16 November 2012

It seems in the Public Service the world does owe you a living

| johnboy
Join the conversation
68

The Canberra Times has the endlessly depressing news that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ruled that trying to help a poorly performing employee improve is now “bullying”.

Feet up on the desk time our public service friends.

Nothing can be done now.

Join the conversation

68
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Performance is a vexed issue for the public service. They don’t know what it is. Especially the so-called policy departments where a thought bubble from a politician or senior public servant is examined and reworked into something feasible, only to see it ignored, forgotten or the original sponsor out of political favour. When that thought bubble hits the round file, they just take another out of the queue and repeat, until retirement comes. To hear these exalted ones tell it, they are making a massive and essential contribution to the “life of the nation”. I guess in the face of a dull and inconsequential reality, it’s nice to latch on to a wildly inflated narrative.
Having said that it would seem pretty clear cut that irrespective of effectiveness, a person fails to, or seems incapable of, performing assigned tasks. Yes, there are always circumstances, but seemingly the public service self-selects for people who seem to have problems, judging from the expanding non-operative/compo lists. The extended ability to appeal and second-guess every decision actually doesn’t help. It takes too much time and is probably counter-productive to already troubled people who are encouraged to maintain a sense of grievance of an extended period of time. Not healthy.

Jim Jones said :

dpm said :

pink little birdie said :

also if the now unemployed public servant can’t find another job here they just go back to their home town.
Switch can you name one industry in Canberra that doesn’t have the public service as a client or customer? pretty much everything here relies on either the public services (contracts or consultation) or has public service employees as their customer base. If public service employees stop spending other businesses lose their customers.

I think switch is suggesting everyone in Canberra moves to the ‘big wide world outside of Canberra’….

Ah, so it’s Canberra that’s not the ‘real word TM’. Presumably we’re living as part of someone’s dream or something.

Well, it isn’t. It’s a cocooned bubble funded largely by taxes that then runs its own ridiculously overblown local government dysfunctional army of 25,000 largely useless employees and plagued by coffee shops selling bad coffee for twice the price they sell good coffee for in Paris.

Two arguments that I wish to make points on:

-> “The APS is not real world.” *Ahem* – Tell that to the Police, Armed Forces, or millions of people who could not survive without government support culled from work done in the APS.

-> “Working in the APS is terrible.” – Then please leave the APS. There are at least a dozen or so people who are waiting to take your place (based on the recent job interview rounds I’ve witnessed).

Stevian said :

Jim Jones said :

dpm said :

pink little birdie said :

also if the now unemployed public servant can’t find another job here they just go back to their home town.
Switch can you name one industry in Canberra that doesn’t have the public service as a client or customer? pretty much everything here relies on either the public services (contracts or consultation) or has public service employees as their customer base. If public service employees stop spending other businesses lose their customers.

I think switch is suggesting everyone in Canberra moves to the ‘big wide world outside of Canberra’….

Ah, so it’s Canberra that’s not the ‘real word TM’. Presumably we’re living as part of someone’s dream or something.

We’re in the Matrix

Pretty feckin boring Matrix innit?

Jim Jones said :

dpm said :

pink little birdie said :

also if the now unemployed public servant can’t find another job here they just go back to their home town.
Switch can you name one industry in Canberra that doesn’t have the public service as a client or customer? pretty much everything here relies on either the public services (contracts or consultation) or has public service employees as their customer base. If public service employees stop spending other businesses lose their customers.

I think switch is suggesting everyone in Canberra moves to the ‘big wide world outside of Canberra’….

Ah, so it’s Canberra that’s not the ‘real word TM’. Presumably we’re living as part of someone’s dream or something.

We’re in the Matrix

dpm said :

pink little birdie said :

also if the now unemployed public servant can’t find another job here they just go back to their home town.
Switch can you name one industry in Canberra that doesn’t have the public service as a client or customer? pretty much everything here relies on either the public services (contracts or consultation) or has public service employees as their customer base. If public service employees stop spending other businesses lose their customers.

I think switch is suggesting everyone in Canberra moves to the ‘big wide world outside of Canberra’….

Ah, so it’s Canberra that’s not the ‘real word TM’. Presumably we’re living as part of someone’s dream or something.

switch said :

dtc said :

What jobs? Like it or not, Canberra rises and falls on the APS – and that includes everyone in the private sector.

There is a big wide world outside of Canberra. Not that many in the APS seem to realise that, apart from those going on taxpayer funded junkets.

