Department of Corrective Services v The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees [2006] QIRC 13 (2006) 181 QGIG 144

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 3 February, 2006, 2001, Vol. 181, No. 5, pages 144-149] 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/2005/1199) (Lotus Glen Correctional Centre) VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE 23 January 2006 Application for arbitration seeking a determination regarding the implementation of a rotational roster at the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre - Application made pursuant to the "trial" established in the Department of Corrective Services - Correctional Employees Determination 2004 - A new roster proposed by Lotus Glen 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 roster - Staff did not have difficulties with actual proposed roster - Concerns of staff directed towards the number of posts on the roster and whether they met the budgeted posts - Admission by Department that the posts on the roster were the budgeted posts - Approval of one of the rosters that went to ballot - Implementation date not before 20 February 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 Lotus Glen 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 ... 4.1.5 New/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. -- 1 of 8 -- 2 (ii) A four (4) day period where the change relates to a section, or sections, of a Correctional Centre. (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 has sought an urgent arbitration of this matter. It was anticipated that the proposed rosters would be implemented effective 28 November 2005. The matter was heard 4 January 2006 and an urgent decision is sought by the Department. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were advised that I would approve the roster and release my reasons for the decision at a latter time. The announcement of the decision was to allow a Reserve Roster to be negotiated and voted upon prior to the implementation of the roster the subject of this arbitration. The operative date of this roster will not be earlier than four weeks from the date of release of this decision. 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 -- 3 of 8 -- 4 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 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 -- 4 of 8 -- 5 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. [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 - Lotus Glen Correctional Centre [20] As part of the project team, Ms Cleary visited the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre on 29 June 2005 to discuss operational staffing requirements and current workforce and rostering practices. During this visit Ms Cleary also met with local LWCC delegates and explained the roster review process. Following this visit Ms Cleary received an email from Barry Millwood, the President of the QPSU Sub-Branch and a LWCC delegate, on 19 August 2005 outlining a number of staff concerns. Those concerns can be summarised as follows: (i) staff had not received any documentation on budgeted posts and therefore could not determine whether the numbers of posts on the proposed rosters were appropriate. Both the Director-General and Ms Cleary had advised staff that the rosters were based on budgeted posts but officers wanted documentation to clarify that position; (ii) there had been a general lack of consultation with local delegates before the formulation of the rostering rules and guidelines; (iii) it appeared that staff were to have limited input into the design of the rosters; and (iv) staff were of the view that the current 84 week roster had complied with workplace, health and safety guidelines and those guidelines stipulated by Monash University's Brain Research Institute and this roster was the appropriate roster for Lotus Glen and believed that no change was necessary. [21] Ms Cleary responded on 22 August 2005 to those concerns advising that budgetary documentary would not be made available to staff at Lotus Glen, confirming that any new rostering model for Lotus Glen would be within the endorsed staffing budget for that Centre, disputing that there had been a lack of consultation with the QPSU and staff and requesting detail on staff concerns with the documentation provided. [22] John Stack, a QPSU delegate at Lotus Glen, responded to Ms Cleary's email on 21 August 2005 in raising the following concerns: (i) lack of access to budgeted post information; (ii) the speed with which the Department wished to implement the new rosters; and (iii) the extension of temporary contracts from 3 months to 12 months. [23] Ms Cleary responded by email dated 23 August 2005. [24] The General Manager of Lotus Glen Correctional Centre met with the local LWCC on 3 October 2005 and provided the members of that committee with example rosters and outlined the process to be followed by the roster working group. The roster working group was provided with 14 days to develop new rosters. The custodial officer nominated by the LWCC to work on the new rosters was David Walling who was taken off-line to complete this task. [25] Staff at Lotus Glen continued to be concerned that they had not received the documentation sought on the budgetary process with Mr Millwood indicating to Ms Cleary that the Centre could not develop new rosters without being provided with "budgeted posts" for the Centre. Ms Cleary's response was that the sample rosters outlined the number of posts required by the roster and also sent Mr Millwood the list of "approved posts" that the project team had used in developing