Updates from the PANSW Industrial Team
A quick summary of recent enquiries and disputes
Kirsty Membreno PANSW Assistant Secretary – Industrial
It has been a busy time for the team with many industrial disputes on behalf of Branches and individuals progressing through the Dispute Avoidance process prescribed by the Crown Employees (Police Officers 2021) Award (the Award).
Some of those key active industrial disputes on foot at present include:
Senior Sergeant salary.
The PANSW has been in contact with every officer promoted to a Senior Sergeant position since April 2023 who dropped salary upon being promoted from Sergeant to Senior Sergeant. From 2014 to 2023, all Senior Sergeants promoted did not take a pay cut and their existing salary was honoured at time of promotion based on the Business Rules relating to Senior Sergeant appointments.
Without consultation, NSWPF made the decision to alter the Senior Sergeant Business Rules in late 2022 to appoint Senior Sergeants to Year 1 salary, resulting in a salary reduction for many officers being promoted to the higher rank. We believe that this is a breach of the Award, custom and practice and is an extra claim by the NSWPF during a no further claims period of the Award.
On behalf of every affected Senior Sergeant (those who were previously Sgt level 9 prior to promotion), the PANSW has escalated a dispute to the NSWPF PCC to resolve. Despite initial intentions of the NSWPF to rectify this anomaly, they have so far refused to pay these officers the salary they are entitled to from date of appointment. The PANSW will continue to pursue this on behalf of the affected officers. If you are an affected Senior Sergeant and have not been in contact with the PANSW, please do so immediately to discuss your circumstances.
Treatment of delayed appointment for Constables within first 3 years of their service.
On behalf of several members, the PANSW has lodged an industrial dispute in the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (IRC) in relation to the treatment of their increment being delayed during the first 3 years of employment. Each of these officers through no fault of their own had their confirmation delayed and as such their increment date has been impacted from that point onwards. There is a clause within the Award that provides for any delays within the first 3 years of employment to enable the maintenance of what would have been their original increment date. NSWPF and PANSW have participated in conciliation to resolve the dispute in the IRC which has unfortunately been unsuccessful with the NSWPF refusing to conciliate the matter. The PANSW will now be seeking to resolve the interpretation of the Award Clause via the newly created Industrial Court. Members will be updated further as this dispute unfolds.
Overtime Dispute
We have recently been fielding enquiries across the State about roster changes due to officers being rostered to work a longer shift than normal, with the officer then being rostered to perform a shorter shift in the future of a current roster cycle, therefore avoiding an overtime payment to the officer who has worked more than their normal shift length hours. AC Smith from PCC, has provided instructions to Commanders on 22/12/23 regarding this practice:
“Where required, an officer’s roster may be altered in consultation between the officer/Commander to ensure 228 hours is maintained for that roster cycle. Where there is a need for the officer to maintain their usual shift length within their substantive duty type (e.g. 9.5hours) due to operational requirements, overtime may be paid in circumstances where an officer works in excess of 228 hours across the roster cycle.”
The PANSW agrees with the above instructions from PCC and has been advising Commanders/Managers of this practice where required. We have had some occurrences of members not in receipt of their entitlement escalated to NSWPF Industrial for review. As per clause 19 of the Flexible Rostering Guidelines (FRG), changing shifts for the purposes of overtime calculations can only be done with mutual agreement.
Clause 19 asserts that:
19. Change of Roster …
A “shift” for the purposes of calculation of the overtime rate in this clause means the usual length of shift worked on that day by officers rostered for the same or similar duty. By mutual agreement however, an officer may work a full shift of a lesser number of hours consistent with the length of shifts worked within the particular flexible roster to a minimum of six (6) hours.”
To confirm, if the officer consents and agrees to a shorter shift, there is no issue, however this mutual agreement needs to be obtained first in order to alter the officers usual rostered shifts.
If agreement is not forthcoming from the officer, overtime is payable for the time worked in excess of usual rostered shift (ie 9.5 to 12 hours = 2 hours O/T at 1 ½ rate) and the remaining shifts in that week remain as per the usual flexible roster that exists.
Accommodation at academy for part time weapons instructors.
PANSW has received a number of enquiries regarding the standards of accommodation provided to seconded weapons instructors when teaching at the Academy.
Clause 10.2 of the Crown Employees (Police Officers - 2021) Award sets out that officers travelling on official business should receive three-star standard accommodation:
10.2 Where available at a particular centre or location, the overnight accommodation to be occupied by officers who travel on official business will be the middle of the range standard, referred to generally as three star or three-diamond standard of accommodation.
The Academy has a number of motel style rooms which would meet this requirement. However, this accommodation is often unavailable.
Members are often being accommodate in the residential towers with a shared bathroom which would not meet the definition of a three-star standard.
PANSW has made representations to NSWPF about this issue and advised if the 3 star standard cannot be provided, alternative 3 star accommodation should be provided or officers compensated for any substandard accommodation via the Special Operations Allowance which should be applicable when in dormitory style accommodation.
We currently await a response from NSWPF.
Vacant LSC positions not being advertised in specialist Command
A dispute was raised in early 2023 when PANSW became aware that a specialist Command had commenced advertising LSC positions in a contrary manner to the LSC Guidelines which dictates advertising LSC positions should be ‘location’ based.
In September 2023, after numerous months of negotiation, during which time LSC recruitment was placed on hold, NSWPF and PANSW reached an agreed dispute outcome of a trial 6 month period of ‘sector’ based recruitment. However, as part of the agreement, 10 nominated locations had the opportunity to have one final ‘location’ based recruitment of LSC prior to the change of a ‘sector’ based approach. Regional areas (except Central Coast, Lake Illawarra and Riverina) remained location based due to their geographical obstacles.
During this time the PANSW continued to closely monitor the recruitment of LSC vacancies across the Command and raised our concerns on numerous occasions about the continued non filling of LSC vacancies throughout the 6 month trial period both at a local level, AC level and PCC level. Unfortunately, the non-filling of LSC positions continued.
As such on the 7 June 2024 a formal dispute was lodged in the IRC to have this dispute resolved with the assistance of the IRC. A recommendation by the IRC Commissioner was issued to the parties on 19 June 2024 requiring NSWPF to advertise the LSC vacancies. Further IRC report back dates are scheduled to monitor this resolution.