Sophie to the rescue!

Details

Published: Saturday, 25 May 2024 19:12

In February we put a timer on Robbo’s Pearls to record how long the Labor Government had been in power in NSW. At that stage, Premier Chris Minns and Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig had been in power for around 315 days and for almost all that time the senior staff changes, supported by LGNSW and the local government unions, had languished in the office of the Minister for Local Government. We asked the question "what have you blokes been doing?", when it had been SFA.

The Premier was able to find the file in Minister Hoenig’s office and pass it on to Sophie Cotsis, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Work Health and Safety, and then it all happened. A draft Bill was prepared by the Department of Industrial Relations and the Minister's office, consulted with the three unions and LGNSW, and a final agreement was reached.

On Wednesday 8 May the Local Government Amendment (Employment Arrangements) Bill 2024 was introduced into the Legislative Assembly by Minister Cotsis, she delivered the second reading speech that day, and the pic above shows a triumphant Minister, and three equally triumphant local government union secretaries, after the second reading speech. This is a big deal.

Thank you, Sophie.

The Second reading was adjourned and was passed when the debate resumed on Wednesday 15 May.

There was no opposition to the bill and its effect of protecting senior staff by providing fair working conditions with the removal of "no reason termination", and moving senior staff to protection under the Award or relevant Enterprise Agreement. None. Everyone spoke glowingly of the fairness of it, despite many of them having been in government while this remained the situation over the last 30 years! FFS!

It was introduced into the Legislative Council on 15 May by the Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, passed the following day and returned to the Legislative Assembly.

It awaits the "assent" of the Governor of New South Wales, a process that is more correctly known as the "Royal Assent", just to remind us how much of our governance is still stuck in the 18^th century.

After "assent", it will be law. You can start celebrating now.

101 Damnations at Campbelltown

Details

Published: Monday, 29 April 2024 12:22

Campbelltown’s lack of respect for long-serving staff and chronic under resourcing won them our prestigious award for the worst HR in local government in 2016. The same GM, but no nominations subsequently, but how is this for an ambitious attempt to be nominated in 2024?

Campbelltown City employs over 1100 staff across 380 different jobs, with one salary system. There is an Enterprise Agreement for Managers who are on different arrangements. Last month, the Council proposed increasing all rates in the salary system by 2% to set a new base rate after struggling to attract and retain staff generally. But not everyone was proposed to get the 2%, if you were on a market forces allowance already, they proposed that you fund your own 2% increase from your market allowance. That’s not, as they say, robbing Peter to pay Paul, it’s robbing Peter, to pay Peter.

75 of more than 1100 employees were going to be victimized - unfairly and cruelly. The managers (and executive managers) were going to get a $6,500 increase in their car allowance, bringing it to $18,000. Nice.

HR’s documents (People and Performance, at Campbelltown no less!) misrepresented the proposal, using expressions like “unfair advantage” to those already on a market rate, and cooking the books to present figures to minimise the disadvantage to employees.

When we did the calculations properly, and demonstrated the inaccuracy of their calculations, the Executive Manager People and Performance responded “we will have to agree to disagree on the figures”. Really? It’s not a matter of opinion, calculations are either right or they’re wrong. Continuing to rely upon those discredited figures was disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. And yes, because you are wondering, that EM got the $6,500 ...

Up until this stage the Council had refused to acknowledge the historic arrangements and contractual conditions of employment - but had never raised the possibility that they would create two salary systems. This was based on advice from LGNSW as a way of getting away with avoiding the breaches of an existing and historic custom and practice - a bit like giving advice to a thief planning a theft, that if you are going to run away from the police, run fast. This set up the opportunity to either opt in, or opt out, to give it an appearance of legitimacy. But it’s not legitimate.

What the Council was trying to avoid was a decision on 16 February 2005 by GM Paul Tosi to establish a “market allowance” as a response to a memo from the Director Planning and Environment recommending paying a market allowance to “nominated Planning, Health Surveyor and Building Surveyor positions”. This arrangement has continued for almost 20 years and has been a critical part of offers of employment. It’s a condition of employment for our members and others. It has no relationship to the salary system.

