Department of Corrective Services v The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees (No. 2) [2005] QIRC 165 (2005) 180 QGIG 1037

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 9 December, 2005, Vol. 180, No.19, pages 1037-1045] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 274 general powers Department of Corrective Services AND The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees (No. 2) (B/2005/1183) VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE 24 November 2005 Application for urgent arbitration seeking a determination regarding the implementation of a rotational roster at the Wolston Correction Centre – Application made pursuant to the “trial” established in the Department of Corrective Services – Correctional Employees Determination 2004 – A new roster proposed by Wolston 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 – An undertaking was given by the Department in relation to training – Family and lifestyle considerations not disadvantaged by proposed roster – Health and safety not compromised by proposed roster – Skills audit to be completed prior to implementation of new roster – Roster to commence 2 January 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 Wolston 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. (ii) A four (4) day period where the change relates to a section, or sections, of a Correctional Centre. -- 1 of 12 -- 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. -- 2 of 12 -- 3 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’?  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. The matter was heard 22 November 2005 and an urgent decision is sought by the Department. History [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. -- 3 of 12 -- 4 [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 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 on 7 September 2005 wherein it 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 -- 4 of 12 -- 5  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. [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. [20] At an LWCC meeting at Wolston on 28 July 2005 nominations were called from QPSU representatives to join the Roster Working Group to develop new rosters. [21] At the Wolston Correctional Centre (Wolston) the General Manager of Wolston, Gregory Norman Brown, met with the LWCC on 19 September 2005. The Roster Working Group consisted of K. Ness, D. McKinnon, L. MacIntosh and T. Morrison (Roster Clerk). On this occasion the General Manager provided the LWCC members with example patterns of work and he outlined the process to be followed by the Roster Working Group. In accordance with clause 4.1.5 of the Determination, the LWCC were given 14 days to develop new rosters. It seems that at Wolston, Katrina Ness was taken off line in order to complete this task within the allotted time. It is acknowledged however that Ms Ness did a substantial amount of work on the rosters in her own time. The Roster Working Group approached the General Manager for more time to complete the task and, on 27 September 2005, he granted approval for two early lockdowns on 28 and 29 September 2005 to allow an opportunity for the QPSU representatives to discuss the development of rosters with staff. [22] The issue of rosters was again raised on 4 October 2005 at a meeting of the LWCC. The QPSU representatives raised concerns about 8 hour shifts, nightshifts and rotations. The General Manager informed the LWCC that the roster developed by the QPSU representatives did not meet the Department’s rostering criteria and advised the LWCC that he could not support that proposal. This proposed roster (the Capricornia Centre roster proposal) was based, to some extent, on the roster approved by management to be put to a vote at the Capricornia Centre. [23] The General Manager then decided to take a nominated QPSU representative on the LWCC and a member of the Roster Working Group, Ms Ness, off line from her normal duties to develop a new roster. Ms Ness says that she was given the roster prepared by the Roster Clerk and asked to incorporate the work patterns that were acceptable to the staff. Further the General Manager approved early lockdowns for 7 and 8 October 2005 to enable Ms Ness to discuss the rosters with staff. At that meeting the staff indicated that they still wanted the Capricornia Centre roster proposal. [24] On 10 October 2005 the LWCC again met. The General Manager again reiterated that he could not support the Capricornia Centre roster proposal. He did indicate that he was prepared to support the roster prepared by the Roster Clerk with the assistance of Ms Ness (management roster proposal) as it met both Wolston’s and the Department’s requirements. The General Manager undertook to staff that he would send both the Capricornia Centre roster proposal and the management roster proposal to the project team for consideration. [25] On 10 October 2005 the General Manager at Wolston submitted both roster proposals to the project team. According to the General Manager, the Capricornia Centre roster proposal was developed by the LWCC without due regard to Wolston’s requirements. It was the evidence of the General Manager that ultimately staff appeared to be happy with the patterns of work in the management roster proposal but were not happy with the rotational aspects of the roster. [26] The management roster proposal is a 108 line roster. Staff will start on one line of the roster and move week by week to the next line slowly rotating through each line of the roster and subsequently each area of the main roster. The areas of Wolston on the main roster are Support, Secure and Residential. The Support roster is made up from weeks one to thirty-four with Secure covering weeks thirty-five to eighty and Residential covering weeks eighty-one to one hundred and eight. When a staff member completes week one hundred