I work in the APS and travel for said work. I can tell you they are not junkets.

JessP said :

MightyJoe said :

+1

Far too many people use the bullying card now but people need to understand that being told to do your job – or having private meetings about doing your job – is not bullying.

No, I think you need to understand that sometimes it can be bullying. Not being there, I can’t really speak to the specifics of this particular case but I don’t think it’s too hard for anyone to imagine bullying being disguised as “constructive criticism” or similar.

pink little birdie said :

also if the now unemployed public servant can’t find another job here they just go back to their home town.
Switch can you name one industry in Canberra that doesn’t have the public service as a client or customer? pretty much everything here relies on either the public services (contracts or consultation) or has public service employees as their customer base. If public service employees stop spending other businesses lose their customers.

I think switch is suggesting everyone in Canberra moves to the ‘big wide world outside of Canberra’….

switch said :

steveu said :

Regardless of the above AAT decision, I think most people agree that stress levels in the Fed PS in the ACT are at an all time high, and alot are at breaking point.

What, at the upcoming likelihood of having to get a job in the real world?

So … public servants aren’t living in the same world as you … they live in a fantasy land? It’s not real

News to me.

pink little birdie11:47 am 20 Nov 12

also if the now unemployed public servant can’t find another job here they just go back to their home town.
Switch can you name one industry in Canberra that doesn’t have the public service as a client or customer? pretty much everything here relies on either the public services (contracts or consultation) or has public service employees as their customer base. If public service employees stop spending other businesses lose their customers.

dtc said :

What jobs? Like it or not, Canberra rises and falls on the APS – and that includes everyone in the private sector.

There is a big wide world outside of Canberra. Not that many in the APS seem to realise that, apart from those going on taxpayer funded junkets.

MightyJoe said :

I feel for the supervisor in this, they are dammed if they do and dammed if the don’t.

Yes you can get HR / senior management involvded, but it will drag in the AS of HR and the AS of the branch, which everyone wants to avoid as it means that the person is on notice and that either
1) they go ok – no further action
2) they don’t perform –
a) Get a demotion
b) get moved to another area OR (which is what all parties don’t want)

3)get kicked out.

Everything these days is bullying… Joe Supervisor said that my Minute was crap – im being bullied.
Joanne colleauge made a joke about xyz, as a 21st day adventist I take offence, thats bullying. it really is beginning to give me the shites.

Good people get kicked about, while poor performers get pandered to.. If i was hiring, it wouldn’t be Ms. Martinez as she seems to involve her personal life too much in the work place.

Time and a place for things… work is for work time, home is for home time.

sorry for the rant, too many thoughts on a passionate issue!

Employee – should have asked for further training on areas needing improvement (excel basic, intermediate and advanced anyone?)

+1

Far too many people use the bullying card now but people need to understand that being told to do your job – or having private meetings about doing your job – is not bullying.

switch said :

What, at the upcoming likelihood of having to get a job in the real world?

What jobs? Like it or not, Canberra rises and falls on the APS – and that includes everyone in the private sector.

steveu said :

Regardless of the above AAT decision, I think most people agree that stress levels in the Fed PS in the ACT are at an all time high, and alot are at breaking point.

What, at the upcoming likelihood of having to get a job in the real world?

Im pretty sure a good chunk of the SES are or have been under investigation for workplace bullying. This does not set a good example. Whilst most are not formally charged, they do get moved sideways very quick.

Regardless of the above AAT decision, I think most people agree that stress levels in the Fed PS in the ACT are at an all time high, and alot are at breaking point.

Masquara said :

FioBla said :

This isn’t bullying. It’s literally terrorism.

Help! Help! I’m being repressed.

/s

It’s LITERALLY terrorism? Please – do the English language a favour and tone it down!

The problem with English is that irony can sometimes be hard to detect.

Although the /s at the end should have helped out.

FioBla said :

This isn’t bullying. It’s literally terrorism.

Help! Help! I’m being repressed.

/s

It’s LITERALLY terrorism? Please – do the English language a favour and tone it down!

This isn’t bullying. It’s literally terrorism.

Help! Help! I’m being repressed.

/s

How the f**k is anyone supposed to be fired from the public service?

She couldn’t fill out a simple spreadsheet. I think a six year old can do that correctly. She should have been fired a long time ago. How can anyone support this decision? Whats the point in having an appeals tribunal who are so out of touch with the real world?

No wonder the public service is full of dead wood and bullies.

