1. Appeals & Grievances Terry Lisson Director Promotion Appeals & Grievance Reviews

2. Disciplinary & Inability Appeals Secretariat function for these appeals is now being conducted by PA&GR. Boards are comprised of: – a Chairperson nominated by the Minister (must be a legal practitioner of at least 5 years experience –Commissioner’s nominee (Director Promotion Appeals & Grievance Reviews) –a person nominated by the relevant union

3. Disciplinary Appeals Three appeals so far this year: 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 YearHandledAllowedDisallowRe-advertiseWithdrawnVacatedOutstanding 2006 –07 5531604239 2007 –08 811291215210

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 Why are more Promotion Appeals being withdrawn?  Last year 15 appeals were withdrawn, the preceding year only 4  Reason: Often, once appellants receive the full selection report with more complete information and a better explanation as to why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  PA&GR very happy to provide advice and information about selection processes

17. Upcoming Working Forum on 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 2007–08 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  PA&GR 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 Decisions2006–072007–08 Agency action confirmed 2716 Resolved within the agency 313 Resolved by Mediation 113 Agency directed to take/refrain from taking action 1310 Declined to review 26 Withdrawn 114 On hand at the end of the period 22 Total handled 7984

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 Grievance Review