree with that?---Do I agree with what I've written? Yes.

PN2501

Do you agree with the comment that I've just stated?---Can you state that again, please.

PN2502

That level 4 employees work with higher classified staff to establish goals and objectives and outcomes for their own work program?---They should do.

PN2503

Again, point 14, "Mr Eddy quotes from his current PD at EB-G" - which is the PD EB-G of our evidence - "which was only developed a year and a half ago." Are you suggesting that this PD is wrong and that RSOs don't have any role in evaluating personal plans for residents?---I'm not saying that PDs were wrong, I'm saying the practice is wrong that - not wrong - I'm saying that that hasn't been the practice, that the RSOs don't currently evaluate the personal plans but they will be involved and they have been involved in the development of it, along with a number of other people. It isn't their primary role.

PN2504

So you're suggesting that even though we've got these new PDs that come in in July 2012, that they don't actually - even though it's described in the PD that they do evaluate personal plans for residents, that that was wrong?---Part of that. I'm saying it's not in practice. I'm not saying the PD is wrong, I'm saying it's not part of the practice of RSOs and Mr Eddy - we're identifying one person and I'm not sure that that's what you're doing but Mr Eddy has said that he's done that and that's not the case.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2505

It's provided to all level 4 support workers, the new PD?---Yes, I'm aware of that.

PN2506

They do have a role in evaluating personal plans in that PD. You're suggesting now that that's correct or incorrect?---Then you've misunderstood. They currently aren't a part of the - Mr Eddy has referred to person - I can't remember again because I haven't got his statement in - but everybody has a role in evaluating the personal centred plan and the PD states that they're a part of that, so yes, but it's not in practice occurring and Mr Eddy hasn't been a part of that initiative.

PN2507

You just said that they do have - do they have a role in evaluating the personal care plans?---I believe I've answered that but - - -

PN2508

THE COMMISSIONER: I thought her answer was, "No, they're not"?---They're not currently practising that. I have said that a few times.

PN2509

They do not do that, despite the fact it's in the PD.

PN2510

MR EDDINGTON: Okay.

PN2511

Can I ask you then, how do you properly evaluate a personal care plan if you have no involvement or if the person that has the most involvement in terms of caring for that resident, if they have no say or input into that evaluation of that person care plan? How does the coordinator find out whether it's working?---Can I just clarify because you've changed the language from the personal centred plan, which is different to the care plan of a client, and the care plan involves that. So just so I'm answering you honestly, which one are you referring to: the personal centred plan that is the holistic look at the goals of the client or the care plan which is looking at their daily health and care?

PN2512
**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON

Both?---The care plans are usually developed in consultation with allied health professionals. The RSOs would have a part of that of course because they're a part of the - they don't show initiative or they don't develop them as such. The personal centred plans are looking at the life - we've developed life plans to project officers that have worked on those to develop those and the goals that are developed in there are in consultation with the families, the client if they're able to speak. The RSOs are a part of that. Again, I'm not really clear that I've answered your question but I'm not clear on where you're going.

PN2513

I'm just suggesting that in terms of the evaluation as to - presumably with the evaluation it's a look to see whether it's working or how it's going and whether it needs to be changed. So to me, the person that's primarily in charge of caring for that person would be a very important point of call in helping evaluate whether it's working or not?---There's not just one person, there's a number of persons in a team. So there's five RSOs that would be involved in a typical household. There would be the client service coordinator who's coordinating those. There is the current residential coordinator who would be involved, and myself and anyone else that's required to be involved in the evaluation of that. What I've said earlier is that effectively that hasn't happened in practice, for the RSO to be evaluating and - - -

PN2514

So you work as a team but in practice the RSO is just not part of the team in the evaluation. Is that what you're saying?---No, it's not. We don't sit down and evaluate in isolation.

PN2515

At point 15 you make some comments regarding clients' record management. Do you agree that RSOs do make comments in communications books and they assist in the records relating to clients?---Yes. Well, they make comments. They need to record what's happened to a client on their shift, yes.

PN2516
**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON

At point 16 you dispute that RSOs schedule work programs in unison with their coordinator. Do you agree with that? Do you still dispute that RSOs schedule work programs in unison with their coordinator?---Do I - I've written here that there was no evidence provided of any work programs that the witnesses have developed with their coordinators, so it's quite ambiguous.

