Consultation
Tension exists between the Police Association and SAPOL over
the industrial effect and meaning of “consultation”.
In the construction of a consultative framework, SAPOL often
believes it has fulfilled its industrial/legal obligation to consult when it
simply advises PASA and its members of decisions its management has taken. This
is despite the impact such decisions have on work patterns or nature of work
organization.
Clause 5 of EA 2001 provides the opportunity for employees and
their representatives to participate – through consultation – in the
ongoing review of systems, processes and work practices throughout SAPOL. In
the recent industrial dispute over staffing at prosecution units, Industrial
Commissioner Lesses provided, in a recommendation to the parties, a clear
framework for a consultative process, which should be conducted in accordance
with certain principles. They are that:
- Consultation will involve the sharing of information and
the exchange of views between the parties. SAPOL must provide a genuine
opportunity for PASA and its representatives to contribute effectively to any
decision-making process.
- SAPOL must consult in good faith and not simply advise PASA
of what will be done.
- PASA and its representatives will be given the opportunity
to consult with members adequately.
Consultation does not usurp the legislative responsibilities
of the Commissioner of Police to control and manage SAPOL. But, with issues
that relate to work change, PASA and its members must be given the opportunity
to contribute effectively to decision-making processes. It is a fundamental
breach of clause 5 if SAPOL presents issues as a fait accompli.
Tension will continue to exist if these principles are not
adhered to by both parties. It is PASA’s intention to articulate – in
the fourth enterprise agreement – the consultative process and so
eliminate any ambiguity. This will not, in itself, necessarily change long-held
cultures, beliefs or practices. It will, however, provide for a clearly defined
framework.
Food for thought
Workplace Express (an independent IR/HR news and
analysis service) reports that many workers across Australia are cynical about
management and have little faith in its ability to respond to what workers
really want.
This has led to wages and pay rises becoming the symbol for
workers’ needs. At a recent Australian Centre for Industrial Relations
Research and Training conference, Essential Media Communications director,
Elizabeth Lukin, said workers do not believe that employers will deliver on
what is important to them, such as recognition of their contributions to the
workplace, more manageable workloads and job security.
Consequently, employees focus on wages as the symbol of their
needs, and workplace fairness. Moreover, workers across sectors refer also to
the loss of loyalty between employer and employee, and the depersonalization of
the relationship, with “You are just a number” a common refrain.
These themes resonate within SAPOL. Members in many workplaces
express dissatisfaction with the organization’s inability to deliver
outcomes that are important to them, and turn to the Police Association to
claim wage increases as compensation for lack of staff, flexibility in work
practices and family-friendly policies.
Members, too, express a lack of loyalty to the organization
and feel that SAPOL’s boast that “Our people are our most important
asset” needs to be demonstrated as well as espoused.
Consider a case in Human Resources Service. Key management
positions of HR Management Branch and Personnel Section – which are either
vacant, or from which the incumbents have been seconded out for lengthy periods
– are, on a revolving-door basis, filled by secondees who have no HR
experience and operate on a work-experience basis.
This is not a criticism of either the members who have
relieved in HR, or their commitment to the role. Disappointing, however, and
the focus of this complaint, is that the organization has not advertised these
key HR positions and filled them by means of a merit-based selection process.
This would allow successful applicants a tenured period of service in the role
and function.
Surely this would lead to stability, with the necessary
responsibility and accountability for these positions being achieved. As it is,
who has ownership of HR policies that require development or amendment? Why
does one personnel manager interpret the tenure policy differently from the way
another might?
If you are only in the chair for six days or six weeks, does
HR really matter? The current dry-cleaning mentality – all care, no
responsibility – does little for SAPOL. Is it any wonder members see
substantial wage increases as the only symbol of their needs?