The allowance was initially for employees who would be members of ours, and the memorandum provided three significant conditions governing the payments: there would be an annual review to determine if “they are still necessary to meet the above objective”, it was a fixed amount and not subject to award increases, and the margin “will be reviewed as any position becomes vacant”.

The condition of employment for those who have it meant that it could be lost or reduced if they weren’t “necessary” but in the intervening almost 20 years, they have been necessary and while the Council trying to advertise positions without the allowance, it was invariably provided.

At no time since the allowance was established has the Council done anything to review the allowances, they obviously worked and that was sufficient of a review. These three critical provisions allow the Council to vary the allowance, but the Council has not sought to change the allowance, even though the 2% proposal intends to reduce it, consistent with the conditions of employment of those employees who have reference to the memorandum in their letters of offer.

This is a significant procedural flaw.

We have 20 members affected, and there are other job classifications receiving the allowance. They receive the allowance, sometimes up to $20,000 (significantly more than the allowance originally established) at the discretion of the GM to make sure they can get people, and keep them. The EM P&P (unaware of the inherent irony and hypocrisy) responded to our suggestion that everyone should get the 2% and they shouldn’t pay it to new staff, that the Council would not forfeit their right to pay market premiums if they wanted to! 

The Consultative Committee endorsed the proposal, despite the three salary representatives from depa, the LGEA and the USU all voting against it. It was endorsed with documents containing the original inaccurate calculations, where we had specifically requested of the GM that this not happen.

Our members were disappointed and hostile - alarmed and offended at suggestions they have been “advantaged” unfairly, that receiving the 2% and retaining their full market premium is an “unfair advantage”, that it would be unfair on top of an “already larger package”, and “double dipping”.

On 26 March a meeting of members resolved to continue to pursue the 2%, and in the meantime to stop working unpaid hours, exercise their right to disconnect, not working if they weren’t well and to take up an invitation from the GM to individually have their allowances reviewed.

The process has been duplicitous, disadvantaging good and valuable employees, promoted and justified with figures that are demonstrably untrue. Shameful, really.

When the Council, in the form of the EM P&P, eventually responded to our advice that members would be working differently, marked the letter Private and Confidential.  In all my (virtually) 40 years with depa, no employer has ever attempted to make communication between the union and the employer on issues like this private and confidential.

That includes Campbelltown, who even with a succession of Town Clerks/General Managers, and a whole range of HR people, never attempted to restrain us from distributing the employer’s responses to us from our members. We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some poor young inexperienced person in HR trying to do the right thing prior to the school holidays.

The Council’s misunderstanding of concepts of what is private and confidential, and what is communication that can be readily distributed will be part one of the issues when this inevitably ends up in the IRC.

Too much villainy. Imagine how horrifying kids would have found it if Disney had made101 Dalmatians, not just with one Cruella, but two …

We still provide free insurance for “journey claims”, and we’ve just improved it

Details

Published: Monday, 29 April 2024 12:22

Bob Carr’s New South Wales Labor government more than a decade ago decided to remove “journey claims” from Workers’  Compensation protection. That meant if you had an accident getting to or from work, you were no longer covered by the Council’s Workers’ Compensation policies. Thanks, Comrade.

Most unions quickly filled the void and depa has provided free journey claim insurance for members since 2012.

We’ve just upgraded our policy and increased the maximum payment from $2,000 per week to $2,500 per week. $2,500 a week is 85% of $2,941 as the weekly salary.

For anyone on a salary higher than $2,941 gross per week, the weekly benefit will be capped at $3,500. $3,500 is 85% of $4,117, as the weekly salary.

The payments will begin seven consecutive days after the injury. Most other policies have a higher excess.

And it’s free as part of your membership fee. How do we do it!

Trainees in chains

Details

Published: Monday, 29 April 2024 11:01

Councils pay course fees, provide transport or pay reasonable travelling to attend course requirements, appropriate flexible work and study arrangements to complete major assignments and paid leave to attend course requirements off-site, to trainees.

Trainees are paid under the T scale in the Award, based on their age and whether they have the HSC, and progress subject to satisfactorily completing their studies.

