Department of Corrective Services v The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees [2006] QIRC 15 (2006) 181 QGIG 154

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 3 February, 2006, Vol. 181, No. 5, pages 154-159] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 274 general powers Department of Corrective Services AND The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees (B/2005/1230) (Woodford Correctional Centre) VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE 24 January 2006 Application for arbitration seeking a determination regarding the implementation of a rotational roster at the Woodford Correctional Centre – Application made pursuant to the “trial” established in the Department of Corrective Services – Correctional Employees Determination 2004 – A new main and reserve rosters proposed by Woodford management requiring all permanent officers to rotate through the correctional centre was voted down at ballot – The Department commenced arbitration seeking a ruling on the rosters – Staff reject the fully rotational roster model – Concerns about the provision of training required for implementation of new roster – Undertakings given by Department with respect to training – Rosters approved – Implementation date after training program finalised and not before 3 July 2006. DECISION [1] This is an application by the Department of Corrective Services (Department) for an immediate arbitration of new/flexible shift arrangements or rosters for the Woodford Correctional Centre in accordance with clause 4.1.5(e) of the Department of Corrective Services – Correctional Employees Determination 2004 (Determination). Clause 4.1.5 of the Determination relevantly provides as follows: “4.1 Rosters … 4.1.5New/Flexible shift arrangements. (a) Where new/flexible shift arrangements are proposed, the written consent of greater than 50% of employees directly affected will be required. This is achieved via a ballot of directly affected employees. However, this will only be required where the new/flexible shift arrangements will involve a major or substantial change to working arrangements. (b) Where the Department proposes the introduction of new/flexible shift arrangements resulting in a major or substantial change to working arrangements the following fourteen (14 day) consultative process will occur prior to any ballot: (i) The Department will put the proposal in writing to the Union. (ii) The Department and the Union will meet to discuss the proposal within fourteen (14) days of the proposal being received. (iii) The Department will receive a reply from the Union within that fourteen (14) day period. (iv) Where the Union raises real and serious concerns the Department will seriously consider those concerns prior to referring the proposal to a ballot of directly affected employees. (v) If the Department changes the proposal as a result of consultation with the Union the amended proposal can proceed straight to ballot without further consultation. (c) For the purposes of 4.1.5(a) the obvious meaning of the term ‘employees directly affected’ will be applied i.e. those staff rostered to work when the Department seeks to change the roster and who are obviously and directly affected by the proposed change. The ballot will not include those employees absent on leave when the Department seeks to change the roster. (d) Timeframes – The ballot for the above purposes will be limited to: (i) A seven (7) day period where the change relates to a Correctional Centre as a whole, or a number of Correctional Centres. (ii) A four (4) day period where the change relates to a section, or sections, of a Correctional Centre. -- 1 of 8 -- 2 (iii) For the purposes of this clause Correctional Centre shall mean any Centre or workplace where staff covered by this Determination are employed. (e) In situations where the proposal is rejected (i.e does not receive the approval of greater than 50% of directly affected employees) the matter will be immediately referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for arbitration.”. [2] The Determination arose out of a decision of a Full Bench of this Commission (Linnane VP, Edwards C and Blades C) in The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees v Department of Corrective Services (2004) 175 QGIG 1225. In that decision the Full Bench relevantly concluded the following at paragraphs [123] and [124]: “[123] Rosters: Whilst we acknowledge the difficulties being experienced by the DCS in the area of rostering, the Full Bench is most concerned that the DCS did not, at any time during the currency of the Department of Corrective Services Certified Agreement 2000 refer those difficulties to this Commission for arbitration. The reason for not so referring the matters to arbitration has been said to be the delay in having such matters arbitrated. The ballot process to date has also been responsible for inordinate delays. We propose the following: (i) in clause 4.1 of the Determination we will include a definition of the term ‘directly affected’ for the purposes of clause 6.2.2 of the Department of Corrective Services Correctional Employees’ Interim Award – State. That definition will reflect the objective and obvious meaning of the term ‘directly affected’ i.e. only those employees rostered to work when the DCS seeks to change the roster are to be entitled to vote on the proposal to change the roster. Given the particular difficulties faced by the DCS in conducting ballots the vote will not include those persons absent on leave at the time the DCS seeks to change the roster; (ii) in restricting the persons