Big changes to union coverage in pipeline -- gains and losses

Late last year (December 3) the Minister for Industrial Relations, Jeff Shaw, referred to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission the question of coverage conflicts between the Public Service Association and the Health and Research Employees Association in the following areas:

• the NSW health industry;
  
• the Department of Community Services;
  
• the Department of Juvenile Justice; and
  
• NSW universities.

Mr Shaw asked the Commission to report on whether the PSA and HREA coverages are the "most relevant and appropriate means" of servicing the interests of members, employers and the public.

There have been a number of demarcation disputes between the PSA and HREA over the years and there is a likelihood of more as governments shuffle their departments or when unions try to extend their coverage. The latest was the psychologists in health dispute last year.

The President of the Commission, Bill Fisher, assigned the case to himself and commenced proceedings in December.

PSA and HREA both made submissions asking for the other to be excluded from the areas in question.

Our federal unions, the Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU) and Health Services Union of Australia (HSUA) did likewise. Those claims were also referred to Fisher, who as President of the NSW Commission, is also a member of the Australian Commission.

Mentions were on December 10 and there were two days of conciliation hearings on December 15 and 16. As the PSA and HREA could not agree, Justice Fisher made a statement and recommendation on what should happen.

His recommendations are:

That the PSA should take over HREA's coverage in:

• the Department of Community Services, except for group homes, hostels and activity centres;
  
• the Department of Health (not including health services and public hospitals);
  
• the Department of Juvenile Justice (excluding nurses); and
  
• NSW universities and other universities where the HSUA has coverage under federal rules.

That HREA should take over the PSA's coverage in:

• health services and public hospitals;
  
• private hospitals, nursing homes,and charities;
  
• group homes, hostels and activity centres in DOCS.

There are roughly the same number of members and potential members on each side of the equation.

President Fisher stated that if the PSA and HREA did not accept his recommendation, then he would have to hear and arbitrated case, and it was quite possible that the outcome could be worse for one or both unions. Such a case would be lengthy and expensive, and other unions might put in their claims.

Copies of Fisher's "Statement and Recommendations" are available from PSA's Communications Unit. Just e-mail us.

On December 22 the PSA held a Special Meeting of Central Council. It voted to accept Fisher's recommendation. HREA did likewise a few days earlier.

Both parties will report back to Fisher on January 29.

It is still unclear how long proceedings will take thereafter. It could be many months.

In the meantime members will be fully represented and new members signed up as per the existing coverage.

PSA and HREA senior officers are having discussions and planning meetings on the exchange of members and records, and other transitional arrangements.

One of the key items the PSA has requested is that our health vocational branches and other member structures are retained by HREA. Likewise we plan to do the same for HREA groups coming to the PSA.

There will be a meeting of all health delegates on February 2. All members in health have been sent a bulletin on the situation.

This case is unusual in a number of respects:

1. it arises from a Ministerial Reference, and the judge has greater scope to drive the process;
   
2. it is huge in it's scope -- most demarcations are about one group of members and much fewer members;
   
3. it's happening so quickly;
   
4. it involves a judge being both a state and federal judge at the same time.