Australian Government - click here to go to our home page

go to start   text resizing

Australian Public Service Commission
Management Advisory Committee - click to go to the MAC home page

related resources

Downloads:

Download the PDF Employment of people with disability

Download the Text file Text version

Contents
On our website:

on our site

Site help

help with using this site

Site menu

news

Home page
> Management Advisory Committee > Employment of people with disability > Supporting APS employees with disability > Next: Supporting managers
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 30 August 2006

Employment of people with disability in the APS

Chapter 4 Supporting APS employees with disability

The 2005 State of the Service Employee Survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability’. Forty-seven per cent of respondents with disability agreed with the statement, compared to 57% of respondents without disability.

Responses to similar questions about women and people from all cultural backgrounds indicate agencies are seen to be more supportive of the employment of women and people from non-English speaking backgrounds than of people with disability (or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people).

The proportion of employees in large agencies who agreed their agency actively supports the employment and career aspirations of employees with disability ranged widely (from 24% to 75%), with the highest agreement rates at the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), CRS, Centrelink, Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).86

The better practice strategies of these and other better performing agencies to support employees with disability have a number of components. First, their premises are accessible.

Second, to be fully effective, their employees with disability have access to the work-related communications and information necessary to carry out their duties. Third, while not targeting the needs of employees with disability, the better performing agencies encourage flexible working arrangements that are incidentally beneficial to many people with disability.

Fourth, their employees with disability have access to learning and development opportunities to meet their career goals. Fifth, staff with disability have access to an advocate or mentor, as well as disability coordinators and case managers or, in smaller agencies, HR staff with relevant expertise,87 within their agency.

4.1 Making reasonable adjustments

Improving accessibility is not only a question of better employment practice; it is an obligation imposed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Employers must eliminate not only the more obvious or direct discrimination based on disability, but also any barrier the work situation poses to equal opportunity, equal participation or equal performance by someone with disability. Changes of this nature are referred to as ‘reasonable adjustment’.88

Reasonable adjustment may include:

Employers are not required to make reasonable adjustments which would impose an unjustifiable hardship on them or which would be unreasonable. However, ‘reasonable’ is defined by whether or not the adjustment would create ‘unjustifiable hardship’ to the whole organisation, and not by a particular manager’s opinion of what is reasonable.

While legal compliance is important, it is equally relevant that agencies which do not make adequate reasonable adjustments not only fail to attract high quality candidates with disability, but also face increased turnover costs through the loss of existing employees with disability. A significant reason people with disability give for leaving employment is the difficulty they experience in getting reasonable adjustments made in the workplace.90

In 2004–05, 88% of agencies (58 out of 66) reported they provided access to reasonable adjustments (that is, adaptive technology or other practical support such as signers or parking spaces).91 In contrast, only 47% of APS employees with disability believe their agency actively supports their employment.92 Employee focus groups and advocacy groups also report that in some cases reasonable adjustments are not yet routinely available or there are lengthy delays in receiving them.93

4.1.1 Making premises more accessible

Physical access to premises, and to facilities within those premises, remains an issue for many APS employees with disability. The central office of an APS agency with policy responsibility for disability issues discovered, during consultations for this review, that its Melbourne office was not accessible by a person using a wheelchair; nor did it have toilets accessible to someone in a wheelchair, or disability parking.

Other agencies report that employees have been confined to the ground floor of heritage-listed and older buildings which do not have lift services. This limits their ability to participate in activities (such as meetings, training courses and conferences) held on other floors. Employees with disability in this situation also find it difficult to participate in informal activities that enhance their enjoyment of work and their productivity, and may ultimately influence their decision to stay or go.

For employees with visual disability, inadequately signposted entrances and exits, a lack of colour contrast to distinguish the edge of raised floor surfaces, indistinguishable bollards and large expanses of clear glass continue to make access and mobility difficult, if not hazardous.

APS employees with disability consulted during focus groups for this and a previous Management Advisory Committee inquiry,94 report that difficulties accessing buildings is a significant factor in their career decisions.

New premises

Section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person with disability in providing access to premises, or facilities within those premises, unless to provide that access would impose ‘unjustifiable hardship’ on the employer.

To provide specific guidance and specifications to ensure an appropriate level of access to premises, the Government has asked the Australian Building Codes Board to recommend changes to the Building Code of Australia. If agreed to by the Government, the proposed amendments could form the technical specifications of a possible (national) Disability Standard for Access to Premises (Buildings) to be formulated by the Attorney-General under the Disability Discrimination Act.

