Chapter 6: The Values and workplace relations
Review of employment decisions
One of the Values is that the APS provides a fair system of review of decisions taken in respect of APS employees. The PS Act and the Public Service Regulations establish a review of action scheme. The Public Service Commissioner’s Directions require agency heads to establish, within each agency, a system of review that is available to all eligible employees. This section reports the results of the employee and agency surveys on the procedures used in agencies for internal reviews and employees’ awareness of these procedures and the reviews available from the Merit Protection Commissioner. Additional information on promotion reviews conducted by the Merit Protection Commissioner is also presented.
The review scheme in the APS allows non-SES employees to seek review of actions or decisions that relate to their employment. In addition to resolving employee concerns with employment decisions and actions, the scheme can be used by agency heads as an assurance mechanism to identify areas where APS Values relating to workplace relationships are not being applied as well as they could be. Raising awareness of the scheme and providing appropriate support to employees who choose to seek reviews help to develop a relationship of trust between employees and management. Effective ‘fair treatment’ processes are important to high-performing organisations, helping to build strong alignment with business objectives.
The review of action scheme provides for the review of certain promotion decisions (promotion to APS 2 to APS 6 classifications) by the Merit Protection Commissioner. As well the scheme provides for the primary review, by the relevant agency head, of other APS actions affecting an employee (subject to some exceptions). The scheme also provides for external secondary review by the Merit Protection Commissioner of these primary reviews by agency heads. Reviews of decisions relating to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct are dealt with directly by the Merit Protection Commissioner.
In the main, most APS agencies provide some reference and commitment to the review processes available to their employees in CAs. It is relevant to note that the provisions of a CA cannot displace the review rights available to employees provided for in the PS Act and Regulations. The inclusion of such provisions in CAs is consistent with the expectation that most workplace disputes are best resolved at the agency level and that agency heads are best placed to facilitate informal resolution of employee concerns.
Very few agencies have sought to gauge the opinion of staff about the effectiveness of these processes— only 15% of the agencies surveyed collect information/data on employees’ confidence that the agency’s system of primary review provides fair, objective outcomes. Agency and employee survey responses reflect mixed experiences and varying degrees of knowledge and confidence in the APS review processes. While most agencies (90%) provided information on the review processes in their CAs/AWAs, and large numbers used additional approaches to disseminating information (73% had some form of policy or guidance available online and 24% disseminated information through a network of contact officers), only 31% of non-SES employees advised that they were fully aware of the procedures for review of employment actions that are available within their agency. A further 56% advised they were partially aware of their agency arrangements, while 13% were not aware of the processes that they had available to query employment decisions. In terms of informing staff, the approach adopted by Centrelink appears to be very effective, with only 5% of employees indicating that they were not aware of agency arrangements for review.
Of the 87% of employees who were either fully or partially aware of the review regime, 49% felt that such arrangements were either always or usually fair, 27% thought that they were sometimes fair. Some 9% of employees were of the view that such processes were seldom or never fair and 15% were unsure. In four of the 21 large agencies, 50% or more employees indicated that they saw review arrangements as only sometimes, or seldom, fair and effective. Conversely, more than 60% of employees in one large agency indicated a view that review arrangements in their agency were always or usually fair and effective.
Given that many employees are only partially aware of their agency’s review framework, their perceptions of the efficacy of that framework may, in part, be shaped by a lack of knowledge of how the system works in practice. It is apparent that some agencies need to focus more effort on providing appropriate training to individual employees who are called upon to undertake reviews within agencies; educating their employees about the review processes that are available to them; and promoting workplace cultures that do not discourage employees from raising concerns where they feel aggrieved about a particular action relating to their employment. Forty-three per cent of all agencies provided self-nominating training for staff, 44% for managers and 28% for designated review officers. Eighteen per cent of agencies provided training on alternative dispute resolution options.
Responses to the employee survey also reflect a poor understanding of the role of the Merit Protection Commissioner in the review scheme. It appears that employees have a better understanding of the Commissioner’s role in terms of those employment actions that they are more likely to be familiar with— promotion and review of promotion decisions. The survey response indicated that 66% of non-SES employees were aware that they could approach the Merit Protection Commissioner for reviews of such decisions. A smaller percentage (45%) of employees knew that they could seek review of findings that they have breached the Code of Conduct, and only 37% of employees appreciated that they could approach the Merit Protection Commissioner for reviews of other decisions/actions taken in relation to their employment actions (e.g. refusal of leave, allegations of harassment). The Merit Protection Commissioner is developing strategies and continuing to engage in activities that describe his statutory functions, with the aim of building awareness of his role and to further partnerships with agencies in their management of workplace relationships consistent with the APS Values. In doing so, he is emphasising the benefits of good internal management and review systems.
Review of promotion decisions
The ability of APS 1–6 employees to apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner for the review of promotion decisions is one of the assurance mechanisms that protects merit as the basis for promotion of employees. Promotion decisions at these classifications can only be reviewed on the ground of merit. The Merit Protection Commissioner can appoint an independent three-person Promotion Review Committee (PRC) to consider such applications and a recommendation by a PRC is binding on an agency head.
Table 6.1 details the total number of promotion decisions considered by PRCs (or Promotion Appeal Committees under the former legislation), and the number and percentage of promotion decisions that have been overturned during the last six years.
The marked increase in the number of decisions reviewed by PRCs during the last 12 months reflects processes in two large APS agencies where bulk selection exercises for a number of classifications attracted review requests. It also reflects the rise in the number of promotions notified in the Gazette at the APS 2–6 levels from 6884 in 2001–02 to 10,248 in 2002–03.
Apart from these large selection exercises the overall number of applications for review compared with the number of promotions was small. Similarly, the number of occasions on which a PRC recommended overturning a promotion was small, that is 2.8%.
Table 6.1: Promotion decisions reviewed and overturned 1997-98 to 2002-03
| 1997-98(a) | 1998-99(a) | 1999-00(b) | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of promotion decisions reviewed | NA(c) | NA(c) | 1047 | 717 | 277 | 1071 |
| No. of decisions overturned | NA(c) | NA(c) | 29 | 26 | 15 | 30 |
| % of decisions overturned | 8.6 | 8.8 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 5.4 | 2.8 |
(a) May include a small number of temporary performance selection decisions.
(b) In 1999–00, 485 promotion decisions were considered by PRCs. Thirteen or 2.7% of these promotion decisions were not upheld. In addition, a number of promotions and temporary performance selections were also considered byPACs, established under the Merit Protection Act or the transitional Regulations under the PECTA Act. PACs established under the Merit Protection Act considered 233 promotions, overturning the decision in 10 or 4.3% of cases. PACs established under the PECTA provisions considered 329 promotions, overturning the decision in six or 1.8% of cases.
(c) Historical information not available in this format.
Source: APS Commission data
While the low percentage of promotion decisions overturned on appeal can be seen as an indicator of good practice by agencies in respect of merit selection decisions, the responses to the employee survey suggest that over one-third of APS 1–6 employees either did not know, or were not sure of, their rights to seek assistance from the Merit Protection Commissioner in relation to promotion decisions. This indicates that there is some further need for agencies to ensure employees are made aware of the promotion review system and their rights in respect of this process.