and eight that member returns to week one in Support. -- 5 of 12 -- 6 [27] According to the evidence of the General Manager, movement to different areas within Wolston requires different training needs. He gave an undertaking to provide the necessary training to enable correctional officers to perform all duties required by the rotational roster. His undertaking extended to ensuring that this training would be undertaken prior to staff movement into areas requiring further training or qualification updates. Mr. Brown’s evidence is that a training component has been incorporated into the rotational roster i.e. 128 hours of relief staff on the roster per week. This will enable staff to be relieved from their posts to attend training as required and to allow for staff to rotate through the different areas of Wolston. [28] The General Manager was advised on 11 October 2005 that the project team had assessed that the Capricornia Centre roster proposal did not meet the Department’s fundamental requirement of a rotational roster. According to Ms Cleary, the project team assessed both roster options. The project team determined that the Capricornia Centre roster proposal did not meet the Department’s fundamental requirement of a rotational roster and it had an inequitable distribution of night shifts and weekend work across the roster which was unacceptable. This roster, according to Ms Cleary did not meet the Department’s requirements for staff mobility, flexibility and multi- skilling. The General Manager was advised that the management roster proposal did meet the Department’s rostering criteria and that this proposal was approved by the Department for sending to a ballot of staff. The QPSU were subsequently advised that a ballot would commence on 13 October 2005. [29] On 13 October 2005 the General Manager commenced the ballot process of all directly affected staff in accordance with clause 4.1.5(d)(i) of the Determination. Upon closure of the ballot process, the roster proposal was rejected by a vote of staff – 88 to 18. Thus the reference to the Commission for arbitration. Department’s Evidence [30] Evidence for the Department was given by Gregory Norman Brown, the General Manager at Wolston, and Lisa Gay Cleary, the Department’s Principal Consultant, Human Resource Services Branch. In addition to the evidence of these witnesses referred to in the abovementioned history these witnesses provided the Commission with the following information: [31] Gregory Norman Brown: Mr Brown is the General Manager at Wolston and has been in this role since September 2000. His evidence is that the current rosters at Wolston:  do not meet the Department’s rostering criteria;  do not allow for rotation of staff through the correctional centre;  limit his ability to deploy staff across the centre as operationally required;  assist in deskilling staff because of a lack of exposure to the different operational areas of the centre;  lead to an imbalance in the shifts worked; and  do not correctly reflect the number of available staff creating what are termed “holes” in the roster. These are unallocated shifts and result in him having to utilise overtime and casuals to meet the operational requirements of the correctional centre. [32] According to Mr Brown the management roster proposal:  will provide Wolston with greater flexibility in terms of workforce management as the roster complies with the Department’s operational requirements with rotations across the functional areas of Wolston;  will enhance the skills of staff through exposure to different operational areas within Wolston which in turn will enable him to utilise staff across the centre to meet operational requirements;  will ensure that there is a balance in the shifts worked to attract the aggregated shift allowance; and  will meet the operational requirements of Wolston and, as such, will alleviate the issue of holes experienced with the current rosters and enable Wolston to reduce the current level of overtime incurred to meet operational requirements. [33] Mr. Brown also provided evidence of the ballot process and the steps taken to notify staff of the ballot. No issue was taken as to the legitimacy of the ballot process. -- 6 of 12 -- 7 [34] Lisa Gay Cleary: Ms Cleary is the Department’s Principal Consultant, Human Resource Services Branch and has been employed in that capacity since March 2003. In this role Ms Cleary was appointed to the project team in May 2005 to manage the state-wide roster review. Ms Cleary’s evidence is that a key role of the project team was to clearly establish the Department’s operational requirements and to develop a process/system to give effect to those features of the Determination that relate to staffing of correctional centres. A set of Guiding Principles for the project team was established by the Department to comply with the provisions of the Determination – the principles established were as follows:  any roster developed by the Department shall comply with roster and shift duration provisions of the Award and the Determination;  any roster developed by the Department shall comply with the Department of Corrective Services Guidelines for Rostering Shiftwork;  the Department will establish rosters, and deploy employees to rosters, to meet the operational needs of the work area;  rosters will be established on the basis of approved posts as per the endorsed budget within a custodial centre;  the Department will have the ability to rotate staff through various functional areas of the custodial centre;  there will be “main rosters” and “reserve rosters”;  reserve shifts will be developed to the main roster to meet the operational requirements as determined by the Department; and  vacancies on reserve rosters will not be replaced. [35] Ms Cleary’s evidence is that the QPSU representatives present at the first meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee on 20 June 2005 agreed that the Guiding Principles accurately reflected the provisions of the Determination and she took that as acceptance by the QPSU of the content of those principles. QPSU Evidence [36] Evidence for the QPSU was given by the following persons: [37] Katrina Gaye Ness: Ms Ness has been employed by the Department for approximately eight years and has worked at Wolston since 1999. She is employed as a custodial corrective services officer. She is a member of the LWCC at Wolston. Ms Ness was advised by the General Manager at Wolston on 28 July 2005 that she would be a member of the Roster Review Committee at Wolston. In circumstances where no staff member from Residential nominated for the Roster Review Committee, Ms Ness was asked and accepted the role. [38] Ms Ness expressed concern at an email received on 11 August 2005 from Ms Cleary which indicated that site visits had been completed and that the project team had met with management and roster representatives at each centre to discuss current rostering and other workforce management issues that impacted on rostering. Prior to this e-mail Ms Ness had no knowledge of any visitation to Wolston relating to rosters. [39] Ms Ness emailed Ms Cleary on 18 August 2005 with a list of her initial concerns in relation to the roster review documents (Attachment “KGN-7” to Exhibit 4.). These concerns included:  a concern that Secure should have a special roster rather than being included in the main roster;  family and lifestyle concerns about the proposed roster; and  concern for those rostered off for the Christmas period on the current roster and how that could be managed. [40] Ms Cleary’s immediate response was that she would table the concerns for consideration even if they were not dealt with in the formal QPSU response. On 22 August 2005 Ms Cleary provided a detailed response. . [41] Ms Ness attended various meetings on the issue of rosters and/or provided documentation including: -- 7 of 12 -- 8  6 September 2005 – a QPSU State Section meeting;  6 September 2005 – an urgent QPSU teleconference involving all correctional centres;  7 September 2005 – an ACC Meeting whereby the concerns of staff and the timeframe of the roster review were discussed and a further seven day period was given to QPSU;  12 September 2005 – faxed QPSU a detailed list of the concerns of Wolston staff. Those concerns included lack of consultation on the formulation of the Addendum, the Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines and the Guiding Principles for the roster review, the timeframe for the roster review and specific issues about the documentation.  16 September 2005 – a meeting with the Department and QPSU to detail specific concerns with the Rostering Guidelines and the Addendum with the main concern being the determination of specialist and main rosters;  19 September 2005 – attended the LWCC meeting to accept sample rosters for Wolston and to receive an explanation of the rotation process. Ms Ness had concerns about the samples stating that some did not appear to follow the ACTU Guidelines for shift work;  26 September 2005 – she received a copy of the updated Guidelines via an e-mail from QPSU;  28 and 29 September 2005 – she attended the early lock down meetings to inform all staff of the progress on the development of rosters. Ms Ness states that staff expressed the view that they would like to pursue a roster similar to that approved for ballot at the Capricornia Centre;  4 October 2005 – she presented a roster model to management based on the roster approved for ballot at the Capricornia Centre i.e. the Capricornia Centre roster proposal. Ms Ness states that this roster design took into account the business needs of the Department, employee needs and the necessary health and safety requirements. The General Manager raised concerns about the rotational aspects of the roster design, however, Ms Ness says that the General Manager indicated at the meeting that he was happy with the patterns of work in the proposed roster. The General Manager asked Ms Ness to work with the Roster Clerk to develop work patterns of a similar nature. She agreed to assist and took the roster prepared by the Roster Clerk and developed it to include the work patterns in the Capricornia Centre roster proposal;  7 and 8 October 2005 – early lock down meetings of staff were presented with both the Capricornia Centre roster proposal and the management roster proposal. Staff indicated that they wished to pursue Capricornia Centre roster proposal; and  10 October 2005 – an LWCC meeting where both rosters were presented to the General Manager with Ms Ness indicating that staff would not accept the management roster proposal. [42] Ms Ness says that the concern of the staff with the management roster proposal was the full rotational aspect of the roster and not the patterns of work. She says that staff were not opposed to moving/rotating to new work areas with current staff moving from one area to others through an expression of interest process. She states that the implementation of a full rotational model will:  have an impact on prisoners in that it will reduce the ability of staff to work on a one on one basis to assist prisoners with their rehabilitation; and  may jeopardise the safety and security of officers and prisoners in that prisoners are less likely to confide information to staff that they are not familiar with. [43] The Capricornia Centre roster proposal, according to Ms Ness, provided for rotation between accommodation and security areas but removed the specialised areas of the security roster. Ms Ness also expressed concerns about the provision of training. According to Ms Ness, a full rotation (2 years) will mean that staff will have to be fully requalified to comply with the accredited training regime. [44] As to the personal effects on Ms Ness, she says that as her partner