While the proposals are still being developed, and thus specific comment cannot be made at this time, it is likely they will propose technical requirements for new buildings or the renovation, refurbishment of existing buildings for symbols and signs, lighting, hearing augmentation, emergency warning systems, accessways, manoeuvring areas, passing areas, ramps, doorways and doors, lifts, stairways, toilets, tactile ground surface indicators, and controls.

Existing premises

The obligation under section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to provide access to premises, except where that would impose ‘unjustifiable hardship’ on an employer, also applies to existing buildings. A willingness to make reasonable adjustments to existing buildings, including heritage-listed buildings, is important in eliminating discrimination.

Commonly, adjustments made for the few benefit the entire workforce and the public. Installing a lift in a building that may not have had lift access, or a ramp where there was previously only stair access, will benefit not only the employee in a wheelchair but also the employee who has sprained their ankle in a weekend football game or the employee developing age-related arthritis. Lifts and ramps can also be used to move heavy equipment and supplies, thus providing OHS benefits and potentially reducing insurance premiums.

Agencies are encouraged to undertake an assessment of the accessibility of existing premises in order to identify and prioritise modifications or additions needed to ensure an accessible work environment. These include ramps with handrails, designated accessible parking, accessible lifts (including Braille buttons, light indicators and audio announcements), hearing loops in training and meeting rooms and public auditoria, adequate numbers of accessible toilet facilities on each floor, tactile indicators, colour contrast and identification of glass, provision of ‘sharps’ containers (for those staff whose medical treatment requires injectable drugs), appropriately-sized building entrances, corridors and workstations, and modification of warning and alarm systems such as fire alarms for hearing and/or vision-impaired people.

Agencies may wish to consider retaining access consultants to advise them on building access standards, given their specialist nature.

Further information and resources on the requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act can be found on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s website at: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/building/access_to_premises.html.

4.1.2 Making work-related communications and information more accessible

In addition to modifying work premises, employers are required to make other reasonable adjustments an employee with disability needs to perform the essential activities of the job. To be fully effective, employees with disability require access to work-related communications and the information necessary to carry out their duties.

The necessary adaptive technologies to ensure access to those communications and information can take the form of:

Commonly, people with disability are the best judge of the adaptive technologies they need. They also prefer to be asked about those needs as well as their capabilities, rather than have others make assumptions about their needs or capabilities.

It is also desirable that agencies’ disability coordinators or HR staff with responsibility for disability employment issues have access to education and training which allows them to identify the reasonable adjustments required by employees with disability.

New employees

Managers are encouraged to discuss the requirements of new employees with disability as soon as they become aware of the disability. At the same time, managers should seek the assistance of their agency’s disability coordinator or HR staff as well as organisations specialising in placing people with disability in employment (this is discussed in Chapter 3), in deciding on the adaptive technologies and other reasonable adjustments that are required. This will ensure that other more appropriate solutions the employee may not be familiar with are not overlooked. Better practice suggests that, wherever possible, these decisions are made and the necessary equipment is in place before the employee commences work.

Assessment of the reasonable adjustments required by existing employees

Agencies are encouraged, in consultation with employees with disability, and with the assistance of an organisation specialising in placing people with disability in employment, to undertake an assessment of the adaptive technology requirements of existing employees to ensure their needs are being met.

That assessment should not be limited to adaptive technologies, but should examine all the reasonable adjustments employees with disability need to ensure their equal participation in the workplace. It should address the reasonable adjustments required in an employee’s immediate work environment, as well as agencies’ information and communication policies to ensure they are inclusive of employees with disability. For example, to enable employees with disability to fully participate in large meetings, training courses, conferences and other events that are part of the complete work experience, those with hearing impairment may need access to hearing loops or AUSLAN interpreters, and employees with visual impairments may need copies of overheads in advance.

Best practice e-government services and IT purchases

Incompatible adaptive technology and upgrades to information technology platforms which fail to take account of the adaptive technologies that are to run on those platforms can result in a significant decline in the productivity of employees with disability reliant on those technologies.95

Agencies are encouraged to use the Assistive Technology for Employees of Australian Government Better Practice Checklist96 which guides agencies on a structured approach to the purchase and deployment of information and communications technology (ICT) support for adaptive technology and teleworking. This will reduce the need for agencies to make changes that incur additional expenses for IT solutions later on.

Finance is encouraged to review the Government Information Technology Contractual Framework Version 4 to ensure that the contractual obligations on contractors to provide accessible IT systems are adequate. It is also encouraged to develop a community of practice to assist IT specialists and contract managers to understand the IT implications of adaptive technologies and provide advice on how to integrate these into existing IT arrangements.