I feel for the supervisor in this, they are dammed if they do and dammed if the don’t.

Yes you can get HR / senior management involvded, but it will drag in the AS of HR and the AS of the branch, which everyone wants to avoid as it means that the person is on notice and that either
1) they go ok – no further action
2) they don’t perform –
a) Get a demotion
b) get moved to another area OR (which is what all parties don’t want)

3)get kicked out.

Everything these days is bullying… Joe Supervisor said that my Minute was crap – im being bullied.
Joanne colleauge made a joke about xyz, as a 21st day adventist I take offence, thats bullying. it really is beginning to give me the shites.

Good people get kicked about, while poor performers get pandered to.. If i was hiring, it wouldn’t be Ms. Martinez as she seems to involve her personal life too much in the work place.

Time and a place for things… work is for work time, home is for home time.

sorry for the rant, too many thoughts on a passionate issue!

Employee – should have asked for further training on areas needing improvement (excel basic, intermediate and advanced anyone?)

JessP said :

youami said :

I don’t think it was the one-on-one meetings that was the issue (ie. airing performance issues in open meetings would have been worse just the same as not having the one-on-one meetings), but I think the gist of this is the fact that Ms Ward only ran one-on-one meetings for one person. As a manager, I would have thought that one-on-one meetings apply to all team members *equally* and that performance management is considered just a part of that (other things I would expect to be considered in these meetings like 360 degree feedback on Ms Ward’s management, development opportunities, training, resources and equipment, etc). Although my opinion doesn’t count, I agree with the decision that Ms Ward acted wrong (albeit she probably did it unintentionally). It probably was not her fault as most public servants at lower levels don’t have the training to *really* know how to manage staff. I find it rife throughout the public service, lack of people/HR management in the true sense. For the record, I work the private sector and consult to the public sector.

Get real…the Supervisor was trying to address the problem and one on one private meetings were appropriate. Working in the service and having received training in people management you get the same message – talk to HR and let more senior managers know. The probelm is, when you do talk to senior managers they are keen for you to deal with the problem (not them if they can help it) and HR are about as helpful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I agree with you, one-on-one meetings *are* appropriate, it was the fact that no-one else had a one-on-one meeting that seemed unusual at least to me. Surely, management requires proactive periodical performance reviews rather than just sit back and wait for one poor-performer. So everyone should have had a one-on-one meeting! Just that in the one with Ms Martinez performance would have been discussed (perhaps) more than the other things such as development etc etc. And your comment about senior managers get back to my point about the public service generally being poor in understanding what people management is really about — theory is different to practice — and yes, senior managers are escalation points, but only when things start being affected outside the team, it should be localised where possible using your own skills to mediate.

watto23 said :

Bullying is bullying, but some people need to toughen up also. As someone employed in the private sector I can assure you all the luxuries and entitlements public servants have are not close to the reality of the non public service world.

I’ve had plenty of issues over the years and trust me, i don’t get paid time off for too many things. I’ve got no issues with what work conditions public servants get, its just the entitlement that annoys me. They need to realise they are in a very good job and workplace and treat it accordingly.

Yet I’ve witnessed complaints from public servants regarding the fact that their keyboard was moved on their desk, it was done to ensure enough working space and no dust dirt got near the computer. The worker put it back close to where it originally was and everything neat and tidy!

Its a few bad eggs creating ma bad reputation but still its a well know reputation with lots of incidents to back it all up.

As someome who has worked in both sectors I can assure you Ive yet to see much of these vaunted “luxuries and entitlements”.. Its just a kind of a reverse elitism. People like to think they are somehow superior, whichever are they are in, and justify it on the basis of how hard “they” work compared to everyone else and how easy it is for others.

Bullying is bullying, but some people need to toughen up also. As someone employed in the private sector I can assure you all the luxuries and entitlements public servants have are not close to the reality of the non public service world.

I’ve had plenty of issues over the years and trust me, i don’t get paid time off for too many things. I’ve got no issues with what work conditions public servants get, its just the entitlement that annoys me. They need to realise they are in a very good job and workplace and treat it accordingly.

Yet I’ve witnessed complaints from public servants regarding the fact that their keyboard was moved on their desk, it was done to ensure enough working space and no dust dirt got near the computer. The worker put it back close to where it originally was and everything neat and tidy!

Its a few bad eggs creating ma bad reputation but still its a well know reputation with lots of incidents to back it all up.

devils_advocate9:45 am 19 Nov 12

No-one seems to care about how the other team members are affected by one person’s underperformance.

