POVB News November 2014 (PDF version)

Haemorrhagic Fever EBOLA

Recently a member asked what CSNSW’s process was for dealing with EBOLA.

This was put to Senior Managers of the Department in the Consultative Forum and we received a response that can be condensed down to the following.

CSNSW advised that CSNSW works with the health and other public sector agencies and that well-established pandemic plans are in place. Pandemic plans are not developed for specific diseases; plans/processes previously used will be amended to address any new issues.

CSNSW further indicated that their intention is to manage the potential risk through the same proven methodology as used during the Swine Flu pandemic.

Primary responsibility for screening those at risk will be again with NSW Police as the first point of custody with protocols being developed to identify any that may skip the step of Police Custody.

Further information on EBOLA can be found on the NSW Health Web page and the World health Web page.

Uniform Limit

Several enquiries have been received with regard to CSNSW imposing a limit of $250 per Officer for uniform replacement.

I can advise members that no discussions or agreements based on a dollar figure have been had between the Union and CSNSW to my knowledge.  On the basis of the enquiries from members I have contacted the Department.

I am informed that this figure is indicative for budget purposes only and uniform replacement remains unchanged as “a one-for-one process”.

PPE must always be provided regardless of the amount of expenditure per individual Officer and although it is included in the uniform catalogue it is to be considered a separate item.

I know from responses from members that some have had their order capped at $250. My advice to members is to order disposable items such as socks, separately to shirts and pants etc. Should any member find it difficult to get replacement uniforms please contact your local delegate and/or a member of the State Executive.

Savings

Again the Department are shaping up for some savings. The rumoured $24 million is no rumour but in fact savings required under the Government’s Wages Policy.

Very little is known about where CSNSW may plan to make said savings and while a meeting with CSNSW and representatives of each Vocational Group and Union (including Teachers Federation) has occurred, there are no indications from CSNSW where the $24 million may exist.

More information on the Government’s Wages Policy can be found on the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet web page.

MRRC Efficiency Review

I’m not as bold as to say that this has gone away because, simply said, it has not.

What I will say is that the process has dramatically changed and is now captured in the overall Savings strategies.

The Assistant Commissioner has indicated to the MRRC Delegates his intention to attend the Centre in the near future to commence discussions on potential savings strategies.

Casuals Case IRC 289 / 2013

IRC289/2013, before Justice BOLAND, President: This matter is about the provision of an 8 hour break between shifts for Casual Correctional Officers, we contend that where a Casual Correctional Officer is not afforded the said break then overtime is payable.

NSWCS appealed the decision in this matter and this month the appeal was heard in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court have Reserved their decision. We will provide further information when the Court hands down its decision.

Chiefs and Principles IRC 446/2014

Again I am forced to notify members that this matter is yet again delayed, last week we were back in the IRC to be informed that due to the retirement of some members of the commission our matter would be reallocated, unfortunately the matter is now stood over until the New Year.

RIT Protocol Review

Members in Court Cell locations are painfully aware that a review of this process is underway. We became aware of the review when S&I Senior Management indicated that they wanted to change the way Inmates in Court Cell locations/24 Hour Cell complexes were managed.

The indication was that they wanted to introduce something called the “least restrictive care model”. “The what model?” you may ask. Simply put, in the aforementioned locations, it seems to equate to the removal of the provision of Officers to supervise individual’s identified/assessed as being at risk.

In the absence of the Policy (S&I were unable to provide it) no real outcomes yet exist. S&I have however commenced installing technology to assist in the management of ‘at risk’ inmates. This technology is extensively a computer system with touchscreen technology that records the checking process and associated notes.

The POVB has requested the Draft Policy, clear methodology for assessment, guidelines for management of ‘at risk’ inmates and training on any changes prior to implementation.

There seems to be very little change to the process used in Correctional Centres, with the primary focus being on reducing the cost in Court and 24 Hour cell locations.

Workers Compensation and the Campaign for improved provisions

You hopefully will recall that we wrote to you recently by way of a PSA News Letter (POVB Bulletin – Workers Compensation update). In the Newsletter we outlined the status of discussions and the campaign to bring about positive changes to Workers Compensation Legislation to the benefit of Prison Officers.

In short, the campaign strategy remains on track with the initial processes of media awareness and contact with Members of the Government being successful.

Discussions with a number of Ministers (including the Attorney General – Brad Hazard) have provided the opportunity to re-evaluate the exact focus of the overall campaign.

In doing this we discovered that there could be some negative aspects to pursuing and achieving a straight exemption to the current legislation.

Among these possible negative outcomes is the fact that in the previous legislation a member would drop to a statutory rate after 26 weeks on compensation, this rate being around $470/FN, by way of comparison A First Class Correctional Officer under the new legislation with total earnings of $81,831 (this includes penalties and overtime) will be eligible to receive a payment of $1258.94 per week being 80% of their pre-injury average earnings.

In this example it is clear that should we achieve a straight out exemption we would be in fact worse off.

While I acknowledge that there are problems with the calculation of payment expressly in relation to one or two days’ workers compensation and other aspects of the legislation, it stands to reason that we be very certain of what we are seeking in this campaign and only seek changes that have long term benefits to Prison Officers.

All aspects of the comparison between the two processes will be discussed with Delegates when they meet next week. Following this discussion my expectations are that Delegates will then relay these discussions and be equipped to explain the situation at a local level.

We will follow this with a survey of members; the primary purpose is to establish the needs and expectations of members, this will be one of the final steps in structuring what we take as our log of claims.

With due prudence the Association have funded detailed legal analysis by an external law firm with a proven history in workers compensation matters. This advice is sort with the intention of evaluating all options and guarding against inadvertent errors on our part that may further reduce the benefit to members.

With the complete support of the Association (PSA) we are continuing to campaign for a better Workers Compensation Deal for Prison Officers.