Historically, councils all had professional trainees but, over time have thought it smart or not financially viable, to stop training people who might leave at the end of their training. About as smart as decisions by governments to shut down TAFE.

We hear reports of councils signing up trainees with an obligation to repay course fees if they leave within a certain period after qualifying. These councils, reactionary, slow thinking and not getting it that happy employees stay with an employer, think the way to keep these freshly qualified and enthusiastic employees is to prevent them leaving. Having well-paid, meaningful and satisfying work at the end of a successful traineeship is the key.

How does it not make sense, even to the obtuse that not only are they qualified, they have all the local knowledge obtained over that time, and they’re already there when national shortages in those professions mean councils struggle to attract new staff. Reward them, and keep them.  

The award is clear and explicit and does not provide for a Council to recoup costs. Fail a semester, and you need to repay the fee, but that’s as far as it goes.

If you are a trainee, or if you are our delegate at the Council, we need to know if your Council is making trainees sign something to require them to repay their course fees if they leave.

Is your Council doing this? Please let us know if they are and send us a copy of the document they are being asked to sign.

We don’t really know how many councils are doing this. Murray River was sprung doing it last year and Richmond Valley committing wage theft with a trainee earned them a Golden Turd in 2018.

There are even councils out there calling trainees cadets, to try to undermine award entitlements. They’re called cadets, so they’re not entitled to the provisions of the award, but they are still trainees.

We’d like to fix this, but we need to know where this is happening.

NSW Electoral Commission declares depa’s 2024 elections, and we have one new Committee Member

Details

Published: Monday, 29 April 2024 10:53

Welcome Lorena!

The NSW Electoral Commission has declared candidates for the positions of President, Vice President and four Committee Members elected. We had the right number of candidates for those positions and didn’t require an election.

We have one new Committee Member, Lorena Blacklock, pictured above. Lorena is Coordinator Land-Use Planning and Spatial Services, and our delegate at Queanbeyan-Palerang, and was previously our delegate at Hilltops. She has been a very effective delegate at both those councils and will be a refreshing and exciting new Member. Here is her policy statement:

I am woman hear me roar!

Now I have your attention, I'll leave the roaring to Helen Reddy and use my inside voice to tell you about me.

I have 30 years of wisdom gained as a town planner in roles from Trainee to Manager and currently Coordinator Land-Use Planning and Spatial Services.  My work has taken me from Goulburn, Gosford, Queanbeyan, Hilltops to Queanbeyan-Palerang Councils, with short sojourns into state and federal government, just to confirm why local government is for me.

Here, I thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to be a depa delegate at Queanbeyan-Palerang, identifying issues and solutions, while also giving me the chance to get my "legislation/legal nerd" hat on, to go through our Award conditions.

A big part of my role as a town planner when looking at development and land-use change, is giving a voice to the environment, the future generations and the voiceless. I bring that skill and purpose in nominating for the Committee of Management. I would love the opportunity to give back to depa and contribute to the Committee by speaking up for those who need support and adding volume and weight for those quiet voices.

I'm here, listening.

President, Steven Cook, Vice President Vince Galletto and Committee members, Bruce Dunlop (Camden), Jamie Loader (Central Coast) and Bryce Weedon (Hilltops) are all re-elected for another two-year term.

Policy statements for all candidates will be on our website from 1 May when the new Committee takes office.

The Secretary has a four-year term from the 2022 election.

He said what?

Details

Published: Monday, 12 February 2024 13:10

The December “Worst HR in Local Government” issue gets around. Even to councillors at MidCoast. Our reporting on the alarming collapse in the morale of staff at Mid Coast since 2018, and a report to the Consultative Committee last year identifying 300 resignations in 12 months, attracted the attention of one councillor. Yes, only one councillor out of 11, and considering that section 8 The Council’s Charter of the Local Government Act provides amongst other things that the Council be “a responsible employer,” that seems an indictment of the rest. What do they think constitutes being a responsible employer?

Councillor Peter Epov’s concerns were reported in the Daily Telegraph Newslocal last week after he had placed questions on notice to the GM to answer at the Council meeting on 7 February. According to the news report he was concerned because he understood “it costs approximately $20,000 to replace just one staff member so when you get hundreds resigning in one year this equates to many millions of dollars in lost productivity. And this converts to a failure to deliver services” he said.