If you have (say) 5 FTE’s in your team, the team is expected to produce 5 FTE’s worth of work. If one cylinder isn’t firing it screws things up for everyone.

But of course the competent staff just get on with the job, so the focus tends to be on the squeaky wheel, who invariably claims bullying…

I know there are genuine cases of bullying that occur in any workplace but on balance, this story reeks of the pendulum having swung way, way too far.

youami said :

I don’t think it was the one-on-one meetings that was the issue (ie. airing performance issues in open meetings would have been worse just the same as not having the one-on-one meetings), but I think the gist of this is the fact that Ms Ward only ran one-on-one meetings for one person. As a manager, I would have thought that one-on-one meetings apply to all team members *equally* […]

Para 35: “Ms Deborah Ward was Ms Martinez’s direct supervisor from 7 December, 2009. Ms Martinez was initially the only person she was supervising, but later Ms Ward was co-supervising another employee. […]

Ward managed two people. If she had at the same time organised one-on-one meetings with the other person to practice their knitting, would there have been any case for bullying?

One lesson that should be learned from this is that it’s good for managers / team leaders to regularly schedule individual meetings with each of their team members to find out how they’re going and what they’re feeling. Even if it’s only five minutes.

RedDogInCan said :

milkman said :

if that doesn’t work to move them on completely.

I believe the term used by HR these days is assist them by ‘freeing up their future’.

I worked with a boss once who called it “choosing to succeed elsewhere”.

Baggy said :

At my workplace, we have muppets as EL1s, promoted wholly and solely because they’ve been there for such a length of time that people have felt bad for them, and yet their job descriptions haven’t changed since they began!

A perfect example is a 1 who is required to book a meeting room, invite people to a meeting, take and disseminate minutes, and arrange lunch – for one meeting a month. The worst part is that she claims to be busy….

I think I’ve worked at this place. Wouldn’t happen to be in Belconnen next to Canberra Uni would it?

I guarantee you the two members of the AAT that heard this case have never even ran a lemonade stall.

HGp said :

Masquara said :


It sounds as though you don’t understand the dire effects of bullying on an employee’s performance. It’s quite understandable if a bullied employee can’t function for six months following years of intense stressors. And actually you’ll find that private enterprise companies DO have a duty of care re employees and bullying, and sensible companies adopt enlightened management practices so as to get the best out of their workforce. Your “gorn, git” type approach is old-school and outdated.

Obviously, if you define a “duty of care” as “whatever the courts have determined should be a duty of care”, then there’s no real argument. The problem is that the courts have dramatically expanded what bullying means by this decision. Now, being aware as I am of certain individuals in this particular case, I know that the Tribunal has seriously erred in some of its findings of fact (as well as finding that the applicant deserved anything other than the sack), but even beyond that its precedent is pretty unsettling. Basically, if a person is promoted beyond her means and simultaneously has some (self-inflicted) personal issues that combine to make that person inconsolably upset when confronted with any criticism, the employer has to ignore her underperformance or be guilty of bullying. The Tribunal glibly stated that the manager should have “sought advice” more but doesn’t specify what that advice could possibly have been — presumably because the Tribunal has no f***ing clue how to manage poor employees except by passing the buck.

Surprisingly or not, the employer’s duty of care actually does extend to those “self-inflicted” issues, which is something the tribunal probably didn’t need to spell out amongst legal eagles, but would be a surprise to lay readers. Google “eggshell head” precedents and you’ll see.

milkman said :

if that doesn’t work to move them on completely.

I believe the term used by HR these days is assist them by ‘freeing up their future’.

The trouble with low performers is that they become something of a self fulfilling prophecy. People expect them to screw up, and so criticise their work more harshly. The underperformer doesn’t generally understand that they are underperforming (at least initially), or doesn’t believe that they are. This just makes things worse. When people feel ‘bullied’, they don’t work as well either.

Lots of underperformers underperform because they are in the wrong job (for any number of reasons). I believe that the best solution is to remove them from the situation and try them in another role, and if that doesn’t work to move them on completely.

Letting the situation drag out, as it has in this case, just makes everything worse.

Baggy said :

Masquara said :

banco said :

Masquara said :

schmeah said :

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion.

From the report, that was regarded as having been at worst box-ticking, at best too-junior managers attempting to manage what was a situation that needed experienced managers, rather than there being any evidence of genuine management effort. There is nothing in the report to reflect that this was a difficult employee – just a hyper-stressed and bullied one.

