Your union delegates had the latest bargaining session on 4 June and wanted to give you a rundown of where things are at.
The big theme of the day was safe workloads and staffing. The departments responded to your claims on supervisor ratios, backfill, vacancies and support roles.
The short version: they’re not willing to lock in ratios or prescribed timeframes, but they did offer some further disucssions.
DFSDSCS tabled an idea to co-develop a new workload management framework over the life of the agreement. They are also open to discussions about reviewing administrative and para-professional roles to make sure they’re actually supporting casework outcomes.
DYJVS is on board with this direction.
But let’s be clear about your union's position. The departments say they need flexibility on ratios because every office is different. We say that flexibility is being used to justify not funding staff sufficiently, and the harm from that vastly outweighs any marginal benefit from having no accountability. We can acknowledge regional variation in staffing levels. We can’t accept staffing levels that are entirely at management discretion, and do not take into consideration cases or geography.
Both departments acknowledged the problem and are open to a discussion exploring a practical relief model for frontline staff.
Both departments knocked back your claim for a one-week advertising timeframe. They say they need flexibility. Your union delegates at the table noted that the department has had years of ‘flexibility’ and workers still carry the load of unfilled positions.
The departments refused to move to six weeks for all staff, citing whole-of-government policy and cost implications. We put our position on the record and will continue to push.
The departments won’t extend paid overtime as a blanket entitlement. They say the existing award discretion at AO6.1 and PO4.1 is sufficient. Your union has asked the departments to seek a Public Service Commission exemption as per the award process, and if this process has started and it was evident this work had not started.
The departments won’t agree to removing the forfeiture of ATL or allowing payout. They say it’s too expensive and creates industrial precedent risk. We shared that Union Members aren’t imagining the ATL they’ve earned being taken from them. It’s wages that have not been paid to them.
Both departments agreed in principle that workers should be compensated when they cannot access a lunch break. The action is for them to review the Aurion timekeeper system to make sure the s16.1(b) Award provision can actually be applied when workers miss a break.
Your delegates were in the room pushing hard on every one of these issues.