September 1998 Volume 79  Number 9 "serving the protectors"
The Industrial Front
By Andrew Murray and Mark Carroll

From Left: Police Association organizer, Mark Carroll, industrial officer, Andrew Murray, and secretary, Andy Dunn read some of the hundreds of signatures on the police bill petition.

Rostering Run-Around

A trial of “flexible rostering” commenced in December 1997. Included in its objectives, according to SAPOL, was to “improve the social and working environment for employees”.

To test this and other objectives, SAPOL conducted a review process which involved the collection of information from officers both before and after the trial and a comparison of those findings. The Association also conducted a survey developed by the Sleep Research Institute based at the University of SA.

The trial finished in March and an evaluation report was released on 20 May. Not released was the detailed data upon which it could be expected that the report would be based.

Having told the Industrial Commission that monitoring would occur, when the results of that monitoring emerged, the evaluation report went to some lengths to “explain” why the information could not be relied upon. Indeed, nearly three pages of a 19-page report were set aside to explain why the results might not be reliable, despite the fact that all of these factors were known of, or reasonably predictable, before the trial commenced. (The Association had tried to get SAPOL to agree to independent assessment of the trial but this had been refused.)

Those seeking a possible reason for this later criticism by the Department of its own review might find an answer in its findings. While one of the trials claimed objectives was to “improve the social and working environment for employees” reporting of this aspect only occupied one-and-a-half pages (only half of the space allocated to the “unreliability” explanation). That reporting, while limited, was candid to the extent of reporting a massive decline in satisfaction levels among those forced to work the “trial” roster, although only three sets of figures were provided.

Much more informative was the full data set obtained by the Association during proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission. This data included some 180 criteria assessed during the trial.

For all the indicators surveyed, relative to employee health, satisfaction, training, family life etc, indicators were of a marked deterioration. Either the report had to be discredited, or the Department would have been morally obliged to review the “trial” system.

In more recent hearings, the Commission has again been given assurances about how the new system might be extended. There were assurances that:

• The five-week roster was still an available option.
• Consultative committees would make decisions in consultation with relevant officers.
• Monitoring and assessment of impact would continue.

While the Association continues to receive reports about continuing pressure to depart from the five-week system, it still awaits information from SAPOL about how it will monitor that change in a way it will accept as valid, and what will be done if earlier findings are reinforced.

Training Costs - Who Pays?

Police officers, along with other “public sector” employees, are entitled to assistance with work-related education expenses. So it came as quite an unpleasant surprise when some were advised in January this year that the usual full reimbursement of HECS fees might not occur - and that they would have to wait until March to find out.

HECS fees are often paid by students at the beginning of the year to take advantage of “pre-pay” reductions. Because reimbursement follows successful completion, a delay in reimbursement of almost a year exists. But those who passed expected to receive full reimbursement upon making a valid claim, not months later.

Eventually, SAPOL decided to maintain the full-reimbursement position, but not before causing stress and hardship to some individuals.

The Association sought clarification from SAPOL as to its future position and has been advised that the current arrangements will continue. In our view, this fails to provide reasonable surety and further discussion will be pursued.

An Expensive Phone - call

Officer X works in a rural station (not being a Clause 14 station) and has phone calls from the public diverted to his home when he is off duty. While convenient for the Department, it means that X is subject to uncontrolled intrusion into his private life, not to mention that of his family.

One night, at about 1.00 am, X took a call from a person seeking advice about a property matter, clearly not an issue of any urgency. Despite this, X dealt as best he could with the call and eventually returned to bed.

X subsequently claimed recall to duty. But the Department, instead of recognising that its own arrangements had caused X and his family considerable inconvenience, chose to refuse the claim.

Attempts to negotiate a settlement were unsuccessful forcing the Association to lodge an action in the Industrial Relations Court. X lodged his claim for payment in November 1997. In July 1998, SAPOL eventually advised the Association that it would settle the pending court proceedings by paying the claim. The amount claimed was $77.40 - but how much was spent trying to avoid paying it?

It appears that SAPOL (in some cases at least) operates on a basis that payment of on-call allowance means officers handling phone calls at home for no payment. SAPOL’s view was that “in order to justify further payment X would have to have gone to another location.” In effect, this places officers on a form of “passive duty” which the Association believes contravenes the Award.

Overtime - Money or “Toil”

Reports have been received that some “managers” are attempting to impose Time Off in Lieu(TOIL) rather than pay members for overtime worked. There have also been suggestions of members being asked to commit themselves to TOIL before overtime is worked. Both practices breach the enterprise agreement.

TOIL was introduced through the 1995 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement as a concession to Departmental efficiency. Its introduction provided for more flexibility as well as potentially significant savings for SAPOL.

The agreement provides that the member may ask for TOIL in lieu of money payment. It does not provide for the employer to require or coerce the member into accepting TOIL.

Relieving Positions

An agreement between PASA and SAPOL provides that during the absence of the incumbent “the position should be relieved unless the circumstances are such that there is no real necessity to place another member in the position”.

A recent instruction regarding patrol supervisors turns this agreement (set out in SAPOL’s Instructions to Award) on its head. That advice provides that positions “will only be authorised when there is a real need”.

Agreement to the current position was negotiated by PASA as recently as 1995. There were no negotiations prior to the release of the new advice. PASA has sought withdrawal of the advice and offered further negotiation. The matter has been listed for dispute resolution in the Industrial Relations Commission.

Award/EB Queries

PASA members who have queries about the Award or Enterprise Bargaining Agreement are invited to write to the Association. It is hoped that these columns will better inform members of their rights and obligations.

The Police Bill Petition

The Association thanks those members who signed the petition - circulated by delegates - in support of the amendments sought by the Association. In a period of three weeks, over 2100 members signed the petition and returned it to our office. This is an excellent result. The support shown rebutted assertions made by some Members of Parliament and SAPOL management that the Police Bill, in it’s original form, had the support of a majority of members. This clearly was not the case. And the figure in excess of 2100 is even more emphatic when taking into account the hundreds of members on all forms of leave over the period.

The petition is an example of how members can actively involve themselves in the political process and be involved with their Association. Further to the petition, many members contacted their local Members of Parliament, either by letter, telephone, or in person - it is your democratic right to do so. These contacts further highlighted the membership support for the Association’s position and, consequently, led to change.

The Police Bill was significantly amended. These amendments provide for a fairer and more balanced Act of Parliament. The next step in the process will involve the writing of regulations and the code of conduct. The Association hopes that, as a stakeholder in the process, we will be afforded the opportunity to provide the government our submission on the regulations PRIOR to their introduction into parliament.

For more information about the Police Award or other Police Association matters contact the Association website via the internet: http://www.pasa.asn.au