Not a difficult employee? She apparently hadn’t carried out a task in six months that should have taken days (at most).

She would have been fired very early on in the private sector.

It sounds as though you don’t understand the dire effects of bullying on an employee’s performance. It’s quite understandable if a bullied employee can’t function for six months following years of intense stressors. And actually you’ll find that private enterprise companies DO have a duty of care re employees and bullying, and sensible companies adopt enlightened management practices so as to get the best out of their workforce. Your “gorn, git” type approach is old-school and outdated.

I find it funny that you seemed such an avid liberal supporter in the election recently (note ‘seemed’), but you seem to have no interest in this underperforming muppet taking personal responsibility for her performance. The two positions seem somewhat at odds to me.

‘Cos trolls never make sense, that’s why it seems odd.

Masquara said :


It sounds as though you don’t understand the dire effects of bullying on an employee’s performance. It’s quite understandable if a bullied employee can’t function for six months following years of intense stressors. And actually you’ll find that private enterprise companies DO have a duty of care re employees and bullying, and sensible companies adopt enlightened management practices so as to get the best out of their workforce. Your “gorn, git” type approach is old-school and outdated.

Obviously, if you define a “duty of care” as “whatever the courts have determined should be a duty of care”, then there’s no real argument. The problem is that the courts have dramatically expanded what bullying means by this decision. Now, being aware as I am of certain individuals in this particular case, I know that the Tribunal has seriously erred in some of its findings of fact (as well as finding that the applicant deserved anything other than the sack), but even beyond that its precedent is pretty unsettling. Basically, if a person is promoted beyond her means and simultaneously has some (self-inflicted) personal issues that combine to make that person inconsolably upset when confronted with any criticism, the employer has to ignore her underperformance or be guilty of bullying. The Tribunal glibly stated that the manager should have “sought advice” more but doesn’t specify what that advice could possibly have been — presumably because the Tribunal has no f***ing clue how to manage poor employees except by passing the buck.

Masquara said :

banco said :

Masquara said :

schmeah said :

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion.

From the report, that was regarded as having been at worst box-ticking, at best too-junior managers attempting to manage what was a situation that needed experienced managers, rather than there being any evidence of genuine management effort. There is nothing in the report to reflect that this was a difficult employee – just a hyper-stressed and bullied one.

Not a difficult employee? She apparently hadn’t carried out a task in six months that should have taken days (at most).

She would have been fired very early on in the private sector.

It sounds as though you don’t understand the dire effects of bullying on an employee’s performance. It’s quite understandable if a bullied employee can’t function for six months following years of intense stressors. And actually you’ll find that private enterprise companies DO have a duty of care re employees and bullying, and sensible companies adopt enlightened management practices so as to get the best out of their workforce. Your “gorn, git” type approach is old-school and outdated.

I find it funny that you seemed such an avid liberal supporter in the election recently (note ‘seemed’), but you seem to have no interest in this underperforming muppet taking personal responsibility for her performance. The two positions seem somewhat at odds to me.

youami said :

I don’t think it was the one-on-one meetings that was the issue (ie. airing performance issues in open meetings would have been worse just the same as not having the one-on-one meetings), but I think the gist of this is the fact that Ms Ward only ran one-on-one meetings for one person. As a manager, I would have thought that one-on-one meetings apply to all team members *equally* and that performance management is considered just a part of that (other things I would expect to be considered in these meetings like 360 degree feedback on Ms Ward’s management, development opportunities, training, resources and equipment, etc). Although my opinion doesn’t count, I agree with the decision that Ms Ward acted wrong (albeit she probably did it unintentionally). It probably was not her fault as most public servants at lower levels don’t have the training to *really* know how to manage staff. I find it rife throughout the public service, lack of people/HR management in the true sense. For the record, I work the private sector and consult to the public sector.

Get real…the Supervisor was trying to address the problem and one on one private meetings were appropriate. Working in the service and having received training in people management you get the same message – talk to HR and let more senior managers know. The probelm is, when you do talk to senior managers they are keen for you to deal with the problem (not them if they can help it) and HR are about as helpful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

banco said :

Masquara said :

schmeah said :

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion.

From the report, that was regarded as having been at worst box-ticking, at best too-junior managers attempting to manage what was a situation that needed experienced managers, rather than there being any evidence of genuine management effort. There is nothing in the report to reflect that this was a difficult employee – just a hyper-stressed and bullied one.

