Department of Corrective Services and Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales [2009] NSWIRComm 149

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

Mr J Murphy of counsel (Notifier) Crown Solicitor's Office LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr S Turner and Mr S Little (Respondent) Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales

Department of Corrective Services and Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales

Notification under s 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

1 By correspondence from Mr John Robertson, MLC, Minister for Corrective Services, dated 20 May 2009, there was notified, pursuant to s 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, the existence of an industrial dispute as to a range of industrial issues surrounding the prisoner escort and court security functions undertaken by the Department of Corrective Services. 2 It is useful to briefly restate the background to these proceedings. The Minister requested the Department of Corrective Services ('the Department') and the Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales ('the PSA') identify and implement strategies that would realise savings of $5 million per annum in relation to the Department's inmate escort and court security functions within six months. He further advised that, should the savings through efficiencies not be identified and implemented within six months, the Government intended to outsource inmate escort and court security service functions to the private sector. 3 On 27 July 2009, the Commission issued a Statement in the proceedings: Department of Corrective Services and Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales[2009] NSWIRComm 121.

4 In that Statement, the Commission made the following observations: At the commencement of the conciliation process, the Department made a submission which identified possible savings from the Court Escort Security Unit ('CESU') budget sufficient (in fact, more than sufficient) to meet the earlier mentioned savings objectives of the Government. That submission documented, in some detail, the nature of the changes proposed by the Department and was supplemented by comprehensive factual material as to the operation of the CESU. As the conference progressed, representatives of the PSA assisted the process by also identifying possible areas of savings. In the result, the parties have focussed their attention, during the conciliation proceedings, upon the merits of the proposed savings initiatives and costings for the same. In my view, parties have, to date, constructively approached the task presented them in the conciliation proceedings and have engaged in the utmost good faith bargaining. They have fully co-operated with each other and with the Commission in its efforts to assist them in reaching a suitable outcome to the subject matter of the dispute. This much is illustrated by the fact that, in the first two month interval since the conciliation process commenced on 26 May, the parties have identified savings of about $2 million. Those savings concerned the utilisation of casual correctional officers within the court escort and transport function of the Department. They consisted of tangible, recurrent savings in the CESU's budget. There is an agreed programme for the consideration of a further, specified set of cost savings in the next two month interval after the issuing of this Statement which, if realised, would either wholly or substantially meet the savings objectives for the prisoner escort and court security functions of the Department well in advance of the six month limitation period. All of this does seem to confirm the wisdom of the Minister's approach in this particular case. It is not possible to provide any more detail in this Statement as to the progress of the matter for two reasons. Firstly, that step would be inappropriate in conciliation proceedings. Secondly, the issuing of more information in that manner would undermine the confidentiality arrangements presently applying to the conciliation process. Whilst the parties will have an opportunity in due course to consult with persons affected by the savings and other relevant stakeholders and interests, the parties are bound to strict confidentiality arrangements during the course of the conciliation proceedings. Those same considerations constrain the capacity to immediately implement the savings deriving from the casual utilisation process, as the parties have not, as yet, had the opportunity to consult with persons affected by any proposed change. It is the intention of the Commission, however, to examine whether those confidentiality conditions might be lifted during the next two month interval so that there may be consultation with those interests and, if appropriate, an interim implementation of the then agreed savings measures. The Commission intends to issue a further Statement in relation to this matter at the conclusion of a further two month interval in the Conciliation proceedings which are due to recommence on 4 August 2009. 5 The conciliation proceedings recommenced slightly later than scheduled in order to enable the parties to appropriately prepare for the second stage of the proceedings. The conciliation conferences resumed on 13 August and continued on 14 and 25 August respectively. 6 On 9 September, the Commission received a document from Mr S Turner, Assistant General Secretary of the PSA, which communicated the agreed position of the parties arising out of the first and second stages of the conciliation process. That agreement will result in changes in three aspects of the operation of CESU: the utilisation of casual correctional officers within the court escort and transport function of the Department, arrangements for Temporary Court Security Officers and the hours of operation of 24 hour court locations. The savings deriving from those changes were fully costed and substantial.

7 The changes agreed by the parties constitute tangible, recurrent savings in the CESU's budget. They represent savings, in total (when rounded), of $3,949,969. Thus, the savings resulting from this process represent nearly 80 per cent of the required savings identified by the Minister. 8 It is, perhaps, needless to say, in the light of these outcomes, that the process has, to date, been entirely successful. This has occurred due to the diligence of the representatives of the parties in their application to the task at hand and the high level of co-operation between the parties. The process demonstrates the successful outcomes that may be obtained by parties maturely and responsibly working in partnership to achieve mutual goals. 9 Some final observations are necessary. First, it may now be reasonably expected that the target savings will be reached within the timeframe specified by the Minister. 10 Secondly, the arrangements for a reduction in the hours of operation of 24 hour court locations will require some refinement at an operational level for each area affected, but not in a way that would undermine the integrity of the agreement reached between the parties. There may be a further savings measure for this area but that consideration will, if required, be pursued in the next stage of the process. 11 Thirdly, the present order of the Commission restraining the parties from publishing the outcomes of the conciliation should be lifted. This limitation was imposed to encourage a full and frank exchange between the parties to the conciliation, and to avoid any relapse to the form of industrial dialogue that had previously impeded negotiations between the parties. The restraining order will now be lifted so that there may be proper consultation with stakeholders before negotiations reach their final stage. 12 The Commission thereby revokes any former communication orders and directions. It is recommended that the Department permit and facilitate suitable arrangements for the PSA to consult with relevant union delegates. If there is any difficulty, in this respect, the PSA should advise the Commission accordingly. 13 The final stages of the conciliation process will commence on 30 September and continue on 1 October. A further date for conciliation has been provisionally fixed for 2 November. The process will conclude by 26 November, with a further Statement being issued by the Commission prior to that date.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.