• Private certifier gets nailed – depaNews November 2010
  • Wake up and don't worry - depaNews February 2011
  • HR professionals – depaNews January 2009
  • Upper Hunter gets coy – depaNews March 2011
  • BPB kills off B1 & B2 - depaNews July 2009
  • Councillors behaving badly Part One - depaNews December 2009
  • Councillors behaving badly Part Two - depaNews December 2009
  • Who is Peter Hurst? - depaNews August 2010
  • It's time to go, Peter Part One - depaNews September 2006
  • It's time to go Peter Part Two - depaNews December 2006
  • BPB survey on accreditation – depaNews November 2008
  • Improbable things start to come true – depaNews June 2010
  • Sex, lies and development – depaNews February 2008
  • Pizza man feeds non-members – depaNews April 2011
  • Bankstown wins HR Award – depaNews December 2010
  • Love him or loathe him - depaNews October 2007
  • Good Bad & Ugly issue – depaNews November 2010
  • Upper Hunter lets the dogs out - depaNews February 2011
  • IRC puts brakes on belligerent seven – depaNews June 2009
  • It's Tweedledum and not Tweedledumber - depaNews March 2007
  • 28 April International Day of Mourning - depaNews April 2009
  • IRC orders Hurst 'apology' published - depaNews December 2010
  • Debate on IR policy – depaNews August 2007
  • Developer agrees to apologise – depaNews November 2010
  • OH&S Day of Mourning – depaNews April 2009

The Development and Environmental Professionals' Association (depa)

Welcome to the depa website. We are an industrial organisation representing professional employees working in local government in New South Wales in a variety of jobs in the fields of environmental health, public health, building and development control and planning.

We take a broad approach to our responsibilities to members and give advice and assistance on professional issues as well as industrial and workplace issues. We understand what members do at work and that allows us to take a holistic approach.  Read more about us...

This site will keep you up-to-date with union news and the diverse range of workplace advocacy issues we deal with daily. We have made it easy for members to contact us with online forms and quickly Join depa onlne nowaccess information from our extensive FAQs.

IRC puts brakes on belligerent seven – depaNews June 2009

Hardly the Magnificent Seven – June 2009

Commission puts brakes on the Belligerent Seven

Who would have thought that out of 152 councils, the first to leap into an argument with their managers and Senior Staff about the cost of their superannuation would be this lot:

Great Lakes Council

Lake Macquarie City Council

Liverpool

The Council of the Municipality of Kiama

The Hills Shire (nee Baulkham Hills)

Warringah

Wyong

But, in the Industrial Relations Commission this morning, Justice Staff recommended that those seven councils not proceed to collect increased superannuation from affected employees (see May depaNews) until proceedings in the Commission had resolved the issue. There may be an eighth, with some doubt about how Pittwater is responding to our letters. We'll see.

These proceedings arose from a dispute depa filed with 83 councils over whether or not the Council would pay the increased "compulsory employer contributions" from 1 July for employees who are members of the LGSS Defined Benefits Scheme and who are employed on contracts with a TRP. When the dispute was filed on 20 May, there were six councils refusing to pay and 77 councils which had not responded to letters from depa dated 1 April and 5 May.

Between the date of filing and the proceedings this morning, Waverley was removed from the list of six refusing to pay (they're still wondering what to do) and Great Lakes and Lake Macquarie were added. And of the 77 councils which had failed to respond, we were now down to 49. That is the least, some progress.

depa was supported this morning in the Commission by the LGEA (Martin O'Connell had also attended our meetings with the LGSA on 12 March and 5 May trying to properly manage this issue) and the USU. We appreciate their support.

But first, what's this all about?

This is as a dispute arising from an increase in the compulsory employer contribution in the Defined Benefits Scheme of the LGSS. The collapse in financial markets has meant that all defined benefit schemes are now in deficit and employers are being urged by superannuation regulators to address the deficiency as quickly as possible.

Yes, that's right, this is a dispute generally with the highest paid employees in the industry. Who said unions were only relevant lower in the organisation? And what sort of employer wants to pick a fight with their directors and managers? Leaving aside whether they can legally make employees pay, what sense is there from a human resources perspective, in irritating those most critical to an organisation's delivery of services?

There are two critical and simple issues here:

1 If an employee is not on a contract, then there is no argument about who will pay. It will be the employer.

2 Employees on contracts are employed on contracts solely because of a decision by the Council or, in the case of Senior Staff under the Local Government Act, the Act itself.

To resolve the issue, councils should simply treat these employees like everyone else.

And 49 councils will do that and have agreed to pay

Here are the 49 councils which have already agreed to do the right thing:

Albury

Kyogle Council

Bega Valley

Leeton

Blacktown City Council

Liverpool Plains Shire Council

Blayney Shire Council

Maitland

Bourke Shire Council

Marrickville Council

Broken Hill

Mid-Western

Camden Council

Nambucca Shire Council

Campbelltown

Narrandera Shire Council

Cessnock

North Sydney Council

Coolamon

Penrith

Council of the City of Sydney

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

Cowra Shire Council

Rockdale

Deniliquin

Shellharbour

Dungog Shire Council

Sutherland Shire Council

Fairfield City Council

Tamworth Regional Council

Gloucester Shire Council

Tumut Shire Council

Gosford

Tweed

Goulburn Mulwaree Council

Upper Lachlan Shire Council

Greater Hume

Walcha Council

Gundagai Shire Council

Wellington

Harden Shire Council

Willoughby City Council

Hay

Wingecarribee Shire Council

Holroyd

 

Hornsby

 

Kempsey Shire Council

 

Kogarah Municipal Council

 

Ku-ring-gai Council

 

 

In an exhibit handed up in the Commission this morning, these 49 councils were identified as agreeing to pay the increased compulsory employer contribution. At the very least, this is a persuasive argument for those seven councils refusing to pay to review their anti-employee attitude and the Commission accepted depa’s submission that it was sufficient of a developing majority opinion to put a hold on those councils which would defy it.