Not a difficult employee? She apparently hadn’t carried out a task in six months that should have taken days (at most).

She would have been fired very early on in the private sector.

It sounds as though you don’t understand the dire effects of bullying on an employee’s performance. It’s quite understandable if a bullied employee can’t function for six months following years of intense stressors. And actually you’ll find that private enterprise companies DO have a duty of care re employees and bullying, and sensible companies adopt enlightened management practices so as to get the best out of their workforce. Your “gorn, git” type approach is old-school and outdated.

Masquara said :

schmeah said :

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion.

From the report, that was regarded as having been at worst box-ticking, at best too-junior managers attempting to manage what was a situation that needed experienced managers, rather than there being any evidence of genuine management effort. There is nothing in the report to reflect that this was a difficult employee – just a hyper-stressed and bullied one.

Not a difficult employee? She apparently hadn’t carried out a task in six months that should have taken days (at most).

She would have been fired very early on in the private sector.

I don’t think it was the one-on-one meetings that was the issue (ie. airing performance issues in open meetings would have been worse just the same as not having the one-on-one meetings), but I think the gist of this is the fact that Ms Ward only ran one-on-one meetings for one person. As a manager, I would have thought that one-on-one meetings apply to all team members *equally* and that performance management is considered just a part of that (other things I would expect to be considered in these meetings like 360 degree feedback on Ms Ward’s management, development opportunities, training, resources and equipment, etc). Although my opinion doesn’t count, I agree with the decision that Ms Ward acted wrong (albeit she probably did it unintentionally). It probably was not her fault as most public servants at lower levels don’t have the training to *really* know how to manage staff. I find it rife throughout the public service, lack of people/HR management in the true sense. For the record, I work the private sector and consult to the public sector.

Mr Evil said :

Maria Martinez can probably kiss any chance of ever scoring another job in Canberra goodbye.

As someone else said, an APS5 who can’t use Excel properly????

So? I am an APS6 and can’t use excel properly but I have other skills that suit the job I am in hence the position.

I can use Excel spreadsheet easily enough but I cannot create a complicated one. Nor am I required to know how to.

Maria Martinez can probably kiss any chance of ever scoring another job in Canberra goodbye.

As someone else said, an APS5 who can’t use Excel properly????

davros said :

Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that Ms Ward’s introduction in March of informal meetings with Ms Martinez were an inappropriate means of doing so.

I suspect this is English, but what’s wrong with simply stating “The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Ward’s introduction in March of informal meetings with Ms Martinez was an appropriate response.” Why all the double negatives.

The “bullying” charge is the weapon of choice for the molluscs who have found their rock in the APS.

The AAT decision describes a textbook case of underperformance management. There is no dispute that the employee was underperforming and the manager took a graduated response starting with informal feedback. I can see no evidence of bullying apart from the outrageous claim that holding a private meeting constituted bullying.

From the AAT decision para 79:
In those circumstances, it was reasonable for Ms Ward, being her immediate supervisor, to institute a program of education and assistance for Ms Martinez. That was good management practice. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that Ms Ward’s introduction in March of informal meetings with Ms Martinez were an inappropriate means of doing so. Ms Ward initially offered Ms Martinez an hour a week for any assistance, but this was only availed of once. When Ms Ward’s concerns were heightened in March 2010 because Ms Martinez was not completing work in a timely fashion, she instituted a weekly meeting at their desk stations. This was reasonable administrative action. The real issue is whether, when that process had not resulted in sufficient improvement, Ms Ward’s implementation in June 2010 of the more formal process of a weekly meeting in a separate room was reasonable.

I sympathise with the claimant, she is unwell and unable to work. But to blame this on so-called bullying which is actually the manager correctly doing their job is just wrong.

Create a working environment where it’s virtually impossible to get fired for incompetence, laziness or bullying and what you get is the Public Service. It would be funny if we weren’t paying the majority of a taxes towards it.

schmeah said :

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion.

From the report, that was regarded as having been at worst box-ticking, at best too-junior managers attempting to manage what was a situation that needed experienced managers, rather than there being any evidence of genuine management effort. There is nothing in the report to reflect that this was a difficult employee – just a hyper-stressed and bullied one.

At my workplace, we have muppets as EL1s, promoted wholly and solely because they’ve been there for such a length of time that people have felt bad for them, and yet their job descriptions haven’t changed since they began!

