Claims made by Public Service Commissioner in relation to protracted bargaining and workplace morale
Dear Australian Public Service Commission,
I refer to the APSC Commissioner's submission to the recent Senate Inquiry into the impact of the Government’s Workplace Bargaining Policy and approach to Commonwealth public sector bargaining.
At point 20 of that submission the Commissioner states the following:
"I consider that the impact of bargaining on employee morale has been isolated and not of great consequence. Most employees in agencies that have not achieved an agreement, want to reach agreement soon. They have a preference to get on with their work free from the distraction of an industrial campaign."
This is a request for documentary evidence which supports the claims made in the above statement. Not all such documents need to be provided. I will be satisfied if the APSC provides the documents which it believes best supports the above claims.
Yours faithfully,
Ato Nduvho
Good afternoon
I refer to your request for access to documents relating to claims made by the Public Service Commissioner in relation to workplace bargaining.
We received your request on 7 November 2016 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision from us by 8 December 2016. The period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.
We will contact you using the email address you provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
If you have any questions, please contact me as per the details below.
Yours sincerely
Jo Motbey l General Counsel
Legal Services
Australian Public Service Commission
Level 6, Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, PHILLIP ACT 2606
P: 02 6202 3569 l M: 0429 820 681 l E: [email address]
Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Dear Ato Nduvho
Please find attached correspondence relating to your freedom of
information request of 7 November 2016.
Regards
Jo Motbey l General Counsel
Legal Services
Australian Public Service Commission
Level 6, Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, PHILLIP ACT 2606
P: 02 6202 3569 l M: 0429 820 681 l E: [1][email address]
Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or
other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
Important: This email remains the property of the Commonwealth and is
subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. It may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you think it
was sent to you by mistake, please delete all copies and advise the
sender.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
I am the person responsible for marking this request with "Successful" but I did this with reluctance. In the response to Ato Nduvho's request, Ms Motbey of the Commission has provided an argument to join data from the APS survey to the remarks made by the Australian Public Service Commissioner. In my opinion, the connection between the argument and the data is very weak. Also in my opinion, the Australian Public Service Commission has not in fact presented any "evidence" to support the statements of the Commissioner. Also in my opinion, the remarks of the Commissioner are contrary to reason and contrary to a view that a reasonable person would reach. Also it is worth asking the question: "Is the reply from the Commissioner a reply that supports the Commissioner's self-interest and the interests of the government and the Commission, or is the answer against self-interest?" This is, of course, not a test of the truth of a statement, but when your reasoning supports a particular conclusion and you see that an authoritative person has made a contradictory statement but also a statement that is hurtful to their own self-interest, then you might be more inclined to believe the person. But when common-sense supports one conclusion and an authority presents a contrary, but self-serving, argument, you might be inclined to your own common-sense position and disregard the opposing statement ... in other words, to conclude that "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" MRDA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_%28sl... ).