PN2517

Regardless of whether evidence has - - -?---As your question - - -

PN2518

- - - been provided, when scheduling work programs, do the RSOs work with their coordinator regarding the work programs that are being scheduled?---All staff, and that's all RSOs, they would be following what's required within the house. I'm not really again clear on what you're saying, so I'm sorry.

PN2519

I don't know if - - -?---If you'd like to clarify further.

PN2520

I don't know if I can clarify it any more than you've indicated that you dispute that RSOs schedule work programs in unison with their coordinator. As part of a team, do coordinators and RSOs work together to schedule their work programs, yes or no?---I haven't said in unison. That's where I think you're reading something different to what I am, if we're at number 16.

PN2521

THE COMMISSIONER: How about you answer the question?---There's - do they do it in unison with their coordinator, develop work programs? That's the question?

PN2522

MR EDDINGTON: No, I'll rephrase the question?---Sorry. Thank you.

PN2523

In the scheduling of the work programs, do the RSO and the coordinator work as a team?---It's usually under the instruction of the coordinator. There isn't a choice in terms of the scheduling of it. So if it's working as a team, the answer is no, if it's under the instruction of a coordinator, yes.

**** TANYA PETRIE XXN MR EDDINGTON
PN2524

If I can just take you to point 20 and 21?---Yes.

PN2525

I put to you that in an emergency situation that the coordinator is largely in the hands of a support worker to a significant degree, aren't they, in terms of - - -?
---For the information to be translated, yes.

PN2526

That's right. And they can't really make a decision one way or another without being given - without the support worker giving their opinion?---Yes, what's happening on site.

PN2527

No further questions. Thank you.

PN2528

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all?

PN2529

MR EDDINGTON: Yes.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [3.27PM]

PN2530

MR CAMERON: There's just one thing that I took a note of here, the reference to the position descriptions Mr Eddy referred to that were prepared in June 2012 and things that do and do not happen with them. Is it your understanding position descriptions are constantly evolving or - - -?---Yes.

PN2531

They're not static?---No, they can't be.

PN2532

Nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN2533

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Cameron.

PN2534

Ms Petrie, thank you for your evidence, and particularly so in the circumstances. So thank you very much, it's greatly appreciated on behalf of everybody here?
---Thank you.

**** TANYA PETRIE RXN MR CAMERON
PN2535

You are released. You may step down.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.28PM]

PN2536

MR CAMERON: Thank you, Commissioner. I would suggest that the time being as it is that obviously there won't be time for closing submissions. I suggest that we set a time frame for written submissions to be placed - obviously not too far out, considering the length of time this matter has taken - that the applicant put their closing submissions and we have a time frame after that to respond and then await the judgment or decision of the commission. In terms of that time frame, I'm at Mr Eddington's suggestion as to what time frame he may need at this point to put written submissions in.

PN2537

THE COMMISSIONER: In deciding that, you might need to take into account both of you when transcript will be available because if we are in a situation where it is written submissions, it would be fair that both of you have access to the transcript before the clock starts, if you know what I mean.

PN2538

MR EDDINGTON: That's okay. I'm not familiar, Commissioner, as to how long the transcript actually does take to become available.

PN2539

THE COMMISSIONER: Three days, so Monday.

PN2540

MR EDDINGTON: Monday?

PN2541

THE COMMISSIONER: Monday.

PN2542

MR EDDINGTON: Yes, that's fine. Can I just say that I would ask that we both provide our closing submissions contemporaneously. We'd be in a situation whereby we would be, if time permitted now, both be making our closing submissions. I think that that would be more appropriate.

PN2543

MR CAMERON: With respect, I'd still be going second and could therefore respond to anything Mr Eddington puts in his closing submissions.

PN2544

MR EDDINGTON: But he would not be able to, over a period of time, dwell and dissect those closing submissions. I'm familiar with - Mr Cameron's work is quite often made in rebuttal of what is put before him earlier on rather than work that is relating to exactly what's happened in the proceedings before, and that's what concerns me. It's simply a free kick in terms of having a lengthy period of time to consider what I'm putting and then prepare a considered rebuttal.

PN2545

MR CAMERON: But that's the nature of the dispute, Commissioner. The applicant puts their position and we rebut it and provide our own evidence as to support our position.

