Evidence
72STA's evidence before the Board was contained the Investigation Report (attached to Mr Browning's statement (Exhibit 7) and other Annexures (1-12) which included, inter alia, Ms Norman's training history arising from the previous TAB decision, Ms Norman's written response to the Form E1, the record of her Disciplinary Interview, and the reports of the BOT3s, and Statements from the following STA employees:
Madeleine Hopkins.....Learning and Development Consultant (Exhibit 3),
David Browning..........Manager Registered Training Organisation STA
(Exhibit 6 & 7),
Domenic Larosa...... ..Depot Manager Brookvale (Exhibit 8),
Graham Meredith ......Acting Learning & Development Manager (Exhibit 4),
Esat Juma .................Bus Operator Trainer Level 3 (Exhibit 5).
73Mr Browning has been with STA since 2011 and is a qualified and experienced trainer of some years experience, including 22 years previous experience with STA. His evidence dealt with the position of STA as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and just what that involves; the training requirements for Trainee Bus Operators as set out in Module 3 which is a 5 day training period and applicable to all Trainees at all Depots; as well as the various Bus Operator Trainer Levels (1 to 3) and what each involved. He also included in his statement (at paragraph 14) an approximately one page breakdown of the daily duties as extracted by staff on his behalf from the 24 pages that comprise Module 3 "Driver Support" Assessment Record Pack .
74His evidence also covered the investigation he conducted into the allegations against Ms Norman as set out in his Investigation Report. His Report Summary/Conclusion read as follows:
The information and attachments provided to support the background section of this report, demonstrates the extensive efforts by State Transit to ensure that CN has the required knowledge and skills to provide quality training as a BOT1.
BOT3 Graham Meredith and BOT3 Esat Juma are senior depot trainers, who also have experience in undertaking the duties of a BOT1. On 2 separate occasions, these trainers were able to discreetly observe CN undertaking her duties as a BOT1.
Based on the evidence gathered from 2 trips on 2 separate days by 2 different BOT3, there is a clear indication that CN would most likely have replicated the reported behaviour over the five (5) day in-service training period provided to this TBO.
An analysis of the attachments has identified that when supervised, CN is capable of delivering BOT1 training in accordance with State Transit requirements. However, all reports and the Record of Interview also identify consistent issues regarding CN's propensity not to follow guidelines and instructions.
Based on the two discreet reports that formed the basis of the charges and the Record of Interview, it is evident that when unsupervised, CN will not undertake BOT1 duties in accordance with State Transit requirements and in deliberate violation of the performance requirement specified for her return to BOT1 duties. On the basis of the attached reports, the 2 discreet checks and the Record of Interview, I have concluded that CN cannot be trusted to undertake BOT1 training duties to the standard required by State Transit.
75Mr Browning maintained that the assessment phase of Module 3 would generally commence at around day 4, although with some Trainees it could go to day 5, however assessment must be undertaken on day 5 if it had not already commenced. He also indicated that for OH&S for customer service this was a formative assessment as to a Trainee proceeding satisfactorily not a final summative assessment which would result in determination of competency. Only two units of competencey were signed off in Module 3. He also confirmed that if there was an issue with a trainee then the BOT1 would provide further training assessment and that would be an initial diagnostic assessment.
76On the issue of kneeling the bus and the omissions observed by BOT3 Juma in this regard Mr Browning did not agree that for Ms Norman to not give instruction at this stage as she was conducting an assessment was following the correct procedure. He essentially maintained that that the role of a trainer in any given situation was to assess the progress of the trainee (not conduct an "assessment" in the nationally recognised sense) and in that instance particularly where a safety issue was involved it was imperative that the trainer take remedial action and stop the assessment, tell the trainee why and work on a plan to remediate the problem.
77He went on to say that it was up to the discretion of the BOT1 but that if a trainee repeatedly did not use the kneeling advice they should be saying to the Trainee " "You've got a kneeling device, that person was old or has some sort of infirmity you should be kneeling the bus." Kneeling the bus was part of STA's customer service.
78Mr Browning confirmed that he based his findings in the Investigation Report on the discrete checks by the BOT3 and the responses by Ms Norman in his interview with her.
79Mr Browning did not consider that there should be set criteria/guidelines for discrete checks carried out on BOT1s and had not issued such. The only consistency was that they should be discrete. He did not see the need for the person conducting the discrete check to be aware of which particular day it was of the five days' training. Their role was to observe and report on what they saw and he preferred that they go in without bias and just report on what they saw.
