December 2001 Volume 82 October 12
"serving the protectors"
| December 2001 Volume 82 October 12 "serving the protectors" |
|
|
|
|
| By Mark Carroll, PASA Assistant Secretary |
Section 47 (1) of the Police Act, 1998, allows the Commissioner of Police to transfer a member from his or her current position to another position for either an indefinite period or a specified term, without conducting selection processes.
The concept is a good one. It makes sense for the Commissioner to have the power, and a process that allows, for example, a senior constable general duties member to move from Sturt patrols to Adelaide patrols (without having to win the same position in a merit-based selection process again).
If only it was that simple.
A raft of human resources policies – including the lateral transfer policy (LTP) – was published in the SA Police Gazette of August 11, 1999. The intent of the LTP was reported as:
Lateral transfers are conducted to improve organisational efficiency and provide flexibility in deploying members. While taking into consideration their personal and career development needs, SAPOL will utilise human resource management practices that are innovative and practicable. An important requirement is an effective lateral transfer system that is fair and equitable and allows SAPOL to place members where they are needed to efficiently achieve its goals.
The policy applies to all ranks up to and including senior sergeant. It does not allow senior constables, sergeants or senior sergeants to transfer to positions that have different principal accountabilities. However, an exception is made in the policy that allows senior constables transferring from specialist positions to general duties positions on the basis that members up to the rank of senior constable should always be able to return to core policing duties.
The lateral transfer process involves a member completing a police department form (PD 65) and forwarding it – through his or her supervisor/manager – to the Personnel Section manager. The supervisor/manager is required to endorse the PD 65 to indicate that the applicant fulfills the requirements of the position. If the supervisor/manager does not believe a member fulfills those requirements, he or she then endorses the PD 65 accordingly and must advise the member of such endorsement.
The policy also includes a transfer priority order and, before any lateral movement occurs, the Personnel Section manager will ensure that the employee to be transferred meets the requirements of the PID.
It all appears simple enough. Lately, however, member complaints about this process are on the increase. Why?
As the policy requires a member’s immediate supervisor/manager to decide on whether the applicant meets the requirements of the position, a negative assessment is bound to cause controversy. Supervisors/managers have to somehow assess the applicant’s suitability to laterally transfer to an area they themselves might know little about. One could expect the supervisor/manager to view the essential elements of the position the applicant seeks in order to satisfy himself or herself that the applicant meets those essential requirements. Past and current work performance, behavioural issues, career aspirations, career development, and SAPOL policy would also be considerations.
Alleged issues of personality, rumour, gossip, innuendo, payback etc, should not influence the supervisor/manager. Similarly, if you are a supervisor/manager of an area a person has applied to laterally transfer into, reports requesting the denial of that transfer based on similar spurious arguments should not see the light of day.
Supervisors/managers should be aware of Section 10 of the Police Act. It requires a system of personnel management that, among other things, ensures practices are followed under which employees are treated fairly and consistently and are not subjected to arbitrary or capricious administrative decisions and they are afforded equal opportunities for promotion and advancement.
Members are entitled to know the basis on which they are refused endorsement to laterally transfer. If a member disagrees with the supervisor/manager’s assessment – especially if it is based on rumour, gossip and innuendo – he or she has the right to challenge the assessment. The supervisor/manager will be required to justify comments made. Further, if the denial were based on work performance, it would be helpful if the member had been informed of those issues at the time they arose, and not at the time of application.
Other concerns expressed by some members include the ability to laterally transfer as a specialist to a generalist position, but after serving minimum tenure, the inability to laterally transfer back, and consistency in the application of an assessment of positions that have either similar or different principal accountabilities. These difficulties are under consideration currently by both SAPOL and the Police Association. This may result in a revised policy.
I suspect that, like most things in life, members, at the end of the day, expect fairness, equity and consistency – any policy or application of policy should deliver this. As fairness and balance resides consistently in The Industrial Front, difficulties experienced to date and raised by the association on its members’ behalf with Human Resources Service, have been dealt with by those practitioners in that manner.
|
||||||||||
|
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 2001 The Police Association of South Australia sustance |