4.1.3 Making adjustments to work arrangements (‘flexible work practices’)

The Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999 require that agency heads put in place measures to ensure employment and workplace arrangements take appropriate account of employees who seek to balance individual needs and the achievement of organisational goals.97 In addition, agency workplace diversity plans are to include measures to ensure workplace structures, systems and procedures assist employees in balancing their work, family and other caring responsibilities.98

A wide range of flexible working practices (or ‘work–life balance strategies’) are used in the APS, with the workplace diversity plans and collective agreements of many agencies incorporating options for flexible arrangements such as home-based work, job-sharing, part-time work, flexible working hours and purchased leave.99

These ‘mainstream’ arrangements, while not targeted at the needs of people with disability, particularly benefit those who have difficulty physically accessing workplaces, those experiencing episodic illness and those whose disability makes extended work hours difficult. For example, the benefits of home-based work for people with disability are:

Table 4.1 indicates the level to which agencies have adopted various flexible working practices.

Table 4.1: Work–life balance strategies available in agencies, 2004 to 2005
Work–life balance strategies number of agencies (n = 82)
  yes being developed no no, but measure provided on an informal basis
Flex-time arrangements for non-APS level employees (for example, ELs) 36 1 27 18
Time-off in lieu arrangements for ELs 60 0 7 15
Time-off in lieu arrangements for the SES 34 0 21 25
Purchased leave arrangements (for example, 48/52) 68 3 11 n/a
Recreation leave entitlement available at half pay 45 2 35 n/a
Job share arrangements 49 2 19 11

Note: results do not include agencies that did not respond to the question relating to the particular strategy.

Source: State of the Service Report 2004–05, p. 236.

Job redesign appears to have received little formal recognition as a flexible work arrangement. The ability, for example, of an employee with a hearing disability to negotiate a job redesign that swaps telephone duties with a colleague in return for handling written enquiries would enhance that employee’s employment opportunities.

Further, only 49 agencies formally offer job-share arrangements, although another 11 agencies offer them informally. Job-sharing could provide particular opportunities for people with disability, who may only be in a position to work part-time, to access positions requiring full-time coverage (including promotion to managerial positions).

Extended leave entitlements vary widely between agencies and are commonly at the discretion of agency delegates. Agencies may wish to consider offering flexible work arrangements that allow people with episodic or extended illness to access extended leave where required (for example, purchased personal leave).

Agencies, in consultation with employees with disability and other key stakeholders, are encouraged to review their collective agreements, and workplace diversity plans, to ensure they encourage and support flexible working practices that allow all employees, including employees with disability, to realise their full potential. Practices of particular benefit to employees with disability include:

Despite the formal availability of flexible working arrangements, employees may not feel free, in practice, to access those arrangements. Where managers assess requests for flexible work arrangements in the light of the demands facing the work unit and the unit’s ability to accommodate those flexible arrangements, they may consider their ability to be flexible is limited. On the other hand, some employees with disability who have good reasons to access flexible work arrangements, avoid doing so in case it sends the message they are ‘not serious’ about their job. Those attitudes, and the culture they generate, mean some employees with disability are discouraged from accessing the arrangements that are available.

To address this situation, managers need more information on flexible work arrangements and the benefits they offer the organisation as a whole. This is consistent with the findings of the recent report, Telework for Australian Employees and Businesses: Maximising the Economic and Social Benefits of Flexible Working Practice, which found many managers take a traditional view of how work should be performed and fail to see the benefits of telework.100 Information could be communicated to managers through management development programmes as well as HR policies and procedures, and backed up by positive examples of how flexible working arrangements have been used successfully in the agency.

For some people with disability, AWAs can offer a particularly useful vehicle for tailoring a flexible work arrangement on an individual basis that is particularly suited to their needs. However, some people with disability consulted in the course of this review felt they would be in a weak bargaining position in negotiating an AWA.101

Agencies should ensure employees with disability are provided with appropriate representation and support in establishing an AWA and the package of conditions offered to employees with disability is not less than that offered to employees without disability. In doing so, agencies are encouraged to seek advice and assistance from the Office of the Employment Advocate in designing appropriate AWAs.102

4.1.4 Access to development opportunities

To meet their career goals, APS employees with disability need access to the learning and development experiences relevant to those career goals.

However, APS employees with disability do not appear to receive the same development opportunities as their colleagues without disability. In responses to the 2005 State of the Service Employee Survey, 16% of respondents without disability reported spending more than 10 days in off-the-job learning and development opportunities in 2004–05 (compared with 11% of respondents with disability).103 People with disability in roles requiring direct contact with the public were also more dissatisfied with their access to relevant training and information. Significantly fewer people with disability agreed (65% compared to 78% of employees without disability) and significantly more disagreed (29% compared to 11% without disability) that they had appropriate access to such opportunities.

