ASSETS AND PROPERTY REVIEW AND RESTRUCTURE

National property Manager William Whewell recently sent letters to CANZ members affected by the above review that began with the sentence:

"You will be aware that the consultation process has been completed."

This is not the case; in fact, not only has it not been completed, from a CANZ perspective it hasn't even started!

Since the review was first communicated in a letter from Department of Corrections CEO Mark Byers, there has been no more than limited and completely informal discussion between CANZ and CIE HR Manager Tim Kendall. We did initially attempt to organise a meeting with Mr. Whewell, but we were informed that he had no information to give us and Mr. Kendall was the person dealing with the process.

We have had one informal discussion with Mr. Kendall, during which we were shown a copy of what they thought the original structure looked like. During that discussion, I requested the following:

1. A list of affected CANZ members and an indication of where they fitted in the existing structure.
2. A draft copy of any proposed new structure, indicating where affected members were likely to be placed.
3. An indication of the possible impact on affected CANZ members in terms of reconfirmation, reassignment etc.
4. The Department's views on the appropriate applicable Collective Agreement.

The last item was raised because there appears to be some confusion in management ranks regarding the status of existing CEAs following restructuring. It has been suggested that affected staff would simply roll into an individual agreement based on the existing CEA, but CANZ would strongly oppose any such suggestion.

The one thing that is crystal clear, however, is that there has been no meaningful consultation on the substantive issues regarding this proposed restructure. CANZ is not trying to be obstructive on this issue, but we do intend to ensure that none of our affected members are disadvantaged.

Accordingly, I formally invite the Department to fulfil their obligations pursuant to the provisions of both applicable CEAs to consult on the substantive issues. When they have fulfilled that obligation then I would, of course, expect them to have regard for any submissions that we present on behalf of our members before making a final decision. Mr. Whewell's letter to affected members of 20 November constitutes a clear breach of the current agreement and, if necessary, will be pursued accordingly. However, if he agrees to "wind the clock back" a few days, I'm sure we can get things quickly back on track.

I'll keep you updated on any progress.

Regards,

Brian Davies
National Organiser