Appeals

1
Appeals Grievances

• Terry Lisson
• Director Promotion Appeals Grievance Reviews

2
Disciplinary Inability Appeals

• Secretariat function for these appeals is now
  being conducted by PAGR. Boards are comprised
  of
• a Chairperson nominated by the Minister (must be
  a legal practitioner of at least 5 years
  experience
• Commissioners nominee (Director Promotion
  Appeals Grievance Reviews)
• a person nominated by the relevant union

3
Disciplinary Appeals

• Three appeals so far this year
• Disallowed - 1
• Pending 1
• Vacated - 1

4
Inability Appeals

• Last year 0
• This year 2 (Not yet heard)

5
Disciplinary and Inability Appeal Board Decisions

• De-identified decisions in disciplinary and
  inability appeals will be made available
  (probably on OCPE website)
• Intention is to provide some guidance for both
  appellants and respondents as to possible outcomes

6
Promotion Appeals

• 72 Promotion Appeals received last year
• 5.3 of all NTPS promotions

7
What does the Promotion Appeal Board determine?

• Only ground of appeal is that the appellant has
  superior merit to the person selected
• Appeals have only 3 possible outcomes
• Disallowed
• Allowed
• CEO directed to re-advertise

8
Promotion Appeals
Year Handled Allowed Disallow Re-advertise Withdrawn Vacated Outstanding
200607 55 3 16 0 4 23 9
200708 81 1 29 12 15 21 0
9
Why are more Promotion Appeals being withdrawn?

• Last year 15 appeals were withdrawn, the
  preceding year only 4
• Reason Often, once appellants receive the full
  selection report with more complete information
  and a better explanation as to why the selection
  panel found the promotee to be of superior merit,
  they are satisfied with the outcome

10

• Lack of understanding as to why the promotee was
  found to be of superior merit appears to be one
  of the main reasons why people appeal
• This is particularly so in cases where the
  unsuccessful applicant was found to meet all the
  selection criteria

11
Myth 12 - You cannot make comparisons between
the individual and the successful applicant in
the Individual Selection Report

• Rating against specific criteria may be useful
  to those with identifiable deficiencies. But for
  applicants who meet or exceed the criteria, only
  a comparison against even better applicants will
  help them understand why they were not selected.
  (Qld Government OPSC Recruitment and Selection
  Processes October 2007)

12
Selection Reports

• The best Individual Selection report should be
  one that answers all the questions the
  unsuccessful applicant might have including how
  the successful applicant is better!

13
Why are more Promotion Appeals being sent back to
Re-advertise?

• Last year 12 appeals were sent back to be
  re-advertised, compared with none in the
  preceding year
• Reason The Promotion Appeals Board is not being
  satisfied that the applicants merit is being
  assessed.

14
Problems with Selection Processes

• Too often there appears to have been overemphasis
  on interview performance and/or content and style
  of written application, rather than actual merit.
  
• Selection panels must learn to realise that
  interview performance and application writing
  skills are not synonymous with merit.

15
PAB Decisions

• New practice is to give detailed reasons for
  decision. This is being done with a view to
  demystifying the process and hopefully providing
  useful advice regarding improving selection
  processes and avoiding appeals in the future.
• PAB will also begin publishing de-identified
  summaries of decisions

16
Recruitment Myths

• PowerPoint presentation is available on the OCPE
  website
• PAGR very happy to provide advice and
  information about selection processes

17
Upcoming Working Forumon Selection Processes

• Working seminar in which a small group will work
  intensively on selection issues such as
• Job descriptions
• More useful selection templates which identify
  merit (rather than application/interview/referees)
  as the basis for assessment
• Selection report templates
• Referee reports

18
Section 59 Grievances

• In any case where an employee is aggrieved by
  his or her treatment in employment they may
  request the Commissioner to review the action,
  intended action or decision.
• 84 grievances handled last year

19
Section 59 Grievances
Reasons 200708
Selection processes 19
Application of procedures and policies 18
Bullying and harassment 16
Application of conditions of service 15
Management action or decision 11
Personal conflicts within the workplace 4
Termination of probationary employment 1
Total handled 84
20
Grievance Handling

• PAGR has adopted a more flexible approach to
  grievance handling with emphasis, where possible,
  on methods such as consultation, mediation,
  conciliation and conflict coaching.

21
Outcomes of Grievances
Decisions 200607 200708
Agency action confirmed 27 16
Resolved within the agency 3 13
Resolved by Mediation 1 13
Agency directed to take/refrain from taking action 13 10
Declined to review 2 6
Withdrawn 11 4
On hand at the end of the period 22 22
Total handled 79 84
22
Timeliness

• Section 59 stipulates that the Commissioner shall
  conduct a review within 3 months of receiving a
  grievance.
• In 2006-07 the average time taken to finalise a
  grievance review was 5.5 months
• In 2007-08 this time was reduced to 3.5 months
  (2.5 months for matters received since January
  2008).

23
Questions?

• Please feel free to contact
• Terry Lisson
• 8999 4128
• Promotion Appeals
• Grievance Review