80He also maintained that if the discrete check was being done on day 5 during the assessment stage then that would be readily apparent to the BOT3 as based on a competent BOT1 their intervention would be virtually zero in terms of communication, and if the discrete was being conducted on day 1 then there would be a lot more intervention depending on the trainee. He considered that it would be it was irrelevant for either of the BOT3s to have known what day Ms Norman was up to as they had both been BOT1s before and he would expect them to have the ability once they boarded the bus to determine that based on the training or assessment provided by the BOT1 being observed.
81Mr Browning was also directed to the training observations made by Carlos Prieto concerning Ms Norman and acknowledged that there were favourable comments and said that whilst she was being observed by Carlos Prieto she performed all her duties satisfactorily, under supervision. She was also aware that she was under observation by Mr Prieto.
82He also indicated that he considered that the summary document provided by Mr Prieto to Ms Norman was something he had produced himself as a summary of the evidence requirements of Module 3, it was not an STA document.
83Ms Hopkins also holds appropriate training qualifications. Her evidence essentially expanded on the observations she had made in her report to the Brookvale Depot Manager as to the outcome of Ms Norman's further Certificate IV training, and gave more detail as to the actual interventions made by Ms Norman during the training sessions. She indicated that Ms Norman was aware that she was not to be an active participant in the exercise as all those being trained were told whether they would be participants and what role/task they would have. She had no doubt that Ms Norman took on a role to which she was not allocated.
84Ms Hopkins acknowledged that whilst training she did sometimes consult Ms Norman about particular paperwork as her experience did not cover that and Ms Norman had good explaining skills. She did not consider that she called on Ms Norman's assistance any more that she called on other participants. She agreed that she would occasionally go back to Ms Norman if a participant could not answer a question but also maintained she would do that with others, depending on what she thought or knew about a particular participant's skill or experience in certain areas. She also indicated that, for example, she might go to Ms Norman three times and to other people once. She acknowledged that Ms Norman had a higher level of knowledge but expertise she could not comment on as she had not seen her working and didn't know how she applied her knowledge.
85She also acknowledged that Ms Norman had assisted on an occasion when the classes were split in two, but could not recall whether it was during that particular course or an earlier course. She also did not know whether when Ms Norman assisted her whether she had access to her script because she might just have them go through some open and closed questions. She agreed that if there were no written guidelines Ms Norman wouldn't know if she wasn't following them but went on to say that "you see they've got to learn a resource when they go through so the guidelines are there".
86When asked whether it would assist if a Trainer or BOT1 had a script to deliver she responded as follows:
A. Well I guess, I mean as far as I'm concerned when I'm running training I have got a kind the script and any trainer who's worth their salt will have a kind of script to follow, they have to, because otherwise you're going to get non-compliance and those scripts that are written are written in compliance with the units of competency so everything that you are doing has to relate back to that unit of competency so therefore the training notes that you use and the resources that you use have to always go back to that unit of competency so if you're a BOT1 or a BOT2 or a BOT3 whatever you're training you have got a kind of a script so that script should be read in conjunction with that unit of competency and that's what they're learning to do, to marry the two up.
87She also agreed that that when Ms Norman conducted training and assessment in the classroom that were done to RTO standards and done very well.
88Mr Larosa has been the Depot Manager at Brookvale since the beginning of June 2011, prior to that he was the Depot Manager at Mona Vale. He initiated STA's disciplinary process after becoming aware of the allegations against Ms Norman. On receipt of Mr Browning's Investigation Report and after reviewing her history he determined that she should not hole the position of Bus Operator Trainer level 1.
89Mr Larosa acknowledged that Ms Norman's Trainees generally drove safely.
90Mr Larosa believed discrete checks were done on everyone, that is Bus Operators and BOT1s and 2s, and those involved in driving or instructing people to drive. They could also arise as a result of a complaint from a Trainee or a customer or as a result of information that was provided. If he had an issue with a Trainer he would go to the BOT3 and they may need to do a discrete check. He had never asked for a discrete check to be carried out. Discrete checks on a BOT1 would normally go to the BOT3 who controlled all training. He did not agree that a large number of discrete checks came back with areas for improvement. There might be room for improvement, but that would depend on the individual. He said he would expect to be made aware of discrete checks done at the Brookvale Depot but would not be aware of the discrete checks done at other Depots.
91He did not consider the punishment imposed on Ms Norman was harsh as she had been given opportunity in the past, they had invested a lot of money in her and things had not improved. He was not in a position to say what had not improved. He acknowledged that his decision was based on the discrete checks undertaken by the two BOT3s Meredith and Juma.