is also a custodial correctional officer, and the roster will negatively impact on her ability to balance her family and work commitments. -- 8 of 12 -- 9 [45] Ms Ness seems to have been placed in a difficult position throughout the consultation and ballot process. She was co-opted to the role because no one else from her section nominated for the committee. I found her to have been very articulate in representing the interests of officers at Wolston whether that representation has been to management or to this Commission. [46] David Adam Balmer: Mr Balmer has been employed by the Department for over sixteen years and has worked at Wolston since 1999. Mr. Balmer is employed as a custodial corrective services officer. He was appointed to the roster committee at Wolston shortly after the correctional centre was opened in 1999. He was part of the team that wrote the current rosters for secure and residential accommodation. These rosters have been in place for over 4 years. Mr. Balmer expressed concerns over the level of training provided at Wolston and feels that with the proposed roster training deficiencies would be increased. [47] Mr Balmer was recently involved in the ballot and says that the management roster proposal would require him to change areas of work and work patterns as he moved from line to line within the roster. His evidence is that he and his partner plan family activities under the current roster for every second weekend which he has off work. He says that the proposed roster would not allow for the scheduling of such activities. [48] Bronwyn Heather Ablett: Ms Ablett has been employed by the Department for nine and a half-years and has worked at Wolston for approximately four years. During this time she has been employed as a custodial corrective services officer. She also was involved in the recent ballot. She is concerned that the management roster proposal will have a negative impact on her family which in turn would cause hardship. She expressed concerns about the care of her son and how difficult it will be for her and the child’s father to meet the needs of his care should the proposed roster be introduced. Ms Ablett foreshadowed the need to involve her extended family in the caring arrangements for her son should the roster be introduced. [49] Further Ms Ablett’s evidence is that both she and her partner work at Wolston and, if the new roster were introduced, she was concerned that they would never have a weekend off together. Ms Ablett is also undertaking full-time study at a university and requires days off work to attend lectures and tutorials. She says that she currently works in an area where a number of her colleagues support her efforts to educate herself and obviously agree to vary rosters when needed to suit her tertiary education. She anticipates that such support would not be forthcoming if the proposed roster was introduced. [50] Ms Ablett also expressed concerns that no workplace health and safety risk assessment has been conducted on the proposed roster. She is thus concerned that the proposed roster may adversely affect the health and safety of employees although she was unable to identify any such adverse effects. Concerns in relation to training were also expressed by Ms Ablett. She indicated a number of areas where she believes she does not have the necessary training to fulfil many of the duties required if the management roster proposal were introduced. [51] Brett Daniel Gourley: Mr Gourley has been employed as a custodial corrective services officer for approximately eight years and has been employed at Wolston since 1999. He was recently involved in the ballot at Wolston. His evidence is that the management roster proposal would have a negative financial impact on his family. Mr Gourley’s partner works on the alternate weekends when he is not on duty and so the care of Mr Gourley’s son on weekends is accommodated. Mr Gourley says that the proposed roster would not allow him to have every second weekend off work. His evidence is that his partner does not have the same flexibility as he has to alter her work times to meet the proposed roster. According to Mr Gourley this may mean that his partner would have to leave work. Mr Gourley also expressed concerns about the Department’s ability to provide the necessary training required of the proposed roster. Conclusion [52] Given the evidence before the Commission, the concerns of Wolston custodial corrections staff with the management roster proposal are as follows: (i) training; (ii) implementation date; (iii) family & lifestyle issues; and (iv) health & safety concerns. -- 9 of 12 -- 10 [53] Training: I find that the provision of necessary training for the fully rotational roster is the most important concern expressed by staff. The General Manager in his evidence did acknowledge that Wolston has had some difficulties in providing general training for staff in recent times. He stated that he was “very cognisant of the fact that we have not been able to maintain training to the required level”. He indicated that as of Monday 28 November 2005 Wolston would have the benefit of an additional fifteen staff from the closure of the Sir David Longland facility which would enable relief for general training to be accommodated, i.e. the training that had got behind in recent times. He was hopeful that the general training at Wolston would be rectified with the addition of those fifteen employees. One can then understand the concerns of staff that appropriate training might not be forthcoming to enable them to attain the necessary skills to work in areas where they have not worked previously or have not worked in recent times. [54] The management roster proposal has included in it provision for 128 hours per week of training to enable staff to attain the skills necessary to work the 108 line roster, i.e. a total of 13,824 hours over the roster