entitled to vote in the secret ballot we anticipate that the time taken for the secret ballot will be considerably reduced. In that regard we are prepared to insert a provision in clause 4.1 of the Determination which would place a limit on the time taken for secret ballots under clause 6.2.2 of the Award to a period of seven (7) days where the change relates to a Correctional Centre as a whole or a number of Correctional Centres. Where the change relates to a section or sections of a Correctional Centre then the ballot should be concluded within four (4) days. It is the responses received within those time frames that will determine whether the ‘written consent of greater than 50% of Employees directly affected’ has been achieved; (iii) we will also include in clause 4.1 of the determination a definition of ‘new/flexible shift arrangements’ for the purpose of clause 6.2.2 of the Award. In our view it should only be where the ‘new/flexible shift arrangements’ involve a major or substantial change to the working arrangements that the ‘written consent of greater than 50% of Employees directly affected’ will be required; (iv) clause 6.2.1 of the Award currently provides that the roster established by DCS be in consultation with the QPSU. We expect that if ‘new/flexible shift arrangements’ are to be proposed by DCS, that consultation with the QPSU occur prior to any vote of ‘employees directly affected’ occurring. Such proposal should be in writing to the QPSU. There would be an expectation that the DCS and the QPSU would meet and discuss the proposal within 14 days of the proposal being received and that a response by the QPSU, in writing, be received by the DCS within a 14 day period. Where the QPSU raises real and serious concerns with the proposal we would expect the DCS to seriously consider those concerns prior to referring the proposal to ballot. Where the DCS changes its proposal as a result of consultation with the QPSU, we do not expect that the amended proposal needs to be further discussed with the QPSU prior to it being put to ballot. If either party wishes to utilise the dispute settlement procedure in the Award for the assistance of the Commission in conciliation, it may do so within that 14 day period; and (v) a further provision will be incorporated into clause 4.1 of the Determination that amends clause 6.2.2 of the Award in that, if the DCS proposal does not receive the approval of ‘50% of Employees directly affected’, then the matter will be immediately referred to arbitration to be dealt with urgently. Such arbitration will be conducted by a single Member of the Commission. Without limiting that Member’s discretion, we propose some guidelines for the urgent arbitration of such matters:  has the DCS met with the QPSU and disclosed its reasons for the ‘new/flexible shift arrangements’? -- 2 of 8 -- 3  has the QPSU raised a serious and substantial basis for rejecting the proposal e.g. does the proposal have a serious and substantial health and safety concern, does the proposal raise some serious and substantial lifestyle concern for employees etc.  has the DCS complied with what are referred to as ‘Departmental Guidelines for Rostering Shift Work’ which are now incorporated into this Determination; and  acknowledgement that the DCS has a managerial prerogative in this area. [124] We envisage the urgent arbitration process to be expeditious and of short duration. We propose a trial of the proposal that the Commission urgently arbitrate such matters. The trial period would be the nominal period of the determinationWe propose that there be a review and an evaluation of rostering practices and the process outlined above approximately two years and six months into the life of the determination.”. [3] It is in that context that the Department have sought an urgent arbitration of this matter. It was anticipated that the proposed rosters would be implemented effective 28 November 2005 however the Department’s position on the implementation date has now changed with the Department seeking an implementation date of end of May, 2006. History – General [4] Following the decision of the Full Bench on 1 April 2004 and the release of the Determination on 15 May 2004 the Department decided to clearly establish the operational requirements of each of its correctional facilities and to develop a consistent approach throughout such facilities to rostering practices. In order to achieve this, the Department embarked on a state-wide review process. The Department developed a set of Guiding Principles to clearly establish the operational and rostering requirements that would need to be met at any correctional centre. [5] Whilst recognising that the operational requirements were a matter for the Department to determine, the Department undertook a consultative process with the Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees (QPSU) in establishing those operational requirements. Essentially, the principles were statements derived from the Determination and the Department of Corrective Services – Guidelines for Rostering Shift Work (Rostering Guidelines) which is Schedule 2 to the Determination. [6] Those Guiding Principles were forwarded to the QPSU under cover of a letter from the Department dated 24 May 2005. In that correspondence the Department advised the QPSU that it was about to commence a state-wide review of rosters in accordance with the Determination. A Joint Consultative Committee was established comprising both QPSU and Departmental representatives as a means of keeping the QPSU informed of the roster review process. The Department then established a