It is timely to remind members of the underlying principles of SMS, as there appears to be differing interpretations between the NZPFU and Region Management of the meaning of Part 6 Schedule 5 of the Collective Agreement
- The annual workload is agreed between the station staff and the CFO.
- The Station OIC is responsible for the allocation of that workload, not the CFO.
- SMS has been agreed to, to enable the parties to move away from routine hours of work towards greater flexibility and trust.
- The CFO has the right to check on the progress during the year and to make suggestions to remedy any difficulties the OIC and crew may be having
completeing the agreed targets.
- Work able to be completed Monday to Friday should be done then. It has been noticed that a number of Officers have been programming work on Saturday
or Sunday, which can be done between Monday and Friday.
- SMS is not a make work scheme.
- SMS is not a record of work completed. It is a planning tool for the OIC to determine the allocation of the agreed workload.
- SMS shall not be used as a competition, or to compare the achievements of Watches, Stations, Districts or Regions.
- Management are not to unilaterally alter objectives, reports or impose targets without consultation with personnel.
Officers should refer to the Collective Agreement for Uniformed and Communications Centre Employees Part 6 Schedule 5 for the full definition of the Underpinning National Principles of SMS.
The Auckland Local believes that Management, both Regional and National, are now trying to renege on that agreement and we fully expect the alteration of this to be a major theme of the upcoming CEA negotiations later this year.
As a further matter of interest, the Auckland Local has not agreed to the implementation of 408 training, as we have advised the Regional Manager that we need to see some positive results from the 405 programme. To date this has not been forthcoming and buildings which, in the opinion of the officers doing 405 risk assessments require additional resources, have had their requests refused.
This was exactly the situation that the Local was concerned would arise and we would recommend that members do not carry out any 408 inspections. The probability is that we will be ordered to carry out the training and we do not want any members to face disciplinary action for refusing the training.