period. Whilst the staff acknowledge that the roster provides for this training they are concerned that those hours will be utilised in areas other than training. [55] During the course of the General Manager’s evidence I raised my concerns about the provision of training. I also raised with the General Manager the ability or otherwise of the Department undertaking an audit of the skills of the 108 persons and the possible timeframes of such an audit. I was advised that the timing might depend upon how long it would take to get the files from Partner One. The personal files of those 108 staff members were said to be with Partner One, the shared service provider. I was informed later in the afternoon that management at Wolston had received the files from Partner One and had commenced such an audit. [56] In order to ensure that staff are adequately trained in all aspects of the work required of the roster I make the following orders: 1. That the Department prepare a document for each of the 108 officers required to perform duties under the management roster proposal which clearly sets out the current skills of that officer. The document should then itemise the skills/training required to be obtained/undertaken by that officer in order for the officer to be able to work in all areas of the proposed roster. This document should be delivered to each officer (other than officers on leave) by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 1 December 2005. 2. That each officer confirm in writing to the Department that they agree with the current skills and the skills/training required to be attained/undertaken in order to perform the duties required of the proposed roster or alternatively, to document in writing to the Department where they disagree with the Department’s audit and outline the basis of that disagreement. This confirmation/response should be delivered to a nominated person by 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6 December 2005. 3. That where there is disagreement between the Department and the officer about the current skills/skills required then the Department and QPSU are to attempt to resolve those differences by 12 December 2005. 4. Where the differences are unable to be resolved the matter should be referred by either the Department or the QPSU to the Industrial Registry so that I can deal with such matters in the week commencing 12 December 2005. 5. Where an officer is on leave, the Department should deliver the document referred to in 1 above to the officer on his or her return to work and the confirmation/response should be provided by the officer within 48 hours of having the document provided to them. [57] I anticipate that by 19 December 2005 that management at Wolston will be able to plan the necessary training of officers to ensure that no officer is required, by the roster, to work in an area without the provision of the necessary training. Officers will then be able to be advised of the times and dates when they will receive any necessary training although that training may not need to be provided for some considerable time, i.e. depending upon where the officer is on the roster. [58] The finalisation of the skills audit will be required prior to the implementation date of any proposed roster. [59] Implementation Date: The Department has proposed an implementation date of 28 November 2005, i.e. next Monday. The concern from staff is that such a date:  will not enable the necessary training to be provided for those scheduled to commence in areas where they have not worked (e.g. Secure) in the first few weeks of the proposed roster; -- 10 of 12 -- 11  creates problems for those members of staff who were already rostered off over the Christmas period and who therefore did not apply for leave over this period. The evidence does however reveal that only three members of staff are in this category and management has advised that arrangements will be made to ensure that those three staff members will get the time off over Christmas that their current roster provides; and  will not enable sufficient time for necessary family arrangements to be made. At present staff at Wolston have been advised that they could be working the current roster next Monday (if the management roster proposal is found by the Commission to be not acceptable) or the management roster proposal (if it is found to be acceptable). The witnesses have expressed concern about organising alternative child care arrangements in such a short timeframe if the management roster proposal is to be implemented on 28 November 2005. [60] Having considered the concerns of staff, and given my comments on the issue of training, I am not prepared to endorse an implementation date prior to the finalisation of the skills audit. In addition there will need to be some training undertaken by some officers prior to the implementation date of any roster. I therefore propose that the roster commence on Monday 2 January 2006. [61] Family & Lifestyle Issues: The current rosters seem to allow for work on one weekend followed by a weekend off work. The proposed roster has officers performing work on 48 weekends and being off work on 60 weekends in the 108 week roster. Officers will in fact have more weekends off work under the proposed roster. Officers will also know 108 weeks in advance of the days and weekends that they are scheduled to work. [62] Currently officers are allowed to swap shifts with other officers where family and lifestyle issues arise. This is to be no different under the proposed roster. As mentioned previously, officers will have 108 weeks’ notice in advance of their roster and can attempt to swap shifts as soon as a family or lifestyle issue arises. This may involve the officer in a little more organisation of their family life but, in light of the fact that they are able to swap shifts, I do not see the issue as one which would prevent