Key chapter findings

This chapter has explored employee perceptions of how merit is routinely applied in employment decisions and the processes agencies use to make such decisions. The positive news about APS employees’ perceptions of merit reported in the 2003–04 report has weakened somewhat during the course of 2004–05. When evaluated against both employee survey results from previous years and against public sector employees in state jurisdictions, APS employees’ perceptions of merit have deteriorated; this is particularly true of employees in large agencies. Consistent with last year’s findings, agency-specific issues continue to influence employee perceptions, and agencies wishing to improve in this area should be taking actions to explore the factors underlying their employees’ perceptions. Factors examined in this chapter that may assist in improving perceptions of merit include constructive and accurate feedback provided systematically at least to unsuccessful internal candidates for positions, and improving employees’ knowledge and understanding of how merit is applied in their selection processes through training.

Agencies reported using a wide range of selection processes for the engagement, promotion and movement of employees. The two most common forms of selection process used to fill a vacancy (90% of agencies) were internal assignment of duties and existing orders of merit. The most common selection technique remained face-toface interviews (100% of agencies). In addition, 99% of agencies also included on the selection panel at least one member from outside the general work area. Agencies have continued to outsource aspects of the recruitment process at similar levels to last year, but when engaged, these recruitment agencies appear to be responsible for more than routine tasks (for example, scribing).

With regard to remuneration issues the chapter found that the Mercer surveys reported that median APS TRP wage increases across all classifications exceeded equivalents in the private sector. However, with the exception of the lower APS classifications, TRP in the APS continued to be substantially lower than the private sector. When comparing

AAWI contained in APS CAs with those in equivalent private sector industries, it was found that, although APS pay increases at 30 June 2005 are not increasing more quickly, they are not lagging behind by much. An examination of agreement types covering APS employees highlighted that AWA coverage continued to expand and the growth rate for APS 1–6 employees was over 28%, albeit from a low base. Where agencies cover employees at the same level under both AWAs and CAs, most agencies have higher median base salaries and median TRP under their AWAs than CAs across all non-SES classifications. Using TR calculations (which include bonuses) the remuneration gap between those on AWAs and those on CAs increases.

The issue of remuneration policy was also examined. Consistent with last year’s finding, while 95% of agencies reported having some non-SES employees covered by AWAs, only 38% of those agencies also reported having a written policy dealing with employees covered by AWAs. After a promising increase the previous year, the number of agencies with written remuneration policies has stabilised, and it is apparent that a significant number of agencies should be developing robust remuneration policies that make clear links between skills, performance and pay, are transparent and available to all employees, and incorporate a strategic approach to dealing with longer-term agency capability.

The funding arrangements for remuneration increases in APS agencies continue to present a challenge in some situations. There is a clear case for the Government to require ongoing productivity gains to help finance wage increases, and most agencies have been able to provide for wage increases in line with those in their labour market, notwithstanding the funding constraints. More generally, the pressure on some agencies may heighten as they experience difficulties in recruiting required skills in a contracting labour market.

This year’s survey results on workplace consultation were very similar to last year’s, with 60% of employees reporting attending team/section level meetings fortnightly or more often, and almost three-quarters of employees reported attending this level of meetings on monthly or a more frequent basis. Part-time and non-ongoing employees were less likely to attend regular meetings than were full-time and ongoing employees. There is an increasing trend in the proportion of agencies having policies requiring team/ section meetings. However, compared to last year’s results, employees reported being significantly less satisfied that the meetings they attended provided a forum in which to contribute their views on issues that impact on their work and with the overall say they have in decisions impacting on their work.

The requirement that agencies hold team/section and broader level meetings on a regular basis may, of itself, not be enough, as attested to by the decrease in employees’ satisfaction levels with consultative mechanisms. Those agencies with low levels of employee satisfaction with their say in workplace decisions, particularly those that require regular meetings, should be devoting more effort to developing consultation skills among supervisory staff and within the workplace generally.

go to top of the page