92Mr Meredith and Mr Juma had been employed by STA since 2004 and 2005 respectively. Both had been BOT1s before becoming BOT3s. Mr Meredith has also been acting as a Learning and Development Advisor since June 2011.
93Neither of the BOT3s had seen the BOT1 Training Plan for the day on which they respectively conducted the discrete check but both acknowledged that the training plan was the same in each Depot and that they did not need to know which day of the 5 days plan it was.
94Mr Meredith indicated that during the discrete check he was sitting on the left side of the bus immediately in front of the rear doors. Mr Juma indicated that on his discrete check he was also sitting on the left side of the bus but where the wheelchair access seats were located and adjoining the 'ironing board'. They both reported that Ms Norman was seated in the one front seat on the left (the usual seat for a BOT1) and that they were very well able to hear her voice.
95They both essentially confirmed the observations they had made and as they reported.
96Mr Meredith added the following summary to the other observations made in his discrete check (Exhibit 4-1):
To summarise, Catherine needs to let the Trainee Bus Operator think for himself when making driving decisions. Unless a safety issue, Catherine should not distract the TBO whilst he is driving with idle conversation and information. I believe Catherine likes to assert her authority in the public eye, this could alienate/distract TBO's and make passengers concerned and uncomfortable while drawing unnecessary attention to the TBO.
97Mr Meredith had not carried out a discrete check on a BOT1 before but was aware of discrete checks on other BOT1's. He did not agree that it was completely different to a discrete check done on a Bus Operator, both were done on the relevant criteria applicable to the position.
98Mr Meredith acknowledged that there were no positive comments in his report. He had not read Ms Norman's statement or seen her response to his observations and he did not consider that there was any plausible explanation based on what he had observed, nor was he aware of any extenuating circumstances (for example the problem with the bus as identified at the Depot). He was also unaware that it was the first stop for the bus when he got on, but regardless of whether it was the first stop, the AFC should have been set up.
99He also acknowledged that he was aware of the local protocol in relation to the Dee Why stop, the issue he observed was not why it was instructed but the way it was instructed whilst they were still in traffic and driving.
100He acknowledged that not all Trainees progressed at the same rate and did not consider that he should have reviewed the Trainee's programme before conducting the discrete check. There was no script, but Module 3 was followed which takes one through various competencies. If a person was showing a particular weakness they might be given more training and they would not be assessed until they were showing they could perform Assessments were generally completed on day 4 and 5. If a Trainee was not ready at the end of day 3 you might hold your assessments or even have to ask for a further days training that would have to be approved by management.
101Mr Juma had carried out discrete checks on BOT1s and Bus Operators and was aware of discrete checks being carried out on other BOT1s. They were never told why the check was necessary and would just check everything. Sometimes with a Bus Operator they got reports about a complaint and would check a particular issue.
102He also had not read Ms Norman's statement and was not aware of her responses to his observations. He did not see the relevance of any local agreement as he was assessing the training and assessment that was being carried out in accordance with Module 3.
103Mr Juma also confirmed that training was done over days 1, 2 and 3 and assessments on days 4 and 5. The pre-assessment could be done on the first day or day 4 (he preferred to it on day 1 so that the TBO was aware they were going to be assessed). He did go on to say that if a Trainee was doing really well then you could start assessing on day 3, but basically assessment took place on day 4 and 5.
104He did not consider it necessary to know whether Ms Norman was doing training or assessment, but in both cases she should have let the trainee know if they are performing up to standard or not. If she was training then she would tell him 'you didn't kneel the bus you need to kneel the bus' - training. If she was assessing, the assessment would stop there because he did not perform OH&S and they would do the assessment some other time.
105In his opinion Ms Norman was training on that day of the discrete check. If she was assessing then she was not assessing properly. If someone kept failing to do something then you would stop the assessment.
106Mr Juma maintained that from where he was sitting he could monitor the whole thing, see what the driver was doing from the mirror and see the kerb, he was right next to the kerb. He believed there was no problem with the Trainee getting close to the kerb and kneeling the bus, the main ones that he was supposed to be getting close to the kerb and kneeling the bus he didn't do it. He maintained he had a good view.
107 The RTBU called Ms Norman to give oral evidence in addition to her statement as filed (Exhibit 9 plus attachments 1 to 10 of Exhibit 2) .
108A statement had also been filed by the RTBU on behalf of Danny Lorentzen who was required for cross examination by STA. As he did not appear before the Board the objection to the admission of his statement was upheld.