A perfect example is a 1 who is required to book a meeting room, invite people to a meeting, take and disseminate minutes, and arrange lunch – for one meeting a month. The worst part is that she claims to be busy….

schmeah said :

Masquara said :

Clearcut case, from the record given, of a negligent agency. It had a duty of care to this vulnerable employee. Why do Commonwealth agencies not take an interest in these issues before they come to a head? Every step of the way this employee could have been assisted by HR and managers. The effects of stress on competence are well researched, and “underperformance” in this case sounds like long-term extreme stress inflicted on an employee with the entirely predictable result of a loss of concentration and thinking skills …

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion. What would she have said if they had these meetings in the open, for everyone to make a contribution about her work ethic? It sounds to me like she was over-promoted above her ability and generally disruptive and unwilling to take appropriate action to sort out her personal problems. Maybe she felt she was being bullied but some people think the sky is yellow .. it doesn’t mean it is.

I left an agency recently where one of our team/division members was a text-book underperformer; never met deadlines, submitted work that had to be corrected multiple times, skipped off for smokes/walks/coffee every 20 minutes, NEVER worked a full day, had argumentative personal phone calls on his desk phone on a regular basis, questioned the authority of others and bullied staff who had the bones to challenge it all. Nothing ever happened, they just went on making everyone else’s workplace experience a total fkn nightmare. What’s worse, they’re still in their position collecting a salary and contributing nothing. Whether they are managers or low-level staff (as this person is/was), bullies come in so many different sizes.

We can’t really know all the facts of this case based on some short paragraphs written about it. An independent authority has judged the person was bullied and that’s as it should be. Obviously people work with all sorts of people and some of them just aren’t very nice.

Masquara said :

Clearcut case, from the record given, of a negligent agency. It had a duty of care to this vulnerable employee. Why do Commonwealth agencies not take an interest in these issues before they come to a head? Every step of the way this employee could have been assisted by HR and managers. The effects of stress on competence are well researched, and “underperformance” in this case sounds like long-term extreme stress inflicted on an employee with the entirely predictable result of a loss of concentration and thinking skills …

Did you read the report .. the managers did seek to help her, they encouraged her to access leave and the EAP to sort out her problems. Having private meetings with other staff members is not harassment, it’s called discretion. What would she have said if they had these meetings in the open, for everyone to make a contribution about her work ethic? It sounds to me like she was over-promoted above her ability and generally disruptive and unwilling to take appropriate action to sort out her personal problems. Maybe she felt she was being bullied but some people think the sky is yellow .. it doesn’t mean it is.

I left an agency recently where one of our team/division members was a text-book underperformer; never met deadlines, submitted work that had to be corrected multiple times, skipped off for smokes/walks/coffee every 20 minutes, NEVER worked a full day, had argumentative personal phone calls on his desk phone on a regular basis, questioned the authority of others and bullied staff who had the bones to challenge it all. Nothing ever happened, they just went on making everyone else’s workplace experience a total fkn nightmare. What’s worse, they’re still in their position collecting a salary and contributing nothing. Whether they are managers or low-level staff (as this person is/was), bullies come in so many different sizes.

Bullying seems to be very common in the public sector. The shame of most of these situations is that co-workers all know a person is being bullied but are so grateful it’s not them that they keep silent and keep their own heads down not to attract attention. Some co-workers go one step further and treat the victim with contempt – not unlike a bunch of wild dogs turning on an injured animal.

wildturkeycanoe8:31 pm 16 Nov 12

Sounds like abuse of the worker’s comp laws to me. Underperformance in any other industry is grounds for dismissal, why are the PS so different? They are a law unto themselves.
Honestly, why didn’t they just bring all the issues out in the open during an office meeting with everyone present instead of in the privacy of a locked office? What seems the better and more logical option here?

Clearcut case, from the record given, of a negligent agency. It had a duty of care to this vulnerable employee. Why do Commonwealth agencies not take an interest in these issues before they come to a head? Every step of the way this employee could have been assisted by HR and managers. The effects of stress on competence are well researched, and “underperformance” in this case sounds like long-term extreme stress inflicted on an employee with the entirely predictable result of a loss of concentration and thinking skills …

Well having read that poor girls story all I can say is that I am exceeding glad I am out of that toxic environment. If you ever get the opportunity peoples – take a package!

I think you will find that Professor Creyke (who is a woman, not a man as stated in the CT article) is very lenient towards all applicants who attend the AAT. Not only in Workers Comp matters but immigration and social security ones as well. I think if there was a different Member hearing the matter, the outcome would not be the same.

