Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Notification under section 130 by Police Association of New South Wales of a dispute with Commissioner of Police re Single Unit Policing [2015] NSWIRComm 29 Hearing dates: 1 and 15 July, 11 and 26 August, 10 and 28 September and 8 October 2015 Decision date: 08 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Walton J, President Decision: The Commission is of the view that the suite of documents emerging from these collaborative processes represents an enhancement to the safety of police officers engaged in remote and isolated work and a sensible solution to the parties' differences on the issue of single unit policing. It is difficult to envisage how contested proceedings might advance the case of either party beyond that reflected in the draft protocols referred to above. Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE – single unit policing – cooperative employment relations – response policing – random breath testing – police premises – draft protocols and safety checklist – significant progress but no final agreement – statement issued Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Police Association of New South Wales (Notifier) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Police Association of New South Wales (Notifier) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) File Number(s): IRC 394 of 2015 STATEMENT 1. By a dispute filed on 23 June 2015, the Police Association of New South Wales ('the Police Association') advised of the existence of a dispute concerning the tasking and deployment of New South Wales police officers as a single unit. This type of work is often referred to as remote or isolated work. 2. The dispute was referred to the Commission following a failure by the parties to reach agreement in respect of a new policy which would regulate this type of work. The existing policy had been in place since 1992. The Police Association had raised its express concerns in respect to single unit policing being conducted in an environment of heightened risk, in particular the threat of a terrorist attack against police. 3. This dispute first came before this Commission on 25 June 2015 and has been subject to extensive conferences with the assistance of his Honour Acting Justice Kite as part of the newly developed processes of the Commission entitled 'Cooperative Employment Relations'. This matter has been expedited by the Commission this afternoon, essentially because of the events which occurred on 2 October 2015 at Parramatta Police Headquarters when a police force employee, Mr Curtis Cheng, was murdered in an apparent terrorist attack. 4. The conferences chaired by Kite AJ made significant progress in resolving issues between the parties but had not, at the time of the Parramatta incident, brought about full agreement. A short summary of those developments will suffice for present purposes. 5. There has progress made with respect to New South Wales police officers who work as a single unit and conduct what is known as response policing, in particular traffic and highway patrol officers and general duties officers working in remote and regional areas. With the assistance of the Commission, the parties have undertaken the development of a 'Remote or Isolated Work Checklist' as a means of reducing risks to New South Wales police officers performing these duties. That checklist would, if adopted, be undertaken in accordance with the 'Procedures for Remote or Isolated Work' and the 'Remote or Isolated Template' which have also emerged in the course of the conferences before the Commission. 6. Progress has also been made with respect to traffic and highway patrol officers. These officers could undertake single unit policing when working outside the hours of darkness. Following discussion between the parties, the 'Procedures for Remote or Isolated Work', if implemented, would now require the use of communications, in particular 'Computer Aided Dispatch', to identify backup for officers undertaking duties whilst working alone. 7. Random Breath Testing ('RBT') and, in particular, single unit stationary RBT which is undertaken by a single police officer, is also the subject of this dispute. The New South Wales Police Force ('NSWPF') is assessing the broader safety implications of RBT with respect to current safety alerts. In the event single unit stationary RBT is undertaken in remote locations due to staffing restrictions, a document has been developed, in the conference process, entitled 'Single Unit Stationary RBT', which identifies minimum safety requirements. 8. Police premises have also been subject to discussion between the parties with respect to structural safety controls such as the installation of safety screens and other security measures. The parties have informed the Commission that a panel consisting of NSWPF and Police Association representatives has now been established. That panel is responsible for identifying and prioritising work at police premises. This co-operative approach is to be commended, particularly if it assists in the resolution of this dispute. 9. Ultimately, whilst the parties have made significant progress in identifying appropriate protocols and safety checklists, they are unable to reach a final agreement. The Police Association's policy position is that there should be no single unit policing for first response duties or single unit stationary RBT. The NSWPF are unable to agree to this position. 10. The Commission is of the view that the suite of documents emerging from these collaborative processes represents an enhancement to the safety of police officers engaged in remote and isolated work and a sensible solution to the parties' differences on the issue of single unit policing. It is difficult to envisage how contested proceedings might advance the case of either party beyond that reflected in the draft protocols referred to above. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 12 October 2015