example rosters. Mr Millwood was advised that if he had concerns about the list he was to contact Ms Cleary. She did not hear back from Mr Millwood regarding this matter. [26] Mr Walling worked co-operatively and enthusiastically with Lotus Glen management to develop new rosters and on 18 October 2005 and 21 October 2005 emailed a range of roster options to the project team for verification. The -- 5 of 8 -- 6 project team provided feedback to Mr Walling on 24 October 2005 advising that one of the options met the Department's rostering criteria in principle although it needed some minor "coverage" amendments but the other options did not as they had short cycle rosters and contained very frequent long breaks. [27] On 25 October 2005 Mr Walling submitted a further two roster options to the project team after attempting to address the "coverage" issues raised by the Department. On that day a teleconference with Lotus Glen representatives was organised to discuss the roster options that had been submitted by Mr Walling. The main problem to be solved was an issue around "rest days" after nightshifts. [28] On 26 October 2005 two main roster options were given final approval for balloting by the project team. The Acting General Manager, Mark Spher, then scheduled a LWCC meeting for 31 October 2005 to discuss the ballot process. He indicated that the meeting was to select a desired roster out of the two approved options to go to ballot. [29] On 27 October 2005 the LWCC delegates called a staff meeting and resolved that staff would not take any further part in the roster review until all of their concerns had been dealt with. Staff wanted both rosters to go to ballot. This position was endorsed by the QPSU. Despite this position, a further meeting of staff was held on 31 October 3005 which passed motions that were not directed against the rosters but rather against the process adopted by the Department. [30] Mr Walling sent Ms Cleary an email on 1 November 2005 which attempted to clarify the concerns of staff. Mr Walling confirmed that the staff did "not have a problem with the actual rosters" although there were a few staff who did not like them. The staff still wanted information on the "budgeted posts", continued to be concerned about the use of casuals and temporaries and believed that they were entitled to have a 14 day consultative process once a roster had been approved for ballot. [31] On 1 November 2005 the two rosters were put to ballot to all directly affected staff. The ballot process concluded on 8 November 2005. Only one staff member voted and that vote was against the proposed rosters. [32] It is the Department's position that they wish to implement the rosters as soon as possible. [33] Mr Spehr's evidence is that Lotus Glen was at an advantage compared to some other correctional centres in that it already operated a rotational roster model with the exception of K and L Block although there were some long breaks in the roster which did not meet the Department's guidelines. The proposed rosters include both K and L Block and it is his evidence that the rosters will improve the operations of the Centre and create efficiencies through:  greater flexibility in terms of workforce management particularly with staff rotating across the main functional areas of the Centre;  staff gaining improved skills;  greater equity in the shifts worked when staff are receiving the aggregated shift allowance; and  improved efficiencies through the creation of a reserve roster. [34] It was Mr Spehr's evidence that all necessary training would be provided to staff at Lotus Glen to enable them to perform the tasks on the proposed roster. [35] The evidence for the QPSU was given by:  David Walling, a custodial corrections officer at Lotus Glen. Mr Walling was the person selected to help develop the rosters within Lotus Glen and was taken off-line to provide that assistance. Mr Walling gave evidence on how he came to develop the rosters and how he finally settled on a 108 week main roster with 21 posts being on the reserve roster. Mr Walling also referred to the attempts by staff to get details on the budgeted posts. Mr Walling says that on 27 October 2005 he was informed by Mr Spehr that two rosters had been accepted by the project team and that the staff had two days to advise him of which roster was to go to ballot. Mr Walling advised Mr Spehr that in the circumstances that existed at that time that two days was insufficient time. Mr Walling then took the position to a meeting of staff. At this meeting staff passed a resolution that they had "real and serious concerns" and that they would not participate in the ballot until such time as these issues were addressed. The concerns, according to Mr Walling, were:  the use of casuals in temporary positions; -- 6 of 8 -- 7  the provision of details on budgeted posts; and  that officers be given the time to look at the rosters and to raise any further concerns. Mr Walling then conducted his own ballot of staff to gain an indication of which roster staff preferred. The great majority of staff preferred option "B" roster. Mr Walling's great concern appeared to be the failure on the part of the Department to provide documentation on "budgeted posts" saying that this was needed in order to ensure that the roster had the required staff on it to run the Centre. On this point the Department has admitted in this proceeding that the list of approved posts for the proposed roster areas which is contained in Annexure LGC-18 to the affidavit of Lisa Gay Cleary (Exhibit 3) accounted for every allocated post as per the endorsed budget for Lotus Glen Correctional Centre as at 5 October 2005. Further, the Department admitted that the two proposed main roster options that were sent out to ballot on 1 November 2005 accounted for every allocated post for the proposed roster areas as per the endorsed budget for Lotus Glen Correctional Centre as at 1 November 2005. Those admissions appeared to deal with the concerns of staff at Lotus Glen about budgeted posts.  