the introduction of the roster. [63] Health & Safety Concerns: The guiding principles for the roster review developed by the Department provide in clause 1.3 that the Department and employees “shall be guided by the Occupational Health and Safety provisions of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Code of Conduct on 12 Hour Shifts and the Fatigue Management Guidelines issued by the Queensland Department of Industrial Relations (February 2005)”. Whilst some general concern about health and safety was expressed no specific issues were raised. The work patterns did not seem to be an issue in the hearing and in fact it was the work patterns proposed by the staff that were incorporated into the management roster proposal. There is no evidence before me that would warrant a rejection of the proposed roster on health and safety concerns. [64] In all the circumstances I am prepared to endorse the management roster proposal that was rejected by officers in the ballot conducted at Wolston on 13 October 2005. I am prepared to alter the implementation date from 28 November 2005 to 2 January 2006. The endorsement of the management roster proposal is based on the undertaking by the General Manager that each of the 108 officers will be provided training in the necessary skills required of the various positions/areas in the roster. I expect that the skills audit process will be completed by 19 December 2005 in order that the roster can be implemented on 2 January 2006. It should be noted that officers at the Capricornia Centre have rejected in a ballot the roster on which the Capricornia Centre roster proposal was based. [65] There are a couple of further issues on which I wish to make comment. These are: (i) the industrial action taken by officers at Wolston on 19 November 2005; and (ii) failure of officers to sign off on previous training. (i) Industrial Action on 19 November 2005 [66] Officers at Wolston went on strike on 19 November 2005 for a 24 hour period. In the evidence no one was identified as having called the meeting which passed the various resolutions, including the resolution to take industrial action. Those resolutions were not conveyed by any attendee at the meeting to management. The meeting was not organised or endorsed by the QPSU. [67] For the benefit of custodial corrections officers employed by the Department who were not present at the hearing, I did indicate in the course of the hearing that I thought the industrial action taken by officers had handed management a great opportunity to have the Full Bench decision of 1 April 2004 reopened. This hearing is part -- 11 of 12 -- 12 of a trial proposed by the Full Bench instead of management being given the unfettered right to determine rosters. The industrial action on 19 November 2005 is an indication that the trial is not succeeding. [68] It is clear that staff were advised at the meeting that there was an appeal pending from a decision of mine released on 17 November 2005 and that the appeal had been set down for hearing by the President on 21 November 2005, yet officers proceeded to take the matter into their own hands and commenced strike action. As the evidence revealed, staff at Wolston achieved nothing from the industrial action. Instead, the officers have created a rod for their own backs as the issue of who (management or staff) is to determine rosters is now firmly back on the agenda. In this instance, had management the right to determine the roster, the management roster proposal would have been implemented on 31 October 2005 with no ballot being required, perhaps little consultation with the QPSU or officers and with the issue of training being left for another day. By being consulted the QPSU were able to get the Department to agree to a variation to the original management roster to incorporate work patterns proposed by officers and further the Guiding Principles, the Addendum and the Workforce and Roster Management Guidelines were amended as a result of representations made by the QPSU. The QPSU also had the right to have the proposed roster referred to this Commission for arbitration. The potential is that the QPSU (even though the organisation had no involvement whatsoever with the strike) will lose any such benefit if actions like those taken by officers on 19 November 2005 reoccur, whether it be at Wolston or any other correctional facility in Queensland. (ii) Failure of Officers to sign off on training [69] During the course of his evidence, the General Manager indicated that recently Wolston had provided training to 46 officers on suicide awareness. Of those 46 attendees only three had signed off on the competency register. These officers were reminded by e-mail that they were required to sign off and were given time so that they could be accredited but they have failed to do so. The Department has now twice asked those officers to sign the register and they have failed to do so. That shows a complete lack of interest in the training regime. Yet when the issue of rosters is raised, officers appear to have developed a great concern about training. In my view the actions of the Department in requiring attendees to sign the register is a lawful and reasonable directive and should be complied with immediately. I expect that each of those 43 attendees who have failed to sign the register and who attended the suicide awareness training will take steps to immediately sign the register. Order accordingly. D.M. LINNANE, Vice President. Hearing Details: 2005 26, 27 October 16, 22 November Appearances: Mr. S. Donovan and with him Mr. P. McKay for the Department of Corrective Services. Mr. B. Watson and with him Mr. J. Nilon for The Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees. Mr. B. Newman as agent for various custodial corrections officers. Released: 24 November 2005 Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2005. -- 12 of 12 --