GOOD FAITH BARGAINING – PPS STYLE!

I’m sure you will all clearly recall the fact that prior to the last bargaining round your CEA negotiating team asked the membership to endorse a different approach to the bargaining process. We used terminology such as “user – friendly”, “stress – free” and “win/win” and undertook to complete the process with no reference to industrial action. We advised that in order to be successful, we would require the offer and acceptance of a “good-faith” approach from both CANZ and PPS.

It is a matter of record that CANZ fulfilled its commitment in its entirety. All claims were explained to and endorsed by the members prior to commencement and our “total package” approach gained more than 97% support. The package was presented to PPS in good faith well before the commencement of bargaining and we spent the first few days of negotiations outlining our claims and the rationale behind them. We approached proceedings with total openness and honesty and committed ourselves to a “no surprises” negotiating strategy. We expected the same level of integrity from PPS and, until quite recently, I firmly believed that they had delivered. However, recent developments have forced me to re-evaluate my opinion! We are, however, membership-driven, so I will outline the facts for your consideration and you can decide for yourself.

1. As part of the bargaining process, PPS tabled a claim in respect of “Service Leave”. Their advocate explained that PPS senior management were concerned about the potential cost of proposed changes to the “annual leave” provisions of the Holidays Act.

2. We were assured in the spirit of “good faith” that such a change would mean that the extra cost in terms of “Service Leave” would be prohibitive.

3. To put it bluntly, they indicated that such a change would impact adversely on their ability to fund any percentage increase in salary.

4. They pointed out that the wording change that they were requesting would not decrease members’ current entitlement – and I have to agree that that is an indisputable fact!

5. We took the claim to the members in good faith, it was debated thoroughly and our members supported it as part of the new, good faith approach to PPS/CANZ interaction.

Now under normal circumstances, you’d think that the matter would end there and if we were operating on a level playing field, it would. However, those cynics among you who have long suspected that we are not are probably 100% right!

Things first started to go “pear-shaped” when it was recently pointed out that the “other” CEA in Public Prisons did not contain the same change. Now as the “other” CEA benefited from all the changes (and there were more than 30) negotiated by CANZ, you’d think that such a difference would be no more than an administrative oversight. Accordingly, I wrote to PPS advocate Tony Teesdale in an effort to correct the error and received the following response:

"The National Secretary
CANZ
PO Box 2108
Kuripuni
MASTERTON

Dear Sir

RE: PUBLIC PRISONS SERVICE - SERVICE LEAVE

This matter refers to Brian Davies email to me on 28 November and I do apologise for the delay in replying to his correspondence. I have discussed the matter with PPS and advise as follows.

The PPS claim was to change the expression of the additional week of annual leave in the collective agreement, on the basis that PPS may incur extra cost in the event that proposals to provide for a minimum of 4 weeks annual leave in the Holidays Act were enacted.

The same claim was made of the PSA. In the end CANZ agreed to the proposed change but the PSA did not.

It is a matter of record that there are a number of relatively minor differences between the resultant CANZ and PSA collective agreements. The potential for this sort of outcome arises because both unions failed to agree to multi-party bargaining.

As a consequence PPS has adopted a policy of endeavouring to treat both groups in a similar fashion, which by and large has been successful. The separate bargaining protocols agreed with both unions included a provision to ensure that the party which settled first was not disadvantaged with regard to the other party.

The relevant provision is as follows (the highlighting is ours):

In the event that PPS subsequently enters into a different agreement with any other union party, PPS agrees to meet with CANZ to discuss the basis on which such offer may be extended to CANZ members.

It is a fact that the PSA settled first and so CANZ does not have any preferential “rights” arising from the above provision. However, PPS has fully considered the matter.

The decision of PPS is that it does not agree to make the change CANZ has requested. However, there is unlikely to be any practical impact before the next bargaining in 2006 as the amendment to the Act does not come into force until 1 April 2007.

As things stand it is likely that PPS will pursue similar changes with the PSA in the next bargaining.
Yours faithfully

AA Teesdale

Whilst we accept that the difference between the two documents is one of wording only and doesn’t disadvantage CANZ members in terms of leave entitlements there are, in my opinion, some very painful but valuable lessons to be learned from this exercise:

1. PPS’s interpretation of openness and honesty differs significantly from mine.
2. Had this been a simple matter of negotiation we could have accepted it; However, PPS assured us – and we accepted their assurance on face value – that they were constrained by lack of available funding.
3. The term “good faith”, when used by PPS senior management, appears to have very little value.

As this hasn’t impacted adversely on our terms and conditions of employment, then you may well be wondering where all of this leaves us. The answer for me is quite simple:

I. If the “annual leave” provisions of the Holidays Act had changed, we would have been significantly disadvantaged and they know it!
II. It is my considered opinion that there is now a significant question mark over the integrity of PPS (and probably Department of Corrections) decision-makers.
III. From my perspective, their credibility is in tatters!

How should we respond to this sequence of events? – This bit is quite simple! It is my view that there should be no more concessions of any kind on any issue when dealing with PPS. We must not fail to challenge every apparent breach of the current CEA and we should begin girding our loins for the next engagement right now! Forewarned is forearmed and if they want this issue to be a show-stopper when the next bargaining round arrives, then it’s their call!!!

Brian Davies
National Organiser