roster review project team (project team). [7] That Joint Consultative Committee first met on 20 June 2005 where a copy of the Guiding Principles was tabled. The QPSU representatives at that meeting agreed that the Guiding Principles accurately reflected the provisions of the Determination. [8] The project team conducted a state-wide visit to correctional centres. That project team was comprised of Lisa Clearly – Principal Consultant with the Department of Corrective Services, Karen McNab – Human Resource Manager, Maryborough Correctional Centre and Jim Searoth – an external consultant from Shiftwork Solutions. The project team met with management and rostering representatives at each correctional centre to discuss the operational requirements and the current workforce and rostering processes in each centre. [9] The project team then developed two documents – the Addendum to DCS Shiftwork Rostering Guidelines (Addendum) and the DCS Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines (Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines). The Addendum was developed to address the specific shiftwork and rostering matters described at Parts 4 and 6 of the Determination, whilst the Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines were developed as a management tool to ensure a fair and consistent state-wide approach to roster administration was achieved. Together these documents formed the Department’s proposal for a new roster model. [10]According to the evidence of Ms Cleary, the Addendum outlined the requirements for the main roster pool, reserve/relief rosters, specialist rosters and roster design. Further the Addendum provided for the posts/work areas which were to be included in the main roster, how the roster was to be grouped and detailed that a minimum number of main rosters were preferred. The Addendum required that individuals in the main roster pool were to be rotated through all posts within their assigned roster and through all rosters in the main roster pool. Further it detailed that reserve or relief rosters were to contain all of the spare and reserve shifts, that such shifts were to be deployed to meet the operational requirements as determined by the Department and that vacancies on the reserve roster would not be replaced. The Addendum further provided that under roster design the rostered shift allocation would be done in -- 3 of 8 -- 4 accordance with existing Departmental shiftwork Rostering Guidelines and the provisions of the Addendum. The Addendum further required that the shift allocation and design of new roster patterns must be on the basis of short cycles with regular rotations. [11]The Addendum and the Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines were then provided to the QPSU on 3 August 2005 requiring a response by 16 August 2005. The Department then met with the QPSU at an Agency Consultative Committee (ACC) on 5 August 2005, to discuss the proposal. Timeframes were given for the QPSU to respond and those timeframes were extended to enable a written response from the QPSU. Notwithstanding the extension of the timeframe to respond the QPSU did not respond within the twenty-one day time period allowed. [12]The QPSU did however respond on 1 September 2005 and raised the following concerns about the proposal:  the proposed implementation date for the new rosters;  the consultation process undertaken by the Department; and  the principles reduced the opportunity for staff to be rostered off duty for a long break i.e. up to 8 days. [13] The Department considered the concerns raised by the QPSU but continued to hold the view that:  the implementation date was prospective and beyond the 72 hours’ notice of roster changes required by the Determination;  the consultation process was reasonable and that such process would continue;  the concerns over the “long breaks” in rosters were inconsistent with the guidelines from the Department of Corrective Services Correctional Employees’ Interim Award – State (Award) and the Determination. [14]The Department advised the QPSU in correspondence dated 5 September 2005 that it would not change the proposed model on the basis of the concerns raised. [15]The Department again met with the QPSU at an ACC meeting on 7 September 2005 wherein the QPSU raised further concerns which were responded to by the Department. The QPSU sought a further extension to provide additional feedback about the Addendum and the Workforce & Roster Management Guidelines. The QPSU also requested that the Department delay the implementation of the new rosters until after Christmas. The Department advised that they would not agree to the delay. [16]The Department corresponded with the QPSU on 7 September 2005 advising that whilst they could not facilitate the QPSU’s request to delay implementation it was prepared to grant a further seven day extension noting that the Department required rosters to be implemented from end of November 2005 rather than the previous deadline of 31 October 2005. [17]On 16 September 2005 the Department again met with the QPSU following receipt of correspondence from the QPSU on 15 September 2005. As a result of the meeting on 16 September 2005 the Department made a number of amendments to the Addendum and the Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines. As a result of QPSU representations, the Department made changes to the following elements of the Workforce and Roster Management Guideline:  training;  roster variations process;  managing unplanned leave; and  allocation of overtime. [18]The Department also took note of the concerns raised by the QPSU in relation