PN2546

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but if there weren't time constraints, Mr Cameron, the normal process is that everybody then gets on their feet at the end of the witness evidence and on their feet sums up all of the - does the normal stuff for closing submissions.

PN2547

MR CAMERON: Yes.

PN2548

THE COMMISSIONER: And so I do have some sympathy for Mr Eddington's contention that I suspect that given that this matter is fairly long in the tooth, for that reason as well there should be a truncating of the process.

PN2549

MR CAMERON: I'm not asking for seven days or 10 days after their submissions or closing argument is put. I'm asking that we have the chance to read them. We would be obviously preparing our closing argument and most of it would be done.

PN2550

THE COMMISSIONER: Is done already.

PN2551

MR CAMERON: But then still have the opportunity to - not within a day or two days even - to have a chance to see what they're saying so that we can provide you appropriate rebuttal evidence and refer to our witnesses that rebut the submissions that Mr Eddington may be putting. I think that's the common practice; that we have the opportunity to hear or see what they put in their closing argument so that we can address the points raised.

PN2552

MR EDDINGTON: I'd be comfortable providing my closing submissions by lunchtime on Monday and if Mr Cameron was given till close of business, I'd be happy enough with that.

PN2553

THE COMMISSIONER: Shall we start with - let's just break it down - transcript is hopefully available next Monday. When would the union be in a position to file their closing submissions?

PN2554

MR EDDINGTON: Sorry, I've misunderstood the time frames.

PN2555

THE COMMISSIONER: That's why I'm asking.

PN2556

MR EDDINGTON: Sorry.

PN2557

THE COMMISSIONER: That's okay.

PN2558

MR EDDINGTON: Perhaps if it's on Monday, then hopefully by Wednesday, I would suggest.

PN2559

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN2560

MR EDDINGTON: Actually, I probably should - - -

PN2561

THE COMMISSIONER: While you're checking your diary, why don't we just go off the record for a moment. Would that be okay? Thank you.

<OFF THE RECORD [3.33PM]
<ON THE RECORD [3.37PM]

PN2562

THE COMMISSIONER: On the basis of discussions off the record, the following timetable has been agreed in terms of the filing of written closing submissions: the union will file their closing submissions by close of business on Wednesday, 25 March; the respondent will file their closing submissions by close of business on Thursday, 26 March; the union has the opportunity to file any submissions in reply by close of business Friday, 27 March 2014. I think those dates are right. Are you looking as if I haven't got the dates right?

PN2563

MR CAMERON: I'm just thinking that if today's the 18th, next Tuesday I have in my mind is definitely the 25th.

PN2564

THE COMMISSIONER: Wednesday is the 26th. Thank you, Mr Cameron. Thursday is the 27th and Friday is the 28th. So close of business Wednesday the 26th, closing submissions of the applicant; close of business Thursday, 27 March 2014, closing submissions by the respondent; and any submissions in reply, if required by the union, close of business Friday, 28 March 2014. I think that's it. Yes? Mr Cameron said it's fine from him. From you, Mr Eddington?

PN2565

MR EDDINGTON: Yes, thank you.

PN2566

THE COMMISSIONER: Just before I do adjourn the hearing on the basis of the timetable for written submissions that has been finalised, I would like to thank all the parties for the professional and respectful way in which the hearing before the commission has proceeded: (a) it's noted; and (b) it's appreciated. So thank you very much, everybody. On that basis, the commission stands adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.40PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

PAUL ANTHONY BYRNE, SWORN PN1616
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN1616
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN1631
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON PN1689
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1698
CAROL MARGARET PETERSON, SWORN PN1699
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN1699
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN1713
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON PN1810
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1823
STEPHEN JOHN DALEY, SWORN PN1824
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN1824
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN1830
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1842
RACHEL JANSEN, AFFIRMED PN1843
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN1843
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN1863
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON PN1981
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1990
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN2022
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN2041
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON PN2130
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN2141
MARK TIPPER, SWORN PN2148
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN2148
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN2195
FURTHER EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN2214
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN2222
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN2365
TANYA PETRIE, SWORN PN2369
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CAMERON PN2369
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDDINGTON PN2386
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON PN2530
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN2536