Finsec Submission on Westpac Proposal to dis-establish Hamilton LSC
2 August 2007
This submission has been prepared on behalf of, and based on the views of Finsec members working at the LSC. Non-Finsec members have also provided their views to Finsec as part of the process, and have provided very similar feedback to Finsec members.
Finsec has approximately 35 members on site.
The following submission covers two broad areas of interest to Finsec, these being opportunities for re-deployment, and the redundancy process.
Overview
We believe that it is highly likely, given the investment and planning around NZLO and Project Unity, that Westpac intends to proceed with the proposal to dis-establish the Hamilton LSC.
As such, this submission does not focus on the substantive aspects of the proposal, but instead focuses on ensuring that Finsec members are treated fairly and equitably throughout the process of dis-establishment.
Broadly speaking, it is Finsec's view that, given the relatively large number of staff in the Hamilton LSC, and the relatively small number of potential vacancies in Hamilton, that Westpac should offer active support and training to assist those who identify as wanting to re-deploy, and provide redundancy compensation to those who identify that re-deployment is not viable for them.
Re-deployment
Scope for re-deployment
Finsec believes that the scope to re-deploy staff to directly comparable roles under the terms of the Collective Agreement is very limited. Within a reasonable commuting distance of the LSC, there are a small number of Westpac sites, across which the number of vacancies at any one time will be very limited. Further, it is our view that the differing skills and abilities required for back office work of the kind undertaken in the LSC, and customer facing work in a branch, are so different that roles in the branch network are highly unlikely to be comparable.
Nonetheless, it is likely that a number of LSC staff will wish to re-deploy within Westpac. Notwithstanding the fact that roles in the branch network are highly unlikely to be directly comparable, we submit that active support and training should be offered to those who are keen to re-deploy and may be willing to consider non-comparable roles. Keeping these people as Westpac employees is of benefit to both the individual and the bank.
Finsec believes that the number of staff who will identify as wishing to re-deploy is likely to be relatively small, and that the number of potential roles is also likely to be small.
Re-deployment process
We submit that a highly organised and centrally run process should be set up to identify possible positions for those who wish to re-deploy. Employees should not simply be left to check for options themselves.
This process could be simply enacted by:
- Identifying those staff with an interest in exploring re-deployment options.
- Drawing up a list of current vacancies within the Hamilton area. This should include all possible roles (including management positions), not just branch-based roles.
- Meeting with Area management to identify likely vacancies over the next six months.
- Advising staff wishing to re-deploy of these roles.
- Actively supporting staff to move into these roles where they wish to. Plainly, if multiple staff expressed interest in one role, a fair selection process would have to occur.
In regards to point (3) we believe that it is important that the bank provides as many possible options for those staff interested in exploring re-deployment options. Identification of likely vacancies over the next six months will broaden the pool of possibilities for staff wishing to re-deploy. In the event that there is an overlap (ie: the role does not become vacant until February 2008, but the LSC staff member would need to move into the role by December 2007), then we submit that Westpac should use this overlap to provide full training to the LSC member moving into the new role.
Appointment to alternative roles
Where a staff member wishes to re-deploy to another available role, Finsec submits that unless there are very strong reasons for this not to happen, the staff member concerned should be appointed directly to the role without having to go through a formal selection process. Such a process can be demeaning for a staff member who has had significant experience with the bank.
Additionally, Finsec members have identified managers in the branch network commonly have a prejudice against employing staff from the LSC owing to the different work experience and the fact that employing an experienced staff member is usually more expensive than employing a new staff member owing to salary progression. Direct appointment would mean that these concerns would be allayed.
We also submit that flexibility is provided for staff wishing to re-deploy into another Westpac role, if the requirement for taking up that role is commencement prior to the LSC dis-establishment. Staff should not miss out on re-deployment opportunities because they have to remain working at the LSC.
Trial period option
The prospect of moving from back office based work into a customer facing role in the branch network is a daunting one for many Finsec members. The nature of the work is different, interactions alter from being primarily internal to primarily external, the structure of daily work and reporting alters significantly, and the skills and abilities required are quite separate.
It is for these reasons that we believe that branch-based roles are unlikely to be directly comparable.
However, for those staff wishing to explore the possibility of a non-comparable role in the branch network, we believe that a trial period structure would be a good option to allow staff to find out whether the transition to branch based work is viable.
We would therefore propose that staff identifying as wishing to explore re-deployment to a branch be given the option of a trial period of either six months or one year. The staff member would at the end of this period be able to assess the viability of continuing in the role. If the decision is to not continue, then redundancy compensation would apply. If the decision is to continue, then the staff member would be confirmed in the role. This arrangement would need to be reflected in the staff member's letter of offer.
Such an arrangement is likely to make staff feel more confident about considering alternative positions with Westpac, therefore increasing the likelihood that Westpac can retain the services of skilled and experienced staff.
Training
Finsec members have strongly identified adequate training as necessary for successful re-deployment. Additionally, many have identified this as a failure of previous re-deployments within Westpac.
We submit that staff members who re-deploy must be given adequate training for the new role, prior to commencement in the branch. This should consist of formal off-site training, and on-site time observing and learning the skills required for the role.
Additionally, a six month "check in" by P&P should occur to identify whether the staff member has any ongoing training and support requirements.
Re-deployment Opportunities for Business Lending staff
The current two phased process potentially dis-advantages business lending staff who wish to re-deploy.
If business lending staff do wish to explore re-deployment, it would be unfair for this to occur at a later date than consumer lending staff, as there are likely to be fewer opportunities at the later date.