to specialist rosters and work patterns. According to Ms Cleary, the Department acted reasonably and made changes that would not compromise the operational requirements of the Department. These changes were communicated orally to a QPSU representative who, according to Ms Cleary, indicated that the documents were acceptable from the QPSU’s perspective. -- 4 of 8 -- 5 [19]The Department then proposed a further consultative process for the development of new rosters at each correctional centre. The General Manager at each correctional centre invited the Local Workplace Consultative Committee (LWCC) to be involved in the development of new rosters for their particular correctional centre. The LWCC is a committee made up of QPSU nominated staff representatives and management representatives. The LWCC nominated an agreed Roster Working Party/Committee whose responsibility it was to develop new rosters, in accordance with the Department’s criteria for that particular centre. All proposed rosters were then to be forwarded to the project team for verification that it met the Department’s rostering criteria. History – Woodford Correctional Centre [20]The Project Team, including Ms Cleary, visited Woodford Correctional Centre on 17 June 2005 and met with management and roster representatives to discuss operational staffing requirements and current workforce and rostering practices. The Acting General Manager of Woodford Correctional Centre, Gregory Howden, met with QPSU representatives Trevor Toon and Jeff Kajewski on 25 August 2005 and provided them with example patterns of work and agreed to nominated staff working off line on the roster review project. [21]Mr Howden met with the Local Workplace Consultative Committee (LWCC) on 7 September 2005 however no QPSU delegates attended this meeting and he was unable to provide them with the documentation about the roster review. Apparently QPSU delegates had, at this time, been advised not to attend any meetings regarding the roster review. The documentation was subsequently distributed at a LWCC meeting on 19 September 2005. The LWCC was then given 14 days to develop new rosters. [22]An email was circulated around the Woodford Centre on 22 September 2005 providing general advice to staff on the roster working party. Staff were also advised on that day of certain information being added to the Resource Directory concerning the roster review. On 23 September 2005 Mr Howden approved for Doug Finch and David McInnes to be taken off-line from normal duties for three twelve hour shifts each to complete the rosters. [23]At a lockdown meeting on 28 September 2005 issues about the roster review were raised. The main issues of concern raised at the meeting were the implementation date being prior to Christmas and the issue of training that would be required with the full rotational roster model. Guarantees were given that individual circumstances in regard to planned leave over Christmas would be honoured. In regard to training, staff were informed that it was the Centre’s responsibility to ensure training was provided prior to any member of staff being allocated to posts that they were not qualified to operate. [24]Rosters were submitted from the Woodford Centre to the Project Team for assessment on 4 October 2005 following a LWCC meeting on 3 October 2005. Further rosters were submitted on 7 October 2005 and again on 13 October 2005. The rosters submitted on 13 October 2005 were the result of some refinement of the original rosters to ensure that operational requirements and the Department’s guidelines were met. [25]On 17 October 2005 the General Manager at Woodford was provided with feedback from the Project Team. This feedback related to concerns about “coverage” with the main roster. An email sent by Gary Marron on 19 October 2005 advised staff not to participate in the roster review and not to vote. On 20 October 2005 a QPSU meeting was held at which four motions were passed concerning the following:  a request for a written plan to be provided to staff outlining the process to ensure that all support and relief staff were trained to accreditation standards;  a request that a training plan be provided to staff on how training would be provided to accommodate the new roster model;  a request for a reduction in the number of socially removed shifts; and  a request for the formulation and inclusion of a further two roster options in the ballot process. [26]Mr Howden’s response to these requests was as follows:  he agreed to supply a written training plan to ensure all current relief and support staff were trained to the required standard to facilitate their respective posts;  he agreed to supply a full training plan and would not place staff in posts that they were not trained to facilitate;  he agreed to minor changes to reduce night shifts in the relief options available for voting; and  he agreed to the inclusion of a “yes” or “no” option on the ballot. