April 2000 Volume 81 Number 4 "serving the protectors"
By Mark Carroll PASA Assistant Secretary

Senior Constable Positions

As a result of negotiations during the 1998 enterprise agreement, clause 7.1.3 relative to senior constables was included as part of the Enterprise Improvement Framework. During the life of the agreement, SAPOL agreed to increase the number of senior constable positions to be equal to 35% of the total number of sworn police officer positions. For the purpose of this agreement the actual number of additional appointments from constable to senior constable will be 190.

SAPOL is presently conducting selection processes for additional senior constable positions that have been identified and reported in the South Australia Police Gazette on September 8, 1999. At the conclusion of this process - and particularly at the conclusion of the Ordinary Rank and Non Commissioned Officer Enterprise Agreement 1998 on November 18, 2000 - PASA will be “counting” to ensure 190 constables have been promoted to senior constable.

To monitor the finalization of the agreement, PASA wrote to the Commissioner of Police on December 1, 1999, requesting information relative to the members promoted so that PASA can map the progress of this clause by SAPOL. PASA still awaits this information.

I have received a number of queries from members regarding the lateral transfer of existing senior constables into positions identified in the Police Gazette on September 8, 1999, as part of the satisfaction of clause 7.1.3. It is important to remember that these positions are not the only positions that SAPOL will rely on to satisfy the 190 promotions. These positions have been treated in the same way by SAPOL as other vacancies relative to SAPOL lateral transfer and redeployment policy.

Members can rest assured, however, that PASA will be identifying if 190 constables have been promoted to senior constable during the life of the agreement so that senior constables represent 35% of the force. Failure to do so by SAPOL will breach the agreement. PASA would then be forced to dispute it.

Members may be interested to know that during the negotiations of EA 98, it was PASA’s position that automatic progression to the rank of senior constable should be reintroduced. This was refused by SAPOL who then agreed to the 35% of sworn positions being identified at the rank of senior constable (clause 7.1.3). Although a moot point presently, many members have expressed their concern relative to the resources required by SAPOL to satisfy the agreement and selections in general for senior constable positions. With the selection woes of the field intelligence officer positions and the number of appeals that occur, maybe automatic progression to the rank of senior constable wasn’t such a bad idea - especially when considering police budget cuts and the like.

Roster Problems

I have recently attended a number of workplaces that have had continual problems with rostering. In one instance, a member had only one clear weekend off in six weeks. This situation is unacceptable. It is in breach of the flexible rostering guidelines in the enterprise agreement and, as it was in an area where the operational investigators’ allowance applies, in breach of the safeguards agreed for the operation of the allowance.

Dependant upon the individual circumstances, it could be argued that this form of rostering is harsh and oppressive. The member was right in seeking advice on this issue, notwithstanding that rostering is viewed as the prerogative of management. Rostering cannot be such that it is harsh and oppressive or in breach of industrial awards or agreements.

Generally, SAPOL rosters do neither. However, the workplaces visited have one commonality that impact on rosters such that they are becoming unworkable - staffing shortages. This combined with the LSA structure and adherence or strict compliance to it ends up making particular rostering practices unreasonable. So what is reasonable?

• It is reasonable that the roster shall give employees a minimum 14 days’ notice of respective shift starting times and rest days off, with 28 days notice being given where possible.

• It is reasonable that the roster has a high degree of predictability where possible to assist employees in accommodating their family responsibilities and other non-work related personal activities.

• It is reasonable for employees to expect that the roster is designed to achieve an equitable range of PM shifts and weekends on duty through the roster cycle and that in normal circumstances that clear weekends off duty should represent at least 33% of the indicative roster cycle.

• It is reasonable for the employee to expect that the number of consecutive PM shifts should be limited to seven.

• It is reasonable for the employee to expect that shift changes at short notice are the exception and not the rule.

• It is reasonable for employees to expect that the roster be designed and managed by people conversant with and experienced in rostering principles, industrial and legislative requirements, and occupational health, safety and welfare considerations.

• It is reasonable for employees to expect that known special events requiring staffing be pre-planned within the rostering cycle.

• It is reasonable for employees to expect sufficient staff in their workplace to achieve corporate goals.

• It is reasonable for employees to expect that management will listen to their concerns and that both parties would consult in a meaningful way to provide solutions.

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 1999  The Police Association of South Australia sustance