He asked “can the GM confirm that depa, for the second year in succession, conferred the Golden Turd Award” to Mid Coast Council for ‘the worst HR in local government’”. And whether the claims were correct that “MidCoast Council has had 300 resignations in the past 12 months, as stated in the last report to the Consultative Committee” and “Almost 500 of Council’s USU (United Services Union) members meeting and rejected the proposal to the salary system proposed by MCC with not one person supporting them?”

Those three reasonable questions were clear and unequivocal and could all be answered with a yes or no. Because they were true, they should have been answered with yes.  But while the questions might be reasonable, the GM’s response wasn’t. He said the matter was confidential due to “personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)”, even though the questions sought whether the allegations were factual, and made no reference to any individual or any personal matters.

What does “personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)” actually mean? A reluctance to answer the question, or to fob off the questioner, or some unwritten rule to protect the guilty?

There needs to be some proper explanation of how a Council can lose more than 30% of its staff in a 12 month period, so we will ask for one, and clarify in our next issue.

MidCoast running sore settled

Details

Published: Monday, 12 February 2024 13:10

It’s more than two years now since MidCoast Council looked at options for tampering with the salary system that had existed for years without complaint, and which provided annual progression for employees who “met standard”, albeit an increase of only 1.25%. It was predictable, and any council that has all its employees meeting expectations is a lucky one. But the GM and his HR/industrial adviser thought it tantamount to automatic progression, which it wasn’t.

Two years since options were canvassed, and perilously close to two years since an industrial dispute was filed and we had the opportunity of arguing with the Council about just about everything.

The Council executive endorsed the recommendation. The USU and LGEA have had joint meetings this week and we provided our members with an electronic vote which overwhelmingly returned acceptance of a compromise solution. The unions were recommending acceptance of a proposal drafted by Commissioner Webster after two hearing days and then further conciliation trying to settle the dispute. This was a dispute which would be understated to describe as interminable.

The Council’s first proposal was that no one would progress beyond entry level any longer for what had been the historic test of “met standard”. None at all. But the compromise solution provides continuing progression but where employees will need to meet standard for a couple of years. There are a range of options, all of which are a long way from the loss of that progression. Plus an opportunity for more relaxed requirements to progress based on “exceed standard”, which the unions will be strongly enforcing.

We return to the IRC on 23 February where the unions can advise the Commission that we also have accepted her recommended solution. The Council has a problem with the Commissioner’s words “excluding the arrangements for the Water services existing salary system arrangements introduced in 2019”, which the unions think means everyone currently on those arrangements, but where the Council thinks it means hardly anyone…

Having won the prestigious and authoritative Golden Turd award in 2022 and 2023, it could be someone else’s turn this year. But...

What have you blokes been doing?

Details

Published: Monday, 12 February 2024 13:10

Appointed on a Wednesday and my heart stood still,
Do-do Ron Ron, do it Ron
We can’t wait until he tables the Bill
Do-do Ron Ron, do it Ron 

Yeah, my heart stood still
He’s got nothing else to do
But when he tables the Bill
Do-do Ron Ron, do it Ron

(with apologies and acknowledgement to the Crystals)

You all know the story, it’s notorious.

On 15 October 2021 the LGNSW Board, spurred on by a second recommendation from another ICAC investigation (Operation Dasha) to get rid of the “no reason” sacking of senior staff, unanimously resolved to do precisely that. LGNSW would now support the views we and the other unions have been expressing for decades. This was an historic consensus.

The consensus was to amend section 340 of the Local Government Act 1993 to ensure that the only Senior Staff positions, on term contracts and denied access to the Industrial Relations Commission would be the general manager. And to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to lift the remuneration level for access on unfair dismissals.

All we needed was the OLG and Government to cooperate. That was close enough to two and a half years ago. 

There was some venal opposition from the usual suspects, but the policy was overwhelmingly reaffirmed at the LGNSW Special Conference on 1 March 2022. That was close enough to two years ago.

In April 2023 a Labor Government was elected in NSW. We all had a reasonable expectation they’d be more supportive of employment changes that reduced the risk of corruption and provided fairer working conditions. They say they are.