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 [27]A “pre-ballot” ballot was conducted on 24 October 2005 which was to enable the staff to choose a preferred option to go to ballot. The results of that “pre-ballot” ballot were tabled at a LWCC meeting on 31 October 2005. Roster option B was identified by staff as being the preferred roster to take to ballot. [28]At a LWCC meeting on 2 November 2005 Mr Howden tabled the training plan he had agreed to provide and this was placed on the Resource Directory. The ballot paper was also agreed upon at this meeting. The ballot paper confirmed that no staff movements would be implemented without the appropriate training having been completed. [29]The ballot itself commenced on 7 November 2005 and main roster B was the roster which went to ballot. The reserve roster and the reception store roster also went to ballot on that day. The ballot closed on 14 November 2005. The reception store roster was supported by a majority of affected staff. The main and reserve rosters were not supported by a majority of affected staff. On 15 November 2005 Mr Howden emailed staff to thank them for their participation in the roster review process and advised them that the matter would now be referred to this Commission. Mr Howden had earlier thanked the QPSU delegates for their role during the review process. [30]It is Mr Howden’s belief that the proposed rosters are required:  to meet the operational needs at Woodford Correctional Centre;  to improve efficiency;  to place the Centre in a better position for the planned expansions;  to provide the Centre with a greater flexibility in the filling of positions by rostering staff across all posts and sections of the Centre;  to ensure more equitable rostering practices by providing a balance of shifts worked to attract the aggregated shift allowance. Mr Howden is also of the view that the proposed roster will give staff the opportunity to increase skills in all areas of the Centre. [31]The evidence for the QPSU was given by the following: Ian Mosley, a support co-ordinator for the Woodford Correctional Centre. Mr Mosley is not affected by the proposed roster, however he does supervise a team of custodial corrections officers at the Centre. These officers operate electronic control points including Master Control at Woodford, manage offender transport requirements and co-ordinate and supervise the offender community interface. Mr Mosley’s concerns with the proposed roster relate to the rotational aspects of the roster. His concerns are that:  the Department seems to be focusing its attention on raising the level of competency of custodial corrections officers through targeted training. Mr Mosley says that the fact that officers are deemed to be competent to perform certain duties does not make them capable of meeting their obligation of care to other officers. Although an officer may have the necessary skills to perform a particular duty, the fact that the officer may not have been working in a particular area for some considerable time may mean that further training is required in order to bring that officer up to the level required to ensure the safety of other officers and prisoners are met;  more responsibility will be placed on the Support Co-ordinators who will need to assess the competency levels of officers when first placed in areas for which they have little or no experience. This, according to Mr Mosley increases the work load for co-ordinators; and  staff in general will be in a constant state of destabilisation as they move from one task to the next with no focus on mastery – rather the focus will be on competence with its inherent skill reduction. David McInnes, a custodial corrections officer at Woodford and a delegate of the QPSU. Mr McInness sees the concept of a rotation of staff throughout all areas of Woodford as being thoroughly flawed. Given the past history at the Woodford Centre, Mr McInnes sees the Woodford staff as having two separate sets of skills. He himself has been a prisoner management staff member since the commissioning of Woodford and he has never worked any post in the Centre Services area. Mr McInnes has therefore never been trained or assessed as competent in any of the Centre Services posts. Mr McInnes also has concerns for the “maintenance of proper dynamic security” which he sees as being essential to maintaining a safe working environment for both staff and prisoners. Mr McInnes also expressed concern with the issue of training. -- 6 of 8 -- 7 Family responsibility issues were also raised by Mr McInnes, particularly for those officers with partners who also work shift work. The timeframe within which the Department wished to originally implement the new rosters late in October, 2005 and then late in November 2005, did not give officers sufficient time to reorganise their family commitments. Mr McInnes is also concerned that with the proposed roster there is a negative side and that is that officers will become a “jack of all trades, master of none” and that basic competence in all areas does not equate with expertise in any given area. Further, Mr McInnes points to the fact that officers on the reserve roster are required to work a higher proportion of night shifts than those on the main roster and thus he submits that the proposed rosters do not provide greater equity as alleged by the Department’s witnesses. Jason Hunt, a custodial corrections officer at Woodford and a delegate for the QPSU. It was Mr Hunt’s evidence that staff generally were not opposed to the introduction of certain rostering innovations but were opposed to the idea of rotation. He is of the view that all the Department’s objectives can be achieved without the need for the roster to be fully rotational. Far from multi skilling staff, Mr Hunt sees the proposed roster as resulting in a deskilling of Woodford staff. He sees the constant movement of staff through all areas of the Centre as not giving officers sufficient time to build up a necessary level of expertise in a specific working environment. Mr Hunt sees a limited rotational system as providing the Department with its objectives i.e. staff remaining in their own discreet work places, within their own discreet work teams and incorporating into that roster some rostered shifts in other areas