Those who work in the horticultural sector will bear testimony to the fact that the recent CIE attempt at workplace review and restructure was a disaster. The process was so flawed that it required two visits to mediation and a documented settlement in order to restore order and harmony to the workplace. Accordingly you would be justified in assuming that CIE would have learned significant lessons from their mistakes and changed their systems and procedures accordingly, wouldn’t you?

I am here to tell you that their recent catastrophic efforts in Christchurch Catering would suggest that they haven’t learned a thing!

Consequently, the super-stressed staff in Christchurch kitchens are racing around in a futile effort to justify the retention of their positions. I say futile, because the reality is that the draft report that’s been generated by the review team is so subjective, lacking in substance and devoid of supporting evidence that it’s hard to know where to start! I did raise the issue with CIE manager Royden Motu and he initially agreed to meet with CANZ representatives for the purpose of discussing our concerns. Unfortunately, he appears to have had a change of heart and is now suggesting that we go to the author of the report and seek clarification. I have chosen to do so in “open letter” format and, accordingly, I require CIE to acknowledge this document as a formal approach.

Dear Christchurch Catering Review Team,

I am assisting CANZ members in the above workplace in the preparation of submissions in respect of the draft review document. Now I know this is only a draft, and I know that potentially affected staff will get another opportunity to make submissions when the document has been finalised (or “a second bite at the cherry”, as HR manager Tim Kendall puts it) and for that they are grateful. Unfortunately, it’s hard to be cool, calm and totally objective when you discover that your job could be on the line – even if it’s only your draft job! The consequence of this unfortunate fact is that Christchurch kitchen staff are currently under a great deal of stress and their morale is at an all-time low.

Normally employees facing this situation seek support from their on-site manager. Unfortunately, in this particular scenario his job is one of the first to go, so he will also be experiencing difficulty in focussing on objectivity. However, I digress! You see, team, the problem I’m having is that your report is somewhat Churchillian! In other words, “never in the field of human resource has so much been recommended in respect of so many on the basis of so little!” To put it another way, the report is, in my opinion, insubstantial, unprofessional and inexcusable.

The report provides us with one page of alleged “staffing observations”, which does little more than document a list of what the reviewers perceive to be the duties of kitchen staff. Given the fact that the review team were only observed in the kitchen area for a matter of hours, it’s little wonder that our members dispute the accuracy of the list.

The observations are followed by an extremely short list of conclusions, which are accompanied by a draft roster that effectively removes two staff from the current complement of Catering Instructors. That’s not good enough folks! If you’re questioning the validity of people’s livelihood, then you have an obligation to provide a comprehensive report that is based on fact, supported by evidence and sufficiently robust to withstand scrutiny. Your miserable efforts do none of these things and employees with many years service deserve better.

Those among us who are more cynical have suggested that this flimsy document is a deliberate attempt to provoke affected staff into developing a comprehensive response which will be used against them to achieve the same outcome. I think that the reality is much more straightforward – those tasked with the responsibility simply don’t have the expertise necessary to carry out such an exercise. I’m sure they meant well, but in my opinion they have achieved little! If I’m wrong, then I challenge the team to prove this to be the case. In order to do that, you will need to complete a thorough needs analysis which documents in detail,

1. The way in which the kitchen currently operates
2. The problems associated with the current means of operation
3. The way in which the kitchen should operate
4. The differences between (1) and (3)

The above matters should be developed on the basis of the delivery of CIE objectives; In other words, the operation should meet budgetary requirements and provide meaningful inmate training. Let’s not forget that catering is in a somewhat different position than other CIE enterprises, insofar as kitchen Instructors are not competing with other providers (not that the other enterprises should be if we stick to the objectives). Catering is fully funded by PPS and this means that there is a better opportunity to provide meaningful training and associated rehabilitation in this area than any other.

This will not be achieved by cutting staff and associated inmate training opportunities!

Please regard this open communication not only as a specific concern regarding the Christchurch Catering Review, but also a wider concern in respect of CIE’s general approach to review and restructure. You must get it right, or we’ll always be at loggerheads. After all, this isn’t the first time, and if I’m any judge – it won’t be the last!

Regards,

Brian Davies
National Organiser