We know it’s been in the Minister’s office but nothing’s happened. We’ve put a clock on our homepage so we can count how long since 5 April 2022, when the Government was appointed following the election, and the Hon Ron Hoenig was appointed Minister for Local Government.

https://depa.au/ and you can also count the days.

As an aside, the CBD column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday this week, in an article about who NSW politicians had been meeting with, said this:

"Finally, a shout out to Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig, who held just 16 meetings in the final quarter 2023, the fewest of any government Minister."

It’s not good enough, this is a burning issue.

What have you blokes been doing?

Details

Published: Monday, 12 February 2024 13:08

Appointed on a Wednesday and my heart stood still, Do-do Ron Ron, do it Ron We can’t wait until he tables the Bill Do-do Ron Ron, do it Ron Yeah, my heart stood still He’s got nothing else to do But when he tables the Bill Do-do Ron Ron, do it Ron (with apologies and acknowledgement to the Crystals) You all know the story, it’s notorious. On 15 October 2021 the LGNSW Board, spurred on by a second recommendation from another ICAC investigation (Operation Dasha) to get rid of the “no reason” sacking of senior staff, unanimously resolved to do precisely that. LGNSW would now support the views we and the other unions have been expressing for decades. This was an historic consensus. The consensus was to amend section 340 of the Local Government Act 1993 to ensure that the only Senior Staff positions, on term contracts and denied access to the Industrial Relations Commission would be the general manager. And to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to lift the remuneration level for access on unfair dismissals. All we needed was the OLG and Government to cooperate. That was close enough to two and a half years ago. There was some venal opposition from the usual suspects, but the policy was overwhelmingly reaffirmed at the LGNSW Special Conference on 1 March 2022. That was close enough to two years ago. In April 2023 a Labor Government was elected in NSW. We all had a reasonable expectation they’d be more supportive of employment changes that reduced the risk of corruption and provided fairer working conditions. They say they are. We know it’s been in the Minister’s office but nothing’s happened. We’ve put a clock on our homepage so we can count how long since 5 April 2022, when the Government was appointed following the election, and the Hon Ron Hoenig was appointed Minister for Local Government. www.depa.au and you can also count the days. As an aside, the CBD column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday this week, in an article about who NSW politicians had been meeting with, said this: Finally, a shout out to Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig, who held just 16 meetings in the final quarter 2023, the fewest of any government Minister. It’s not good enough, this is a burning issue.

“I am a passionate person and if on occasion I don’t get it quite right, I am always willing to acknowledge it”. Always?

Details

Published: Monday, 12 February 2024 09:15

We’ve had two examples of Sutherland Mayor Councillor Carmelo Pesce abusing our members. The first, in 2017, expletives and anger about a member dealing with non-compliance under both the Food Act and building regulations of the Mayor’s cafés where the GM at the time, Scott Phillips, secured an apology and a handshake from the Mayor within 24-hours. And encouraged the manager who had made the complaint to always bring this kind of unacceptable behaviour to the attention of the GM for a remedy.

The second, in June 2020 where another member was chasing the Mayor to comply and received a similar serve, expletives and anger again about his cafés, but when the complaint was escalated through the organisation the GM Manjeet Grewal didn’t secure an apology or a handshake and we needed to file an industrial dispute to try to get the Mayor behaving.

We gave up on the GM and wrote to all the councillors asking them to agree to commit to better standards of behaviour and cutting out abuse, and only the ALP councillors did so.

The positive out of that awful experience is that there is now a Memorandum of Understanding between Sutherland Shire and Georges River Council (both councils have had issues with councillor behaviour) for compliance issues concerning properties or businesses owned by councillors, to be dealt with by compliance staff from the other Council. Hard to threaten them.

Councillor Pesce, is now favoured for Liberal Preselection to replace the disgraced member for Cook the Hon(!) Scott Morrison. The question is what do the electors in Cook think are important values and qualities in their local Federal member?

Given our experience with the Councillor’s behaviour to our members, it was only a matter of time before investigative journalists, scrutinising the pretender to the crown and finding plenty to investigate, contacted us.

See the ABC News article here