Community Corrections restructure: Consultation update and member survey
1 October 2021
Thank you to all the members who have submitted feedback to the É«ÀÇÉçÇøso far. In response to member feedback and to assist the É«ÀÇÉçÇøWorking Group in our discussions with the Department, the É«ÀÇÉçÇøhas developed a short survey.
You can take the survey .Ìý
The É«ÀÇÉçÇømet with Human Resources and the Assistant Commissioner on 23 September 2021. Below is a summary of the issues discussed at the meeting.
Members requested information regarding career pathways for Administrative Assistants, particularly beyond the new 3-4 proposed. The Assistant Commissioner advised that if current Administrative Assistants wanted to move into another stream within the agency they should have a discussion with their manager.
Regarding job evaluation, the É«ÀÇÉçÇørequested information from the agency about how roles were evaluated. Human Resources advised that job evaluation is undertaken independently however, they will follow up and provide a further response.
In relation to the duties of the 3-4 Administrative Supervisor, the Assistant Commissioner advised they would supervise the PDP process, but will not manage under-performance. This will instead be left to the manager.
The É«ÀÇÉçÇøasked about the requirement for a driver’s licence for Administrative Supervisors, as this is part of the requirement for the role. The Assistant Commissioner will be reviewing this as some long standing Administrative Assistants don’t have a licence.
On the matter of training for Administrative staff, Human Resources advised that the Administrative Supervisor roles would be responsible for ensuring consistency in processes and training across the agency. The Assistant Commissioner also acknowledged that training for Administrative Assistants was also something to be discussed further with the É«ÀÇÉçÇøbeyond the immediate issue of consultation around the current restructure.
The É«ÀÇÉçÇøraised the issue of how travel and meal allowances clauses applied for travel within the Hubs. The agency advised that these issues are still under consideration. The É«ÀÇÉçÇøalso asked if there had been a WHS Committee review/risk assessment in relation to travel. The agency advised that this was currently being undertaken.
The É«ÀÇÉçÇøasked if interview support would be provided. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed this would be the case.
The É«ÀÇÉçÇøadvised the Assistant Commissioner that members have expressed a general lack of faith in the transparency of the recruitment processes. Particularly, members believe individuals have already been chosen unofficially. The Assistant Commissioner expressed that she was disappointed that this was the case and was open to what needed to be done to change this perception. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed there would be an independent central recruitment panel, just like the one used for the last Unit Leader recruitment.
The É«ÀÇÉçÇøraised that there is a lack of Unit Leader (UL) parity in roles between Specialist UL in the larger locations and the ULs in the same office supervising a team of 4 CCO.
Questions were also raised specifically about the job design process which recommended a Service Manager have between six and 10 unit leaders reporting into that role. The É«ÀÇÉçÇøstated that amount of direct reports to a Service Manager at 10 is too high and a more reasonable number would be six.
As such, the É«ÀÇÉçÇørequested that this be renegotiated in order to make the level of work more reasonable, but that was deemed to be not negotiable or not possible. Specifically, a suggestion by the É«ÀÇÉçÇøwas made to cap the office maximum sizes at a reduced number of UL teams to six, however there was an unwillingness to do so by the agency.
Consultation will continue with the next meeting with the Department scheduled for Friday 8October. Don’t forget to take our to assist these discussions.