Typically, also, respondents with disability experienced fewer opportunities to participate in specialised leadership development programmes, placement and mobility options inside their agency, and mentoring and personal sponsorship opportunities, than did respondents without disability.104 In addition, respondents with disability were more likely to disagree that merit was routinely applied in the temporary assignment of higher duties.105

Participants with disability in the focus groups conducted for this review also voiced these perceptions. Some reported that they were not given opportunities such as access to courses, transfers at level, and opportunities to develop their skills at a higher level. Other barriers included difficulties physically accessing training venues and training materials that were not available in an accessible form. Respondents who required adaptive technologies or other modifications to enable them to participate in training courses reported that these adjustments may not be made, thus limiting benefits they could derive from such courses. In some cases, the costs of the adaptations were cited as the cause.

Better practice strategies agencies could consider include holding discussions about learning and development opportunities with employees with disability during the performance management process. Where adaptations are required, they could be funded out of a central fund for reasonable adjustments for staff with disability, so managers need not balance the training needs of employees with disability against the training needs of other employees.

Agencies could also seek the views of staff with disability on strategies to overcome the restrictions they face in accessing training at both internal and external venues. Strategies could include flexible learning solutions, CD ROMs or learning by distance. Organisations specialising in the employment of people with disability can assist agencies develop solutions to meet the needs of their staff.

Agencies can also improve the competitiveness of employees with disability by supporting and encouraging them to upgrade their qualifications. Some difficulties staff with disability experience in winning positions on merit may be due to their qualifications. Significantly fewer employees with disability have bachelor level degrees and significantly more have vocational qualifications than people without disability. Difficulties students with disability face in accessing higher education include problems accessing adaptive technologies, the need to provide assessments in different formats and the need for extra time to complete those assessments.

Agencies can provide support by reviewing study assistance schemes to ensure they provide sufficient study leave for staff with disability and allow access to adaptive technologies, for example, by providing equipment for their use at home.

4.1.5 Advocates and mentors

People with disability report frustration when their needs cannot be met because of conflicting organisational priorities. The solution is to encourage a culture supporting employees with disability and providing avenues for their views to be heard. Primary responsibility falls to managers. Additionally, however, there could be scope to identify an advocate to negotiate on behalf of employees with disability to ensure they receive ‘a fair go’. This could alleviate, in part, the sense of powerlessness staff with disability can experience.

To avoid perceptions an advocate was a mere token appointment, the appointee would need to be committed to representing people with disability, understand the practical issues that confront them, be approachable, understand the diverse nature of disability and be committed to genuine and constructive communication and negotiation, on a regular basis, with agency employees with disability.106 The importance of the role to the agency needs to be recognised and incorporated into the advocate’s performance management arrangements. It is unlikely to be a full-time role, but does need formal acknowledgement.

 

  1. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 221. Information is not provided on small and medium agencies. The State of the Service Report only includes agency-level results of large agencies that met the minimum number of weighted responses. The medium portfolio departments and the Commission are not included in any agency-level analysis in the report.
  2. This is discussed in Chapter 5 of this report.
  3. For a discussion of reasonable adjustment see Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Employment and the Disability Discrimination Act, pp. 10–19 <http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/faq/Employment/employment_contents.html>
  4. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Employment and the Disability Discrimination Act, pp. 13–14 <http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/faq/Employment/employment_contents.html>
  5. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2005, Interim Report of the National Inquiry into Employment and Disability, HREOC, Sydney.
  6. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 220.
  7. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 28.
  8. Focus groups held with employees from 12 agencies as part of this review (December 2005–February 2006).
  9. Management Advisory Committee 2003, Organisational Renewal, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
  10. Focus groups of APS employees with disability conducted for this review (December 2005–February 2006)
  11. AGIMO, Assistive Technology for Employees of Australian Government, Better Practice Checklist No. 22.
  12. Clause 2.11(1) of the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions, 1999.
  13. Clause 3.3(b) of the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions, 1999.
  14. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 233–42.
  15. Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 2006, Telework for Australian Employees and Businesses: Maximising the Economic and Social Benefits of Flexible Working Practice, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
  16. Focus groups conducted as part of this review (December 2005–February 2006).
  17. Discussions with the Office of the Employment Advocate (December 2005; March 2006).
  18. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 36.
  19. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 38. However, it should be noted that overall, satisfaction with access to leadership development opportunities did not differ between people with disability (25% satisfied) and people without disability (26% satisfied). Thus the difference in participation rates could be due to a classification effect as higher proportions of people with disability are concentrated in the APS 1–6 classification groups.
  20. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 27.
  21. Consultations with employees and agencies as part of this review (December 2005–February 2006).