Journal Archive
There's an uneasy sense among police that current deliberations
between management and the rank and file over don't amount to ...Real consultation
The Police Department's recently- instituted consultative committees have some rank-and-file police doubting that their managers are capable of effective, meaningful consultation with them.
While some committees are said by the Police Association to be "moving along quite well", others have been described as lacking sincerity and failing.
The committees were introduced as a result of the 1995 enterprise agreement between SAPOL (South Australia Police) and the Police Association. Then, it was hoped that they would bring about improved management/worker communication and an opportunity for police to participate in workplace change.
Working police officers perceived the concept quite simply: a chance to have a say. But now it's seen by many as working in theory but breaking down in practice.
One police officer who rates the committees as "having failed in their stated objectives so far" is Sergeant Bernadette Zimmermann. She says that managers have completely ignored the opportunity to show genuine interest in consultation.
And Zimmermann remembers the insidious position in which she was placed when she first participated in a committee meeting. "There was discussion about what should and shouldn't make it into the minutes, which I had a problem with," she says, "especially since I was the secretary."
Zimmermann says the suggestion to record minutes selectively came from management's side of the discussion table.
"I would say there's a good chance that most managers don't really know how to consult properly," she says. "It just seems very obvious -- it's not even something that you need to guess at."
Another police officer told the Police Journal of a committee meeting at which an inspector openly rolled his eyes as a Police Association official addressed participants. Since then, the officer has held firmly to the view that "they (managers) are not interested in what we've got to say".
"He's not the only manager who has been at meetings and has displayed that behaviour," the officer insists. "I'm pissed off and I'm not the only one. It's those sorts of things that you see go on in these meetings that really turns people off."
Some police officers are reporting their concerns directly to Police Association secretary, Peter Parfitt. He fears that some of those reports indicate that "vested interests" are taking over in certain areas -- vested interests which he feels are those of management and its proponents.
"The indications are that the employee representatives have been badgered into complying with the way management reps see the world," he says.
Police Association organizer, Mark Carroll, supports Parfitt's assertion. He recently described some consultative committees as being "absolutely ridden roughshod over by managers" (Joining the Fight, Police Journal, September 1997).
And Carroll says that some managers probably question their obligation to even participate in committee meetings, preferring simply to make decisions and issue orders. "We're coming into a different era in our industry where it's law," he says. "They've got to consult - and they probably don't like it when the shoe's on the other foot."
But the Police Department continues to reaffirm its commitment to the consultation process. It wants police officers to see consultative committees as an avenue through which their views can be expressed and "taken on board".
Head of Focus 21 (SAPOL's blueprint for reinventing itself), Assistant Commissioner John White, concedes that there has been criticism. He believes, however, that it relates to the consultative committees' infancy and not their current-day performance. He insists that, today, an equal amount of positive commentary is circulating among police officers.
And White explains that, like the rank and file, SAPOL management is "in a learning process" as far as the committees are concerned.
His view in hindsight is that faults lay on both sides of the workplace line. He claims that his own redeployment staff have, at times, been subjected to "some unnecessary attacks" during meetings - attacks for which, he says, apologies were later made.
"Certainly, in the early stages," he says, "there was very much a 'them-and-us' approach in some committees. There was a perception that our Focus groups were actually dictating and saying, 'This is what's going to happen.' I can assure you, as leader of the Focus 21 team, that was totally the opposite from what our intentions ever were.
"We've certainly sat down and reviewed it to ensure that that is not what the perception should be, because we want and value the input of our people. My whole philosophy of the programme is a 'bottom-up' approach to things."
And managers whose shortcomings become problematic for consultative committees are earmarked for special training, according to White. "Or, ultimately," he says, "if they're not performing to the degree (required), they will be assessed for that at the end of the day."
But a fear of being seen as adopting "wimpish" behaviour is what Peter Parfitt believes may prevent some managers from practising good consultancy. He says they shouldn't regard consultation with the rank and file as surrendering their right to manage.
"I get this feeling that some managers think, 'Unless I'm a forthright, fist-on-the- table type, you'll think I'm one of those people who can't make a decision.' Well," Parfitt says, "that's rubbish!"
Some rank-and-file police admit to feeling apathetic toward consultative committees. But Mark Carroll urges members to exercise greater interest in their workplace and become involved in the consultative process. He says that employee representatives must "canvass their members' views".
"If you put your hand up and said, 'I want to be on this consultative committee,' then you've got to take responsibility for that," he says. "Some haven't, but that will change."
If they're to improve, consultative committees need to "almost start again", according to Bernadette Zimmermann. She says the first step is for Focus 21 to admit to failing in the consultation process.
"I think you would then see a change in the people who are on those committees, especially management," she says. "It's no longer good enough just to be seen to be doing the right thing."
The Police Association intends to monitor closely the workings of the consultative committees, but Peter Parfitt offers an assurance: "We won't be obstructionist. We're simply asking for our members to get a fair go, that's all."
[End]