So, the Commission recommended that they not proceed pending further hearings to settle the dispute. This will take some pressure off the employees affected and also focus the attention of those councils on whether they can, or cannot, try to extract the additional increase from the salary cash component of their employees’ packages.

13 councils are currently taking advice

These councils are:

Ashfield

Cooma-Monaro Shire Council

Auburn Council

Forbes Shire Council

Ballina Shire Council

Lismore City Council

Bankstown City Council

Murray Shire Council

Bathurst

Singleton Shire Council

Blue Mountains

Woollahra Municipal Council

City of Lithgow Council

 

 

34 councils say they are not affected (but are they really?)

The following councils claim that they are not affected. They say they do not have employees who are members of the Defined Benefit Scheme who are employed on contracts or other arrangements which include a TRP.

Berrigan Shire Council

Narrabri Shire Council

Bland Shire Council

Oberon

Bombala Council

Palerang Council

Boorowa Council

Pittwater Council

Canterbury

Port Stephens Council

Central Darling Shire Council

Randwick City Council

City of Canada Bay Council

Snowy River Shire Council

Cobar Shire Council

Temora Shire Council

Cootamundra Shire Council

Tenterfield Shire Council

Dubbo

Wakool

Eurobodalla

Warrumbungle Shire Council

Glen Innes Severn Council

Waverley

Griffith City Council

Weddin Shire Council

Hawkesbury

Wentworth Shire Council

Hurstville City Council

Wollondilly

Lachlan Shire Council

Yass

Lane Cove

 

Lockhart Shire Council

 
   

 

We are prepared to accept that these councils are acting in good faith when they advise us that they are not affected, but just to be sure, if you work at any of these councils and are on a contract or contractual arrangement with a TRP, can you please let us know?

Please note also here that depa has filed a dispute asking for a response from all councils about "employees" generally, not just depa members. So, if you are not a member but are affected, let us know. People who are eligible to be members but are not members yet are all potential members.

What happens next?

The Commission made three recommendations. They will shortly be available officially but, in summary and from the best of our notes, they were:

1 That the (forty nine) councils yet to respond to depa’s letters of 1 April and 5 May, do so by 5pm on Friday 5 June.

2 That the (seven) councils which propose not to pay the increased compulsory employer contribution reply by 5pm on Friday 5 June and indicate which of the four categories in depa’s letter of 1 April the affected employees fall into.

3 The Commission “urges” that any decision by the seven councils to deduct from employees salaries be not implemented until further assistance is provided by the Commission.

Proceedings were adjourned for a report back before Justice Staff at 11am on Wednesday 10 June.

What happens next?

The LGSA and the unions are planning to meet with the Belligerent Seven (and possibly Pittwater) next week. At that meeting we can examine why the councils believe they can extract the increase in the compulsory employer contribution from an employee’s salary component. We can also deal with any of the 49 councils which are yet to respond, or the 13 councils which are taking advice, if they decide to try to gouge these increases from employees.

In the meantime, we need to know if the councils which claim to not be affected are really not affected and we need advice from members (and people who aren't members) at the Belligerent Seven so we can check the four categories of employees.

Robbo's Pearls...

“Keep your hands off our super”

 

The Royal Commission has revealed in the banks and insurance companies a chronic failure of prudent governance by their own company boards. These are boards, upon which sit directors, highly paid, highly experienced in business, industry or finance, highly educated, all with varying levels of membership of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, yet somehow just missing all of this crooked, shonky and on thousands of occasions, potentially criminal behaviour. 

All Peter Dutton worried about with the Royal Commission was the opportunity to have the investigation get into industry boards with their “union members and whatnot on the board”, but it’s the boards without “union members and whatnot on the boards” which are the problem here.

Under the front page headline “White flag on union super”, the Financial Review revealed today that the federal government “has dumped long-standing plans to dilute union and employer group influence on industry super fund boards after the damage done to retail funds by the Payne Royal Commission ended any prospect securing Senate support.” Apparently this was a decision taken by former PM Turnbull and where this week’s PM has said that view won’t change.

Back in December 2013, Robbo’s Pearls shouted “keep your hands off our super”, arguing strongly against the Government strategy, up until now trapped in the Senate due to a lack of support, to put purported “independents” on industry boards. Here is a link, because the decision just announced by the Government to back off on the commitment to get their mates a gig on superannuation boards is the end of the battle.  Maybe what company boards need is more union members and whatnot and maybe Robbo’s pearls has helped encourage this debate.

It certainly creates a new landscape for the prudent regulation of superannuation funds.


Copyright © 2018 The Development and Environmental Professionals' Association (depa). All Rights Reserved. Webdesign: Dot Online