Barry Millwood, a custodial corrections officer at Lotus Glen Correctional Centre and a workplace union delegate at the Centre. He was nominated as the primary contact person for the roster review committee. Mr Millwood's evidence also centred on the failure of the Department to provide staff with documentation on the "budgeted posts". He also had concerns about the timeframe for implementation of the proposed roster.  William Reid, a custodial corrections officer at Lotus Glen and a workplace union delegate. Mr Reid indicated that he looked forward to the roster review because he saw it was an opportunity to resolve long standing industrial issues within the Centre. He saw it as imperative that staff be provided with information on the "budgeted posts" in order to facilitate the "formation of workable, equitable and mutually acceptable rosters". Mr Reid was also of the view that staff on the main Lotus Glen roster should also be involved in the farm roster review as he was concerned that some main roster posts had found their way on to the farm roster. Mr Reid confirmed that staff at Lotus Glen did not reject the roster and had voted through a QPSU ballot to favour option B. This favouring of option B however was based on the proviso that it met the authorised "budgeted posts". Conclusion [36] Given the evidence before the Commission, the concerns of Lotus Glen custodial corrections staff with the management roster proposal was centred on their concerns that the proposed roster may not have met with the allocated "budgeted posts" for Lotus Glen. The Response to the Notice to Admit Facts and the further clarification of that Response on the transcript of proceedings appears to have allayed their concerns in that regard. [37] Staff, in an informal ballot process, accepted the option "B" roster that was put to ballot. That roster is found at Attachment MS-11 to the Affidavit of Mr Spehr (Exhibit 8). [38] Given that it is now the end of January 2006, the concerns of staff about an implementation date prior to Christmas has also been dealt with to some extent. The Department has sought an implementation date of four weeks from the date of hearing. [39] In all the circumstances I am prepared to approve the roster, found in Attachment MS-11 to the Affidavit of Mr Spehr, for implementation as the main roster at Lotus Glen Correctional Centre. The parties were advised of this outcome at the end of the hearing on 4 January 2006. I am advised that the proposed reserve roster has not been developed or put to ballot at this time. In order for the main roster to be implemented the reserve roster will need to be in place. The Department have submitted that should a four week period be allowed that the reserve roster should be in existence by that time. I am not satisfied that the reserve roster will be developed and successfully balloted by 1 February. [40] In those circumstances the operative date of this approved main roster will be a date of the Department's choosing but it will be a date not before 20 February 2006. 14 Day Period [41] Staff at Lotus Glen expressed particular concern that the Department did not comply with clause 4.1.5(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Determination in that once the proposed roster was completed it was not sent to the QPSU to enable the Union to meet with the Department and discuss the roster and raise any real and serious concerns with the proposal. Whilst the Department throughout this roster review has involved the QPSU in discussions and has consulted widely with QPSU representatives at the local correctional centre level via the LWCCs, I am of the view that the Department has not complied with clause 4.1.5 in not providing the QPSU with the proposed roster prior to the roster going to ballot. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 [42] It is for the QPSU as a registered industrial organisation to consider the proposed roster and raise with the Department any real and serious concerns. The QPSU representatives on site are not the QPSU. The process adopted by the Department has been similar in each of the correctional facilities. [43] Whilst the Department has not complied with clause 4.1.5(b) of the Determination I have formed the view that the Department believed that it had complied in giving the LWCCs a 14 day period in which to advise of any real and serious concerns. There is some suggestion that the Department believed that the QPSU had agreed to this process. I accept that the QPSU had not agreed to the process. It seems that representatives of both organisations were at cross purposes when the matter was being discussed. [44] In all the circumstances I am prepared to find that the error was a genuine mistake. In future however I would expect the process found in clause 4.1.5 to be complied with by the Department. Order accordingly. D.M. LINNANE, Vice President. Hearing Details: 2006 4 January Appearances: Mr S. Donovan, with him Ms D. Gibson for the Department of Corrective Services. Mr B. Watson, with him Mr M. Thomas and Mr R. Nillon for The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees. Released: 23 January 2006 Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2006. -- 8 of 8 --