109Ms Norman's evidence was that prior to joining STA she had worked in the banking industry for some 19 years, as a Regional Investigations Officer SouthEast Asia for Citibank and then as a Business Analyst for the Commonwealth Bank. Since commencing with STA she had acted as a training facilitator for five years at Strawberry Hills for the Bus Operator Skills Development course. She had previously been a Relief BOT1 at Brookvale. In total she had been a BOT1 over 5 1/2 years and considered herself to be an experienced and qualified Bus Operator and Bus Operator Trainer.
110She was asked to undertake training of Trainee Bus Operator Danny Lorentzen from 12 July 2011 until 15 July 2011 and 18 July 2011, a total of five days at Mona Vale Depot, which she did. She followed a set training plan shown to her during her training session with Carlos Prieto BOT1 Willoughby Depot (Exhibit 2-7). Throughout the week she gathered evidence in accordance with RTO requirements and the STA training package. She completed assessment points based on observations, questions and as demonstrated by the TBO accurately and submitted these to Scott Greenow her BOT3 on Tuesday, 19 July 2011. Throughout the week she monitored accurately the TBO's trip progress. She subsequently learnt of his commendation in the August edition of the 'Transit Times' (Exhibit 2-9).
111She had never knowingly deviated from the training programme and had been proud of her efforts in ensuring attention to detail in every aspect of the training package. Every point in the training package was imparted to the Trainees in detail. She had never received any written instructions as to what to say and when, whilst delivering BOT1 training, especially while in the bus. She had also been asked by the STA to assist with the skills development program back in 2008 after receiving the CEO's Special Award for training on the previous course. STA regarded her training to be of a high standard and she was asked to pilot the new course.
112She also ensured that she used the exact evidence checklist that was given to her by Carlos Prieto when she did her BOT1 training.
113She stated that she applied herself with genuine enthusiasm to every Trainee and never disregarded guidelines. Most of the Trainees under her instruction over the years were still with STA and were excellent bus drivers which STA maintained was the main goal. Her commitment to implementing STA's training package as per every guideline issued was as strong as ever.
114The set training plan as given to her by Carlos Prieto was as follows (Exhibit 2-7):
EVIDENCE - MODULE 3
Conduct Financial Transactions - TLIQ107D
Element 1: Status Report - Time & Bus. No. (circled)
Element 2: Torus Report - Cancelled Tickets (circled)
Element 3: Shift Report - Amount to be paid in (circled)
Element 4: Torus Report - Balance (circled)
Process Workplace Documentation - TLIE807C
Workplace Request (form 420)
Leave Application (form 120a)
Exchange of Work (form 175)
Copy of both sides of the Journal (5 days)
Carry Out Basic Workplace Calculations - TLIE507C
Element 1: Torus Report - ticket cash sales (circled)
Element 2: Journal - trip timing points (circled)
Element 3: Ticket Report - expiry date & validity (cicled)
115Ms Norman was taken through each of the issues raised by the BOT3s Meredith and Juma that are set out in the Particulars of Charges in the Form E1 and provided her explanation in response to each bullet point (see paragraph 14 of Background and Chronology above) in some detail.
116In response to Charge 1 (Mr Meredith's discrete check) her responses may be summarised as follows:
During the pre-departure check there was identification of a faulty exterior panel with a sharp edge (by the TBO) on the bus prior to leaving the Depot, the bus had been signed on, issue taken to Duty Officer, attempts to obtain another bus or have a mechanic remedy the situation, told service cancelled if bus not taken out, Ms Norman not happy but made decision to take bus out, told to 'special' to first stop, TBO partially signed on, (AFC jumps to next AFC but wrong trip), told TBO to get to starting point and don't open doors, AFC had to be 'backtracked' to previous trip to start again, when AFC ready doors opened.
She could not verify the comment about the weather, does not start personal conversations, one of TBO's traits to converse when worried.
Agreed instructed TBO to raise bus at first speed hump, he had expressed concerns previous day re driving 12m bus, speed hump 'quite sharp' could cause damage to bus.
Instruction navigating right hand turn given, had consulted BOT2, BOT2 'openly admitted' had run out of time to do a lot of cornering activities, in particular Spit Hill, driving L85 in peak hour, instruction on first couple of corners then he'd be fine.
Did not discuss property development, TBO initiated conversation pointing out where he lived, she considered that normal.
Journal updated whilst at bus stop, every likelihood they were picking up passengers and she would have said while you're here update Journal, difficult to save all timing points, key part of TBO job accurate timing, paid overtime from it, important to train TBO on use of Journal from day 1.
Spoke to TBO about hitting gutter - followed instructions of Carlos Prieto in his Feedback - 'Things You Should Keep Doing', critical to training to point out errors to TBO to prevent it escalating, and discuss later as part of feedback.
