CEO of Vic Supremes being lured back to the federal courts … Fight on to keep Family Court CEO … Blasphemy expert sits tight at FCC … No money in the till for a better offer
As Justinian reported last week an SES band 2 position has been created to assist CEO Warwick Soden run the registries and do other jobs.
The title has eight words, National Director Court and Tribunal Services and Development.
Here is the advertisement calling for eligible candidates.
Wokka knows who he wants for the gig – the able and well-regarded CEO of the Victorian Supreme Court, Louise Anderson.
She was the native title registrar at the Federal Court for many years and later was scooped by the Vic Supremes, where she has been CEO for the last two-and-a-half years.
If she returns to the federal courts she will need to bring a bucket and a mop with her.
Some savings are in sight. The CEO of the Family Court, Pat Christie, runs out of contract on December 31 and is unlikely to be replaced. She is based in Adelaide.
Family Court judges are upset that the new chief justice, John Pascoe, is not taking bigger strides to see she is kept on.
And then there is Stewart Fenwick, the CEO and principal registrar of the Federal Circus Court. When Pascoe was chief judge of the FCC he signed Fenwick up till 2019.
After that Stewie, because of the increasing centralisation of the courts’ commands and controls, may be in difficulty hanging on for longer. Among other things, he’s an expert of the blasphemy laws of Indonesia, a topic that earned him a PhD.
Dear All
The ballot to consider a replacement Enterprise Agreement to the two agreements that currently apply to all relevant staff, has now concluded.
The number of eligible voters was 1182 – of which 980 participated. Of this, 681 returned a no vote and 299 returned a yes vote. This is a rejection of the proposed agreement and we will now resume bargaining.
It is important to note that the wages offer put to staff was the maximum allowed under the Government’s Bargaining Policy. We tried to obtain an exemption from the wages increase cap, however despite our best endeavours, the Government did not permit a relaxation of this policy. We had also agreed that all staff would have no change to their Redeployment, Redundancy and Retention provisions and gave assurances that all existing policies, and how they are implemented, would be preserved in policy documents and only changed if managed through the National Consultative Committee. This is also consistent with the Bargaining Policy.
Clearly, an increased percentage of staff were attracted to the proposed new agreement, however nowhere near a majority. The suggestion that rejecting the offer would lead to an improved wages offer and allow for financial recognition for the delay in providing a wages increase is impossible to offer under existing Government policy. Any new proposed agreement must be consistent with the requirements of Government’s Bargaining Policy and the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) has indicated that there will be no exceptions.
We have indicated to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that once a result of the latest ballot was known we would contact them regarding their invitation to assist the parties with mediation. We delayed taking up the FWC offer as bargaining was continuing and we knew, when the offer was made, that we would be making some concessions and proposing a new agreement.
Now the outcome of the vote for the new proposed agreement is known, we will accept the offer of assistance of the FWC in mediation. We will approach these discussions in good faith.
I will keep you informed about developments.
Warwick
Warwick Soden OAM | Chief Executive Officer/Principal Registrar| Principal Registry Federal Court of Australia Level 16 Law Courts Building, Queens Square, NSW 2000
See previous reports:
See previous reports:
More strike action at federal courts
Fear and loathing at the Lubyanka