In short, this policy puts an end to „improvements“ in public sector company agreements, destroys wage growth, and undermines workers` industrial conditions in the name of „household repair.“ If the request for majority support is successful, AFP would end the workplace availability to allow negotiations to continue. The underlying EI would continue to operate until a new agreement was reached, and further wage increases would not occur until negotiations were completed and a new company agreement was initiated. We will be formally writing to the Commissioner and DC Gaughan over the next two weeks to confirm the timeline. We believe that a decision should be made before September 1, 2020. In addition, the catastrophic bushfires across Australia in the summer of 2019-2020 significantly affected the federal government`s fiscal direction and position. Added to this is the pandemic and the resulting economic recession that we are currently experiencing. Similarly, AFP was a central body for the operational response to the bushfires and the pandemic. In early 2020, DC Gaughan held a series of sampling sessions across the country. We understand that during these models, DC Gaughan had the idea to „ride“ on the EA. In fact, the current EA would remain, but with guaranteed wage increases that would occur after the nominal expiration. In April 2019, Angela Smith wrote to then-Commissioner Andrew Colvin requesting a commitment to immediately contact AFPA about the negotiations. Commissioner Colvin told AFPA in May 2019 that he would commit to „structured discussions“ around the EA, which would begin in late 2019.
Commissioner Kershaw has honoured this commitment. Talks took place between AFPA`s negotiating team, AC Scott Lee (when he was chief negotiator for AFP) and later DC Neil Gaughan in late 2019 and early 2020. The federal government`s wage freeze will apply for a period of 6 months from the start of the next agreement, whether it is a new company agreement or an extension of the current ELEA/ELEA through a workplace provision, AFPA did important work in 2019 and early 2020 to prepare for negotiations on a new agreement. This includes the reconnaissance campaign of operations and the preparation of a damage report. AFPA has also engaged with its members on several occasions over the past year through surveys that have provided useful information about members` wishes in an EA and ideas for improving EA. No. When the workplace provision comes into force, AFPA may request a majority support decision from the Fair Work Board at any time during the duration of the workplace determination on the grounds that a majority of our members wish to negotiate a new company agreement. If approved by the Fair Work Commission, a majority support decision would require AFP to begin the process of negotiating a new company agreement.
In early 2020, AFPA`s bargaining team held a series of consultations across the country to inform members of AFPA`s preparations for EI negotiations and, in particular, the challenges caused by collective bargaining policies in the workplace. These took place in most offices and services before the COVID pandemic, which then restricted our movements and prevented the completion of samples. At the 2019 National Council, delegates adopted a motion calling on AFPA to prepare negotiations in good time before the nominal expiry of the EZ2017-2020 on 24 May 2021. 14 Tempered flexible packaging (salary packaging) ………… 15. . . While the German government maintains this draconian policy, afpa and AFP have their hands tied. In the last round of negotiations, the reasonable and reasonable proposals of the APSC and AFP were rejected because they qualified as „improvement“. If a majority of the members support a proposal, the decision is made. The difficulty is that a provision is not a negotiation and it is difficult to negotiate if a particular wage increase is to come into effect from a certain date.
At any time during the term of a section 27 provision, employees may apply to the Fair Work Board (CTF) for a „majority support decision“. A majority support provision is an order of the FWC in which a majority of employees want to negotiate with their employer and the employer has not yet agreed to negotiations or commenced negotiations. If such an order is issued by the FWC, an employer is required to enter into negotiations. We will try to provide AFP with additional and more accurate calculations in this regard. . Therefore, negotiations for a new EA would begin if a majority of AFP employees voted no. No. The provisions remain subject to workplace collective bargaining policies and restrictions on maximum wage improvements and increases. In addition, a provision is not the result of negotiations or negotiations, but an offer that an agency manager makes to employees to avoid the negotiation process. . Much will depend on whether the federal government makes changes to limit maximum wage increases under the Workplace Bargaining Policy or whether other attempts are made to defer wage increases (which has happened across the public sector). In response to the pandemic, the federal government has taken the decision to postpone salary increases for the Australian civil service by six months.
Although the discovery did not have a direct impact on AFP, the German government stressed that it wanted non-SGP companies (including AFP) to also postpone wage increases. . We understand that DC Gaughan`s comments during modeling imply that AFPA supports a provision. While we told DC Gaughan that we would consult with our members about a section 27 decision, we never said we were „fully supportive.“ We said we socialized the idea of a „rollover“ or, as we prefer to call it, an „extension“ of the EA. We have not received any formal notice as to when AFP will decide to proceed with negotiations or make a decision. The removal of work areas from work habits also burned AFP. For example, the removal of areas from the high-volume operating network was a failure in our view. This created problems for members working in certain areas and had an impact on operational results, which likely cost AFP much more money in overtime and penalties. This would be the case if the Commissioner indiscriminately removed the working areas of the composite.
PART I – INTRODUCTION …………. 5 What has AFPA done since the 2019 National Council regarding negotiations for the next EA? Any change to the provision would require negotiations . . . The only other way forward is to haggle. Through negotiations, we risk losing the maximum wage increase of 2% (with other conditions). The Workplace Bargaining Policy is not your friend, and the federal government may change the maximum wage increase to a smaller amount. . AFPA noted that the biggest obstacle to significant change to the current industrial framework (EA) is the federal government`s bargaining policy in the workplace. As part of the campaign around the recognition of operations, the association campaigned for AFP to be exempted from the bargaining policy in the workplace.
AFPA has written to various federal ministers, the AFP Commissioner and the Australian Civil Service Commission (APSC) requesting an exemption. . How much would a 2% salary increase cost the organization and how would it be funded if a provision was made and there were no changes to other conditions? AFP could move forward with a provision in Article 27. However, AFP is unlikely to do so, as it has not happened in other public service departments and agencies that have tried to make decisions. Trying to impose a determination on members after a majority voted not to support you would cause significant anger in the workforce. PART VIII – WITHDRAWAL, RETIREMENT AND TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT ……….. 58. . .
No, it was rejected by the federal government. At this point, we do not support or reject the idea simply because we have not been given formal details about it – in particular the amount of the guaranteed increase, when the increases would take effect and how long a decision was made. Afpa demanded it and it was rejected by the federal government and the Australian Civil Service Commission (APSC). The reason for this is that the CSPA sees this as an improvement due to the effect of compound interest – which is not authorized under the Policy on Bargaining in the Workplace. . What happens if a majority of AFP employees vote „no“ to a decision ?. . .
. At the same time, AFPA commissioned Essential Media to assist in the creation and implementation of Operation Recognition. As part of Operation Recognition, a number of discussion papers were developed on issues affecting members, including the EA. .