As such, we submit that in the interests of equity, business lending staff wishing to re-deploy be given the opportunity to do so at the same time as consumer lending staff as per the process outlined in 2(b).
Redundancy
Scale of redundancy compensation
Finsec believes that the most likely outcome of this process for most staff is redundancy compensation. This is for two reasons:
- The small number of vacancies in the Hamilton area in relation to the number of staff employed at the LSC.
- Vacancies are highly unlikely to be directly comparable.
Given this, we submit that having gone through the process outlined in 2(b) to re-deploy willing staff, that remaining staff be offered redundancy compensation in a timely fashion with a minimum of fuss.
Comparability of roles
A major anxiety of staff at times of major re-structuring is that they will be forced to accept roles against their will. In this regard, Finsec members were heartened by the assurances provided at Westpac's consultation meeting that staff will not be forced to accept roles they do not want to.
We believe that in any case, the provisions of the CEA in relation to determining role comparability mean that potential alternative roles are highly unlikely to be directly comparable primarily on the grounds that the change in duties is likely to be unreasonable.
As outlined earlier, the change in duties in shifting from work that is exclusively back office in nature, to a customer facing branch role (as most vacancies seem likely to be), is significant. Finsec strongly submits that the differences are so significant that the change in duties would be unreasonable taking into account skills and abilities.
Furthermore, it makes little sense for the bank to re-deploy someone into a role with a profoundly different focus if that staff member is uncomfortable with the change. This could only result in conflict and poor performance, which is not in the interests of either party.
Hours of Work
We strongly submit that alternative positions with different hours of work are highly likely to cause the role to be non-comparable.
Finsec members strongly feel that changes to their working hours would place major impositions on their domestic responsibilities, be these commitments to family, sports, cultural, and religious commitments, or for health reasons.
Westpac's public commitments as a promoter of work-life balance should also be taken into account in this regard.
Commuting Distance
There are legal precedents around the comparability of roles in regard to commuting distance, and an onus on taking the particular circumstances of the individual into account.
For the purposes of this process we submit that a reasonable approach to determining comparability in this regard would be for the role to be within Hamilton City, or if circumstances permitted for the individual, in the immediately surrounding towns of Ngaruawahia, Morrinsville, Cambridge, or Te-Awamutu.
Naturally, particular circumstances may limit the mobility of an individual resulting in a more confined reasonable commuting distance.
Other issues
NZLO training
Finsec members have expressed a concern about the provision of NZLO training to staff at the LSC.
Our understanding is that some staff are receiving training on NZLO, while others are not. This leads to two concerns:
- That those who are receiving the training are more likely to be "pushed" into accepting branch based roles because they know the system.
- That it is highly likely that many staff undergoing this training are likely to be made redundant within the short to medium term. It is fundamentally pointless, and therefore de-moralising to be trained in a skill that you are unlikely to use.
We submit that only those staff for whom re-deployment is a likely option (and others who strongly want the training) be trained in NZLO at this point in time.
Interview provisions
Section 42.3.3 of the CEA provides for reasonable time off to attend interviews for other employment with prior consent. We submit that a generous interpretation of "reasonable time off" be given to enable staff the maximum possible opportunity to move into alternative work.
Career Advice
Many staff employed at the Hamilton LSC are long-term Westpac employees who have not had to actively seek work for a long time. We believe that in the event of redundancy, Westpac has an ethical responsibility to assist them find alternative work outside the bank.
Therefore, we submit that all staff who are issued with redundancy notices be given reasonable access to a specified career consultant at the bank's expense.
Timeline
Finsec members strongly wish to have some clarity around the future of their employment. In this regard, we submit that at the earliest possible time, Westpac provide firm dates regarding closure of the centre and commencement of the re-deployment/redundancy process.
Further steps
We request a meeting with at a convenient time to discuss the recommendations made in this submission on behalf of Finsec members.
Summary of recommendations
- Active support and training to be provided to staff willing to re-deploy to alternative roles. This training to occur prior to commencement in the new role and to include off-site and on-site training and development (2a & 2e).
- A centralised process to be set up whereby Westpac actively identifies current and likely future vacancies for those willing to re-deploy (2b).
- A clear process to allow for people to identify a willingness to re-deploy and to consider possible roles (2b).
- Unless there are very strong reasons not to, direct appointment to roles for people willing to re-deploy (2c).
- Early release form LSC employment if necessary to commence in an alternative role (2c).
- A trial period option for staff re-deploying, allowing them to retain redundancy compensation options if the new role is not suitable (2d).
- A six month "check in" by P&P to ensure that staff who have re-deployed are receiving adequate support and training. (2e).
- Business lending staff who wish to consider re-deployment options be given the opportunity to do so at the same time as staff in consumer lending, notwithstanding the differing timelines for dis-establishment of each unit (2f).
- That having gone through a re-deployment process, remaining staff are given redundancy compensation with a minimum of fuss (3a).
- That in principle it is accepted that a branch based role is highly likely to not be directly comparable (3b).
- That in principle it is accepted that a change to working hours is highly likely to make an alternative role non-comparable (3c).
- That an in principle reasonable commuting area be Hamilton City, or if circumstances permit, immediately surrounding towns (3d).
- That NZLO training only proceed for those likely to re-deploy, and those wanting the training (4a).
- That a generous interpretation of the clause allowing reasonable paid time to attend job interviews be granted (4b).
- That staff in receipt of redundancy notices be provided with access to a career consultant at the bank's expense (4c).
- That a clear time-line around dis-establishment be provided as soon as practicable (4d).