Comments about school zones taken from specific instruction of Carlos Prieto re "driving with purpose" and taken from manual set of notes she made when observing Carlos Prieto, no training manual issued, reliant on methods given to her by word of mouth as shown in training by BOT1.
Spoke to TBO about OH&S session training at Dee Why Grand bus stop, pre-assessment check done that day, needed to know actual schedule, TBO tends to become distracted, bus not in motion.
Had to instruct TBO to drive in middle lane due to stationary bus left lane, another bus behind with tail hanging out, had to instruct TBO to go around, safety issue.
117Ms Norman disagreed with Mr Meredith's summary as set out in the discrete checks and said that he had boarded the bus without doing any prior homework; had not consulted the BOT2; the TBO had confidence issues; he contradicted himself by saying she should not intervene; there were safety issues; she denied initiating conversations, only comments made were in service; she used 'directive language' when teaching, particularly as a female Bus Operator in male dominated profession, she needed to ensure being assertive otherwise not listened to; not aggressive, and trained with TBO's interests.
118Ms Norman maintained that she had never received any complaint from a Trainee or a customer.
119In response to the observations made by BOT3 Juma (in the same order as in the Charge 2 Particulars) Ms Norman's evidence may be summarised as follows:
Formative assessment being undertaken, the BOT3 unaware of this, from his position could not see she had paperwork on her knee, doubted he could see whether bus needed to be kneeled from that position, had spoken to TBO once re corrective action and stopped assessment (at Dee Why, Howard Ave),kept manual notes, had better view than BOT3.
Did not see TBO changing sections while driving, questioned whether BOT3 could see that from his position, one of ground rules she stresses to TBO's as given by Carlos Prieto was to keep hands on wheel at all times, if she saw it she would have corrected it.
OH&S assessment still running but could discuss training topics, stationary at lights at Dee Why Howard Ave after picking up passengers, blind person with guide dog on pedestrian crossing, not often the chance to observe this on training, perfect opportunity to ask TBO what to do with blind person boarding bus and he explained, important to deal with issues re disabled passengers.
Did give feedback of "well done" to TBO coming down Spit Hill, not heard by BOT3 due to sitting behind ironing board, encouragement always given. She would have said this once they cleared the corner.
Her footnote on assessment was "well done, Danny for waking sleeping passenger", this contradicted BOT3, TBO had woken him up and done it of his own accord.
120Ms Norman had never seen a check list such as the one set out in Mr Browning's statement (Exhibit 6) and maintained there was nothing like a check list or guide for Trainers and no standard with which to measure when doing a discrete check, and used the analogy of 'Chinese whispers' in relation to the passing on of information. She relied on Carlos Prieto's instructions. STA's reliance of word of mouth training could lead to misinformation or incorrect procedures being passed on.
121Ms Norman maintained Trainees enjoyed working with her; they still referred back to her after training; her training was well planned and followed the notes and instructions she received during her BOT1 training under the 'buddy system'; she stated clear ground rules at the outset; had clear communication and good instructions; regarded OH&S as highest priority; remained calm and ensured Trainees learnt from mistakes and reinforced lessons; conducted assessments correctly and within designated timeframes and was very thorough and detailed as a Trainer.
122Ms Norman maintained that Carlos Prieto gathered his evidence throughout the five days of training and did not conduct assessments in a rigid timeframe and not necessarily only on day 5 and did so on days 3 and 4. Assessments relied on observation and if left to day 5 something could go wrong and extra time would be needed.
123Ms Norman maintained that the OH&S assessment she was conducting on day 3 (BOT3 Juma's Check) was an initial diagnostic assessment or summative assessment as provided for in Module 3.
124She agreed that the AFC was in full working order but said that it had partially been signed on and maintained that there was a "bug" with the programming of the AFC machines that when you signed off on a trip that had been cancelled it brought the next trip up automatically. She also agreed that when a bus left a Depot the AFC machine must be fully functional and it wasn't on that day (13 July).
125Ms Norman agreed that it was not OK to engage in non-work related conversation when driving a bus and that TBO's or BO's should not do timing points when driving, only when stationary at traffic lights or bus stops, but that Drivers should be updating their timing throughout their routes.
126Ms Norman agreed that she used the skills acquired during her Certificate IV training but said that there was no indication of what to do or when, no timetable, no schedule. Module 3 set out the criteria and units of competency to assess, but did not say at what point to assess or give a list of functions to teach in a logical order. She used the notes she took while observing Mr Prieto, but the pack itself did not give the routine for the day. She also indicated that she would have found the list set out in paragraph 14 of Mr Browning's second statement very useful if such existed.