For every worker who’s sentenced,
Ten thousand won’t forget,
Where they gaol a workers for striking,
It’s the rich buggers country yet
—Helen Palmer, ‘the Ballad of 1891’ .
There are several clauses in the General Employees Agency Agreement (GEAA 2009) in the Australian Taxation Office that have opened up avenues for management to harass and intimidate union members. These types of clauses can be found in enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) across the public service.
Such EBAs constitute direct attacks on industrial democracy in the public service.
There are a number of attacks being made, but let’s focus on two (2) in particular.
Performance Improvement
Firstly clauses in the current EBA are poorly worded and give management power to harass and intimidate union members.
The offending clauses are:
107.4. Where action under 107.1 and 107.2 does not lead to an acceptable improvement in performance, unsatisfactory performance procedures should take place.
108.3. If, at any time, an ongoing employee’s work performance becomes unsatisfactory, a written
final warning will be issued to the employee by the Director. This would usually follow action consistent with clause 107.2.
These clauses are so poorly drafted that it is not clear where the informal assessment of competence (Clause 107) process ends and the the formal test of efficiency (Clause 108) process begins.
It is also unclear which clause in the EBA invokes the final warning (is it 107.2, 107.4 or 108.3?).
This can make for bad outcomes in for members in the workplace.
It also confuses other remedies that may be more suited in individual cases.
For example, a manager may embark on a PIP and then decides half way through the ‘performance improvement process’ that it is all too hard and bullies the member into resigning under Clause 101 of the GEAA 2009. Such pay-outs are fully taxed and do not have tax concessions available under the ‘true’ redundancies [Former tax officer loses claim against ATO in payout ruling].
that they have a ‘duty of care’ to make sure members are medically fit to undergo the formal test of efficiency (cl 108).
organisers about the rights of the members can be confused and unintelligible.For example, once a member signs a Performance Improvement Plan you may not have the right to question the process or the processes reviewed.
(attached) that ‘protected industrial action is not available to members’ under the Fair Work Act (also attached).
organise is curbed.
inflicted on union members.
sufficiently to fight for industrial democracy as well as wage
justice.
comments section (below).
Former Commonwealth Public Servant
and CPSU Member
(1982-2004)
No industrial action before nominal expiry date of enterprise agreement.pdf
Hi
Ian thank you for your interpretation for how a badily worded agreement, could give an opportunity for misuse.
All staff should have a performance management plan. It gives them guidance to get from where they are to where the team is heading in the business plan.
Human Resources professionals can assist organisations in maintaining engaged staff. However, things go past being professional, where there is an impingement on an employee’s rights.
the Australian Human Right’s commission has a document, which can assist in managing performance reviews
From an organisational perspective, it is important that the employees have a safe system of work, with clear policies and procedures.
Dear CPSU member
CPSU National Secretary Nadine Flood and Deputy National Secretary Rupert Evans will meet this afternoon with Bill Shorten and senior ATO representatives to discuss difficulties in ATO bargaining and, from our perspective, how to resolve these to members’ satisfaction. We will report back the results of this meeting.
Poll results
Thanks to all who participated in our latest straw poll either in meetings or via email. The fourth ATO offer was rejected by 84% of those who participated, with:
57% rejecting the offer and wanting to continue to pursue the CPSU claim of 4% + 4% + 5%
27% rejecting the offer and prepared to accept an equivalent outcome to the CPSU claim but with some of the increase formed by lump sums, condition improvements, increased super and the like
16% saying they would accept the latest ATO offer
This overwhelming result is in line with the view members have held consistently since the first offer was made by the ATO. Your CPSU bargaining team will present these results to the ATO at the next bargaining meeting.
As we receive thousands of emails, including hundreds with comments or questions, we do not always respond individually, but we will get back to as many of you as we can as quickly as we can. We read and consider all your comments and they are invaluable to your CPSU bargaining representatives. You can write to us at bargaining2011@cpsu.org.au.
Next bargaining meeting
Tomorrow (12 October) in Canberra. Update will be issued following the meeting.
Due to the importance and urgency of this update we will use different distribution methods, so I apologise if you get this email twice. You may wish to share it with interested colleagues.
In Unity
Gilbert Potts| Lead Organiser | Tax, Revenue & Justice | CPSU | ph 03 8620 6312| 0419 823 627| website http://www.cpsu.org.au | member service centre 1300 137 636