3. Upholding the ACT Public Service Values

3.1 Preventing Bullying And Harassment

The 2016 Agency Survey asked directorates to report on the number of bullying and harassment related contacts received during the 2015-16 reporting period, and whether the directorate had a formal system in place for the management of bullying and harassment.

The information in Table 6 provides an insight into the mechanisms of the reporting of bullying and harassment within the ACTPS. It is important to note that the figures captured in Table 6 are not a ‘one for one’ indicator of bullying and harassment as it is possible for an employee to report through multiple mechanisms, or, have multiple employees report the same incident.

Table 6 – Reports of Bullying and Harassment

All respondents; 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8

The total number of instances of bullying or harassment where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred has decreased over the past three years. As in previous years, a large difference can be seen in the total number of reported experiences of bullying and harassment when compared to the total number of reports of bullying and harassment resulting in a finding of bullying or harassment through a misconduct investigation. This demonstrates that many of the complaints were either resolved through a preliminary assessment or within the workplace.

Eliminating bullying and harassment remains an important issue for the ACTPS, with considerable work progressed during 2015-16 to foster positive workplace cultures and promote the ACTPS Signature Values and Behaviours. RED resources on the prevention of bullying (including harassment and discrimination) were reviewed in 2015 and replaced with the Resolving Workplace Issues Resources. These resources have been developed to provide staff and managers with guidance on effective and efficient resolution of low level inappropriate behaviour through to more serious misconduct. This framework ensures that guidance on preventing and managing incidents of work bullying is current, consistent across the ACTPS, and best practice.

In an effort to improve and standardise investigations in the ACTPS, the PSU was formed on 19 December 2015. All misconduct investigations in the ACTPS are now conducted by the PSU under the auspices of the Commissioner for Public Administration. Investigations are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the relevant ACTPS Enterprise Agreement, the PSM Act and the Public Sector Management Standards 2006 (the Standards).

Under the terms of Enterprise Agreements, directorates are required to conduct a preliminary assessment of a matter to determine whether an investigation is required or if the matter can be resolved through other means. Matters which involve a high degree of complexity or require independent review are often referred by directorates to the PSU for investigation. The number of formal misconduct investigations relating to bullying and harassment which were referred to the PSU (and before the establishment of the PSU, to Shared Services Employee Relations) since the introduction of the RED Framework in December 2010 are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7 – Misconduct Investigations Relating to Bullying and Harassment Investigated by the PSU (formerly Shared Services Employee Relations) since 2010-11

3.2 Discipline Action

Directorates were asked to report on the number of investigations they conducted (or referred to the PSU for investigation after 19 December 2015) during the 2015-16 reporting period where an employee was cited as having breached section 9 of the PSM Act. Section 9 of the PSM Act provides the general obligations of public employees and directs that procedures for dealing with misconduct are applied in line with the employee’s relevant Enterprise Agreement.

A misconduct investigation may involve one or more cited breaches of section 9 of the PSM Act. Reporting investigations rather than breaches gives a more realistic sense of the level of discipline action across the ACTPS.

Table 8 – Misconduct Investigations Commenced in 2015-16

Table 9 – Investigations completed in 2015-16 where a Breach(es) of Section 9 was Found to have Occurred or where allegations were not sustained

Between 1 July 2015 and 19 December 2015 directorates were able to conduct investigations within the directorate, or, refer them to the PSU for investigation. On 19 December 2015 it became mandatory for directorates to refer all misconduct matters requiring investigation to the PSU. Table 10 shows the time taken to complete those investigations from available data held within PSU.

Table 10 – Average Length of Time to Complete Misconduct Investigations Undertaken by PSU

Directorates were asked to report on the sanctions imposed as a result of investigations completed in the 2015-16 financial year, where misconduct was found to have occurred. Table 11 shows the number of outcomes and sanctions imposed as a result of investigations over the last four years in the ACTPS. It is important to note that, often more than one sanction can be issued as a result of misconduct and as such the number of investigations resulting in a breach may not reconcile with the total number of sanctions.

