Chapter 4: Integrity and fairness

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Review of employment actions

One of the Values relevant to integrity and fairness is that the APS provides a fair system of review of actions taken in respect of APS employees. The Act, the Regulations and the Commissioner’s Directions establish a review of action framework for the APS. The intent of the framework is to encourage the resolution of employee concerns in the workplace, including through the use of alternative dispute resolution methods where appropriate.

Under the Regulations, non-SES employees may seek review of certain actions or decisions that relate to their employment. Subject to some exceptions, the Regulations provide for a primary review by the relevant agency of actions affecting the employee. The Regulations also provide that for cases where employees’ concerns are not resolved, employees can apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner for review of the agency action that affected them. As discussed earlier in this chapter, reviews of actions relating to alleged breaches of the Code are dealt with directly by the Merit Protection Commissioner.

This section reports the results of the agency survey of the procedures used in agencies for internal reviews, review applications finalised during the year, and the promotion reviews conducted by Promotion Review Committees (PRCs).

Agencies’ internal reviews in 2005–06

Forty per cent of agencies reported having had at least one application for primary review, that is, an application for review of employment actions lodged directly with agencies during the year—this is a fall from 49% last year.

Agencies that had at least one application for review lodged in 2005–06 were asked about whether they had a range of measures and processes in place for handling employee applications for the review of employment actions. Responses to this question for the last four years are set out in Figure 4.1.

The most common measures, used by almost all agencies, continue to be reviewing applications within the corporate services structure and/or by designated review officers, and identifying review officers after receipt of requests for review. Sixty-eight per cent of relevant agencies had in place alternative dispute resolution as a first step following lodgement of a review application.

Given that there will be some variation in the agencies where an application for review has been lodged each year, it is difficult to be definitive about any trends in the use of the individual measures. However, the overall trend seems to be to an increased use of all measures.

Figure 4.1: Relevant agency measures for review of employment actions, 2002–03 to 2005–06

Note: Only agencies that had received at least one application for review during the reporting period have been included.

Source: Agency survey

Agencies also reported on the number of applications for primary review of employment actions (other than decisions about breaches of the Code and matters that went to a PRC) that were finalised during 2005–06. Overall, 38% of agencies reported having finalised at least one application for primary review of an employment action—a fall from 43% in 2004–05. A total of 283 primary review applications were finalised during the year across the APS (compared to 358 in 2004–05). Fifty-six of the 283 finalised applications were lodged prior to 2005–06.

In 2005–06, 41% of applications (115) were upheld (i.e. the original decision was varied or overturned), compared to 34% in 2004–05. Twelve per cent (35) of the 283 finalised applications became the subject of external review by the Merit Protection Commissioner. This compared to 15% in 2004–05.

Three large agencies (ATO, Centrelink and Defence) accounted for 65% of all applications for primary reviews of actions finalised in the APS during the past year. The highest number of primary applications finalised in one agency was 99 (ATO).

Unlike last year, the rate of finalised applications per thousand employees in 2005–06 did not vary widely among large agencies, with the range varying from no applications in five agencies (AGD, DEWR, DFAT, Finance, and DITR) to 4.4 per thousand employees.

In those agencies reporting applications finalised in 2005–06, just over half (53%) of agencies reported that any of the applications for primary review had related to procedural issues concerning selection exercises. Forty-seven per cent of agencies reported that any of the applications had related to performance feedback or assessment, 44% that they had had any applications related to access to leave or other conditions of employment, 41% discrimination, bullying or harassment and 24% inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. Agencies were not asked whether applications had dealt with more than one issue.

Table 4.11 shows the training or information provided by agencies to line managers and other employees to ensure that they were aware of the principal features of the processes of internal review and/or to allow them to effectively manage such reviews.