Supervisor should have held the meetings with the employee in her home with appropriate mood lighting, snacks and ambient music (all pre-approved by the employee but paid for by the supervisor of course).

What a debacle. Reading between the lines of the AAT judgement, we had a toxic workplace with high levels of absenteeism and low morale, high staff turnover, inept management and probably overpromoted employees. That someone who performed as poorly as the person in question could get a ‘good’ rating says it all. An APS5 whose job it is to use Excel … well, should be able to use it.

I don’t doubt that this woman had a miserable time, but she seems to have been way out of her depth, as were her supervisors. I mean, after six months she still hadn’t completed updating the personal profiles of Board members? It should have taken a few days, at most. Incompetence all around, it seems.

Ah well, it’s only taxpayers’ money.

Interesting. I actually know the alleged “bully” in this scenario and can be reasonably certain that what she was trying to achieve was ‘performance management’ .. it’s also typical for EL1s to be involved in performance management issues – at least from my years in this machine at the noted department.

I do get pretty fed up with this sort of rubbish though. I can accept that her initial fall (in the AAT report) would have impacted on her work .. but to take down a couple of your colleagues over years?

This sort of reaction just makes managers very reluctant to adequately manage under-performing people who are disruptive, unproductive and in their own unique way, bullies themselves.

johnboy said :

Personally I’d rather a superior took an interest in my performance before I recorded an unsatisfactory appraisal.

Perhaps you could ask?

no one these public service jobs are so highly sought after

Interestingly, one of the reasons for the AATs decision is that the supervisor (I think APS6) didnt elevate the issue to higher management but dealt with it on her own (and not appropriately). So much for trying to prevent time consuming CYA actions.

birder said :

One woman I know, who is no longer with the public service, was repeatedly demeaned for taking time off – to recover from a second trimester miscarriage

That would make me quit too, in a heart beat. There are some real, REAL office-psychopaths in the public service .. who never seem to get sacked, just promoted and moved around to cause more people workplace grief.

Jim Jones said :

That gives an entirely different — complex and nuanced — perspective on the whole thing.

Indeed. Particularly right at the end:

The particular administrative issue is whether there were other actions she could have taken to address Ms Martinez’s performance needs without humiliating her by the more formal meetings in a separate room, given her knowledge that Ms Martinez had personal and professional issues, that she had poor self-esteem, and that the management she had instituted hitherto had not been sufficiently effective. The Tribunal considers there were alternative options. She could have sought advice from her superiors or from the human resources team about an alternative approach. Neither of these steps was beyond her personal or professional competence. She did not take them. Instead, to have implemented what could be characterised as an underperformance procedure without the protections for the employee built into that procedure and without going through the formal step of a finding of ‘unsatisfactory’ at a performance appraisal, and to do so in a manner which could reasonably be anticipated would result in the humiliation of the employee, was not tolerable or fair in the circumstances and meant she did not undertake her management action in a reasonable manner.

Personally I’d rather a superior took an interest in my performance before I recorded an unsatisfactory appraisal.

geoffappleby2:09 pm 16 Nov 12

Hoe Lee Krapp.

I feel sick.

RiotFrog said :

And for anyone who cares, all the sordid details: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2012/795.html

That gives an entirely different — complex and nuanced — perspective on the whole thing.

Quite different from the glib “public servants are all lazy and don’t do nothing” bollocks offered by the OP.

The standard of *cough* ‘journalism’ *cough* in reporting this case from both the Canberra Times and the OP is about on par with a typical Today Tonight story.

Look, I don’t know all the facts. I do know 2 different public service employees, and both are routinely bullied at work. For one, the employee was pulled into a private meeting once a week and harassed about work outputs (that relied on others, so being behind deadline was unavoidable). I agree that the write up in the Canberra Times makes it seem silly, but given what I’ve heard about the rampant bullying in the public service here, I really wonder what isn’t being reported. (One woman I know, who is no longer with the public service, was repeatedly demeaned for taking time off – to recover from a second trimester miscarriage.) BTW, wasn’t there a thread on how public service employees have a greater likelihood of mental health conditions … maybe 6 months ago or so?

colourful sydney racing identity1:57 pm 16 Nov 12

awesome, 5 pints at lunch. time for a sleep wahoooooooo!!!!

And for anyone who cares, all the sordid details: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2012/795.html

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.