The most commonly reported outcome of misconduct investigations over the past four years is the sanction of a written warning and admonishment. The second most reported outcome of misconduct investigations is counselling of the employee.

Table 11 – Disciplinary Sanctions since 2012-13

All respondents; 2012-13 = 15, 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8

3.3 Fraud And Risk

All directorates had a Senior Executive Responsible for Business Integrity Risk (SERBIR) in place throughout the 2015-16 reporting period. Further, all directorates reported that a formal risk assessment had been undertaken in accordance with the Risk Management Standard during 2015-16.

Seven directorates identified that they had plans to review the risk assessment process within their directorate for the 2016-17 financial year. These directorates noted the timings and event triggers of these reviews included:

• directorate restructure (including formation of a new directorate);
• risk assessment processes updated on a bi-annual basis; and
• review of risk assessment processes through an Audit Committee, or external organisation.

In the 2015-16 reporting period, all eight directorates had a current Fraud and Corruption Plan. When asked if they had reviewed their Fraud and Corruption Plan within the past two years, all directorates reported yes.

Directorates were asked to rate a number of integrity risks within their directorate, the results of which are shown in Graph 7 below.

Graph 7 – Integrity Risks 2015-16

Table 12 – Integrity Risks 2013-14 to 2015-16

All respondents; 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8

Table 12 represents the risk ratings against different categories of business risk as reported by respondents for the last three financial years. For the period 2013-14 to 2015-16;

• client fraud is the most frequently recorded response in the low risk category;
• IT Systems is the most frequently recorded response in the medium risk category; and
• procurement and contract management is the most frequently recorded response in the highest risk category.

3.4 The ACTPS Respect Equity And Diversity (RED) Framework

The RED Framework was launched in 2010 to support the ACTPS to meet its obligations under the PSM Act and to assist ACTPS employees to understand expectations regarding their own and others’ behaviour in the workplace.

A comprehensive review of the RED Framework was conducted in 2015 to assess its success in promoting a values and behaviour based workplace with a positive culture. The final report on the Review of the RED Framework (the Final Report) was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 14 May 2015. The Final Report found that the RED Framework has been successfully embedded within workplaces across the ACTPS since its launch and has become a strong foundation to identify and act upon unacceptable workplace behaviour.

The 2016 Agency Survey asked directorates to describe the different activities they used during the 2015-16 reporting period to continue to reinforce the RED message. During 2015-16 an approximate 1,097 ACTPS employees undertook RED specific training. All eight directorates reported that they provided RED training to employees during the 2015-16 reporting period.

Table 13 – Activities to promote the RED message

In addition to the activities mentioned in Table 13, seven directorates reported undertaking other initiatives to promote the RED message. The other initiatives included:

• celebration of Reconciliation Week;
• discrimination and disability awareness sessions;
• ongoing promotion of the Employee Assistance Provider (EAP);
• training for managing psychological illness in the workplace;
• promotion of the ACTPS Preventing Bullying Guidelines;
• inclusion of RED in directorate induction sessions and promotion of RED through internal messages (including newsletters and email);
• emotional intelligence training;
• implementation of a directorate specific Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP);
• provision of carers and breastfeeding rooms;
• celebration of National Youth Week; and
• provision of Domestic Violence Awareness training.

Table 14 shows the tools used by directorates during the 2015-16 reporting period to promote the RED Framework.

Table 14 – Promotion of the RED Framework 2015-16

In addition to the tools reported in Table 14, directorates reported undertaking the following initiatives to promote the RED Framework in 2015-16:

• incorporating the RED Framework into directorate induction sessions and Performance and Development training;
• including RED Contact Officers in orientation for new staff;
• the provision of regular correspondence on RED (including through directorate emails, newsletters, intranet, posters, team meetings and safety talks); and
• regular meetings between Executive Sponsors and RED Contact Officers.