Table 4.11: Information or training provided by agencies to line managers on internal review processes, 2006
Training/information provided	Agencies providing this training or information (%)	Agencies developing this training or information(%)	Agencies not providing this training or information(%)
General information provided in certified/ collective agreements and/ or AWAs/ individual agreements	92	1	7
Guidelines/ policies available online	93	5	2
Dissemination of policy through line management structure	46	6	48
Information disseminated through network of contact officers	29	2	69
Training for staff	19	5	76
Training for managers	20	11	69
Training for designated review officers	24	5	71
Training provided on alternative dispute resolution options	16	7	77
Source: Agency survey

Most agencies rely on online policies or guidance (93%) or information in collective or individual agreements (92%) to make employees aware of the principal features of their internal review processes. Nearly half (46%) of agencies use the management structure to disseminate information. However, more proactive techniques such as training for staff and managers were used by only a minority of agencies.

The extent of measures used is influenced by agency size. All agencies used at least one of these measures but large agencies were more likely to use, or be developing, four or more measures (65%) than medium agencies (46%) or small agencies (37%).

Employee confidence

Employees’ degree of confidence in the processes that their organisation used to resolve employee grievances continues to be relatively low. Less than half of employees (41%) agreed that they had confidence in their agency procedures, with 23% disagreeing. Nevertheless, there has been a rise in confidence from 34% in 2004–05.This year’s result is comparable with data from three state jurisdictions—Western Australia (41%), Victoria (41%) and Tasmania (42%).¹⁵

Only a minority of agencies used staff surveys or consultative committees to collect information during2005–06 on employees’ confidence that the agency’s system of primary review provided fair and objective outcomes. Twelve per cent of agencies made use of a staff survey while slightly more made use of a consultative committee (17%). Four agencies reported using any other methods—such as asking employees at the end of the review period, conducting an independent review of contract arrangements or exit interviews and providing an ethics hotline. There appears to be potential for agencies to make greater use of such measures.

Review of promotion decisions

The ability of APS employees to apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner for the review of promotion decisions up to the APS 6 classification is one of the assurance mechanisms that protect merit as the basis for the promotion of employees. Promotion decisions at these classifications can be reviewed on the ground of merit. The Merit Protection Commissioner appoints an independent three-person PRC to consider such applications. A decision by a PRC is binding on the agency head.

Table 4.12 details the total number of promotion decisions considered by PRCs, and the number and proportion of promotion decisions that have been varied during the past six years. A case is defined as an application by one or more APS employees for a review by a PRC of a decision or decisions arising from a discrete agency selection exercise.

This year’s data records 783 applications for review in relation to 105 cases, leading to 889 promotion decisions being reviewed. Bulk recruitment exercises in DIMA and ATO that resulted in high numbers of promotions to reviewable classifications contributed significantly to the number of applications for review lodged and the number of promotion decisions reviewed during the reporting period.

Table 4.12: Promotion decisions reviewed and varied, 2000–01 to 2005–06
	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05	2005–06
Number of promotion decisions reviewed	717	277	1071	404	840	889
Number of decisions varied	26	15	30	24	42	48
Proportion of decisions varied (%)	3.6	5.4	2.8	5.9	5	5.4
Source: Agency survey

The number of PRCs has fluctuated over recent financial years. This appears to some extent to be a reflection of volatility in recruitment patterns, for example the increase in 2005–06 is consistent with an increase of about 13% in the number of reviewable promotions and engagements gazetted in 2005–06 compared with that in 2004–05.

The jurisdictional comparison data from surveys conducted in 2004–05 and 2005–06 was provided to the Commission by the State Services Authority, Victoria (People Matter Survey 2005); the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania (State Service Employee Survey 2005); and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia (Climate Survey 2005–06). While the Victorian and Tasmanian surveys covered the jurisdiction, the Victorian jurisdictional comparison data was based on web-based responses only. The Western Australian Climate Survey only involved 14 agencies—each year 10–15 agencies are surveyed with each agency being surveyed approximately once every five years.

Next page: Key chapter findings