within the Centre. This he says will give staff access to other areas to broaden the spectrum of their accreditation while at the same time expanding their skills base for career development. Mr Hunt sees the proposed roster as being greatly disruptive to the family life of the staff required to work it. He indicated that many staff at Woodford have partners who also work shift work and that the officers and their partners had worked out arrangements on the current roster which will no longer be appropriate. Mr Hunt also referred to the fact that the Woodford Centre is regional and isolated from any form of public transport. As a consequence officers have arranged to car pool with officers on the same roster. With the introduction of the rotational model this will cause difficulties with such arrangements. Mr Hunt also sees the proposed roster as being detrimental to the building up of a professional rapport with prisoners. The rotational model would be counter-productive to the development of such a rapport. He also sees the Centre based intelligence as also suffering from the rotational model and he sees this intelligence as being very important in a correctional centre. Conclusion [32]The Woodford Correctional Centre has operated differently to other correctional centres in Queensland in terms of the industrial regulation of work at the Centre. There has existed two sets of employment arrangements at the Centre – one set of terms and conditions that apply to those officers working with prisoners and the other set applying to those officers responsible for security. Recently, agreement has been reached between the QPSU and the Department to abolish that distinction and to bring the Woodford Centre into the mainstream industrial regulation for Departmental custodial corrections officers. Unfortunately this process of harmonisation has coincided with the roster review and it has probably made the balloting process more complex. [33]The Department acknowledges that the harmonisation and the proposed roster will amount to a big change for staff at the Woodford Centre. The training program implemented by Mr Howden will not be completed until May 2006, The Department and Mr Howden have given officers, and this Commission, an undertaking that staff will receive all the necessary training prior to being asked to fill a post on the proposed roster. There is an obligation on all employers to ensure that employees receive appropriate training before being asked to perform tasks for which they do not have the necessary skills. [34]The Department also acknowledges that officers at the Woodford Centre will face lifestyle issues and family responsibility concerns with the proposed roster. The roster is a 186 week roster so that officers know in advance what they will work during that period. Staff also have available to them the ability to obtain roster variations, changes of duties and carers’ leave in order to assist them in this area. Further the Department is now only seeking an implementation date following the finalisation of the training program which is expected to be the end of May 2006 with a further one month’s notice from that time i.e. the Department is seeking an implementation date of end of May 2006. [35]Training of staff in respect of the harmonisation process has commenced, however, that training does not deal with training for the proposed roster. The Department would wish to commence that training as soon as possible should the -- 7 of 8 -- 8 proposed roster be approved. The Department has committed funds for the training of officers at the Woodford Correctional Centre. [36]QPSU witnesses expressed concern that officers on the proposed reserve roster were required to perform more night shifts than those on the proposed main roster and that therefore the Department’s stated objective of greater equity was not achieved. The Department’s position is that it has achieved equity within each roster so that officers on the main roster are required to perform the same nightshift duty as all other officers on the main roster. A similar equitable position arises with the reserve roster according to the Department’s submission. [37]Mr Watson raises the issue that the Determination did not mandate fully rotational rosters. I agree with that submission. The Department however, has formed the view that a fully rotational roster will provide it with efficiencies. They are entitled to form that opinion and time alone will be the judge. [38]I have formed the view that the concerns of staff, particularly the lifestyle and family responsibility concerns, will generally be able to be accommodated although some form of reorganisation of family life may be required. An implementation date of July, 2006 will assist officers in attempting to overcome those difficulties. [39]I accept that officers at the Woodford Centre will face many changes in the near future both with the harmonisation process and the introduction of new rosters. Those changes are greater than the changes in any other correctional centre. In those circumstances I will approve the main and reserve rosters that went to ballot. The implementation date for those new rosters will be a date following the completion of the training program and not before 3 July 2006. Order accordingly. D.M. LINNANE, Vice President. Appearances: Hearing Details: 2006 11 January Mr S. Donovan, with him Ms D. Gibson for the Department of Corrective Services. Mr B. Watson for the The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees. Released: 24 January 2006 Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2006. -- 8 of 8 --