Directorates were asked how their organisation ensured that all staff had access to the details of RED Contact Officers during the 2015-16 reporting period. As shown in Graph 8, all directorates provided details of their RED Contact Officers on the intranet, and seven out of eight directorates provided details of RED Contact Officers on common areas/notice boards and on the staff directory.

Graph 8 – Access to details of RED Contact Officers

In addition to the above, directorates reported the following methods for ensuring staff had access to the details of RED Contact Officers;

• messages to staff through alerts, bulletins and newsletters;
• RED contact details on floor maps;
• RED posters; and
• badges worn by RED Contact Officers.

Graph 9 – ACTPS Agencies that Conducted a Diversity Census or ‘Update your Details’ process during 2015-16

When directorates were asked if they had conducted a Diversity Census or ‘Update your Details’ process during the 2015-16 reporting period, three reported that they had conducted an ‘Update your Details’ process, three reported that they conducted an ‘Update your Details’ process and a Diversity Census, and two directorates reported that they did not conduct any processes to encourage the disclosure of diversity.

Directorates were asked to report on the initiatives implemented during 2015-16 to support employees and potential employees from diversity target groups, in particular people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and People with Disability. Common initiatives utilised by directorates included:

• development and/or implementation of directorate specific Reconciliation Action Plans;
• participation and celebration of international days and/or weeks including NAIDOC week, Reconciliation Week, Harmony Day, LGBTI week, International Day of People with Disability, International Women’s Day;
• workshops and training on RED, disability awareness, cultural awareness and mental health awareness;
• implementation of dedicated Inclusion Officer positions to promote inclusive practices and placements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and People with Disability, and to work with managers to support those employees;
• promotion of reasonable adjustment;
• review of induction programs to ensure RED is incorporated; and
• participation in employment programs targeting employees from diversity groups including the ACTPS Graduate Program, ACTPS Indigenous Traineeship and Work Experience and Support Program (WESP).

Table 15 – Inclusion strategies 2014 - 2016

All respondents; 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8

As shown in Table 15, during 2015-16 a total of seven directorates (88 per cent) reported they made reasonable adjustments at interview for People with Disability, made reasonable workplace adjustments for successful applicants with a disability, and provided training for panel members on the inclusion needs of diverse applicants. In addition to the above inclusion strategies, directorates reported that they had undertaken the following strategies during the 2015-16 reporting period:

• use of a Reasonable Adjustment Policy;
• conducting disability access audits in building;
• facilitating training on guide dogs in workplace (including disseminating fact sheets on service dogs);
• recruitment of an Inclusion Officer; and
• development of fact sheets to assist managers in recruiting to designated positions.

When asked if their directorate had introduced any broader activities or initiatives to raise awareness of diversity in the workplace during the 2015-16 reporting period, all directorates reported yes. The most common activities/initiatives were:

• participation in, and celebration of internal days and/or weeks including NAIDOC week, Reconciliation Week, Harmony Day, LGBTI Week, International Day of People with Disability, International Women’s Day, R U OK? Day;
• promotion of ‘Update your Details’ processes;
• LGBTI training sessions; and
• cultural awareness training for managers about working with culturally diverse clients and staff.

<sup>23. 2015-16 data includes ACTPS directorates only.
24. Contacts with RED Contact Officers and HR can often be preliminary to seek advice on how best to deal with workplace conflict or whether an experience constitutes bullying and harassment. Feedback indicates that a large proportion of the issues behind initial contacts are resolved at a local level.
25. ‘Informally investigated’ is taken to mean where HR has kept some form of record of the discussions had/actions taken but has not proceeded to a preliminary investigation under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements
26. In previous years directorates were asked to report on ‘the total number of contacts regarding bullying or harassment received directly by HR’, however these contacts may have proceeded to a preliminary assessment under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements and as such are not comparable with this year’s figure.
27. Figure for 2015-16 includes misconduct investigations for ACTPS directorates only.
28. Figures for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 include figures of ‘written admonishment’ and ‘first or final written warning’ reported in previous editions of the State of the Service report.</sup>

Previous page Next page