Insufficient train crew for leave/relief coverage

For background and context, during the [year] Enterprise Agreement (EA) negotiation, an even time roster was tabled by the [Union] which was a key item of the negotiation.

During the negotiations it was discussed and agreed that for this new roster to be implemented, there needed to be wholesale changes to the way in which annual leave was managed and a ‘block style’ annual leave schedule would be required. The [Union] agreed to work with the company through the newly created [committee] to land on a reasonable outcome that would satisfy the companies requirements, including that the roster is legally compliant, and provide rail safety workers (RSW)’s with sufficient opportunities to rest throughout their working year.

The reporter states, '[Operator] has recently advised they have 16 relief lines in the roster to cover 144 positions, and that no more than 8 people a day are to be absent from the roster. These 16 positions are expected to cover the following leave entitlements;

•  minimum of 720 weeks annual leave per year. (144 employees x 5 weeks)
•  a conservative minimum of 144 weeks DIL days (days in lieu for public holidays) estimated at 7 per employee, noting employees can accumulate up to 13 a year, however some employees do not accumulate DIL’s
•  long service leave - a conservative minimum of 60 weeks (20 employees clearing 3 weeks)
•  long-term and short-term sick leave. The company has a significant amount of employees taking sick leave, and a number on long-term sick leave
•  many employees have in excess of 10 weeks annual leave owing to them.

The reporter further states, 'Sixteen relief positions are nowhere near enough people to cover leave. [That is] 16 positions x 52 weeks is 832 available weeks. As mentioned earlier [Operator] only want a maximum number of 8 employees off per day which means the above number could be halved.

[Operator] acknowledges the above equations regarding the amount of annual leave, long service leave and personal leave accumulated per RSW per year. However, there are several elements within these statements that require further explanation:

1. The concept of a block style annual leave approvals process would mean each RSW must apply for annual leave in ‘blocks’ - being a run of 4 shifts within their 4 on/4 off roster, in which 38 hours would be deducted (the equivalent of 5 x 7.6 hours), as agreed within the [year] EA. This means that for each week ‘block’, RSW’s would be debited 5 days yet only required to be covered by 4 days of working. This means that for all RSW’s, they are required to be covered by 20 days (5 blocks of 4 days) per year and therefore; 144 x 20 days = 2880 days per year. 2880 days per year / 365 = 7.89 RSW’s per day. Our 8 lines within our master roster are for leave coverage and there are 2 RSW’s on each line (16 RSW’s in total). Working an even time roster, this equates to eight RSW’s available each day of the year for leave coverage - sufficient to meet the above requirement.
2. Days in lieu (DIL) are acquired and used throughout a year in an ad hoc nature. For this we reason we have employed 18 casuals to manage times in which DIL days are applied and approved above our leave thresholds, that cannot be covered by our leave coverage lines.
3. In addition, we have recruited an additional 3 RSW’s in the past 2 months, to allow further management of long service leave.
4. Personal leave, is not an element which we can predict. There are often large fluctuations in personal leave taken on a daily basis which can be due to flu season, illness etc. A large pool of casuals and the use of overtime have been utilised as a proven and effective way to manage personal leave absences which are not able to be predicted in advance, especially in a highly dynamic operation.

It is also important to note that our operation does not function at full capacity every week/month and these thresholds are to manage our operation when customer demand is at full capacity. Additional leave opportunities arise and are managed accordingly when our customer demand reduces.

The reporter acknowledges the recent implementation of a new [fatigue policy] however there has been nil awareness or training provided to train crews.

The new and updated [fatigue policy] has been drafted and been through a long consultative process with the [Union] representatives, HSR representatives and management representatives. The new policy and procedure is currently being implemented and due to be completed on [date]. We are currently rolling out our change management plan which consists of training our staff, consultation and communication sessions to all impacted employees.

'Management has asked employees to rescind or defer annual leave because they cannot cover leave requirements'.

These requests were made in connection with a specific prior circumstance. It is not a current issue. With the implementation of the new roster in [year], [Operator] still wanted to honour approvals for annual leave that were granted well before the new roster was even considered. With the change in dynamics and leave thresholds, this meant that for the period [month] [year]-[month] [year] (eight weeks), [Operator] had approvals well over our new thresholds. We identified this as a concern mid-[year] and recruited additional casuals to help with the burden. [Operator] also sought any volunteers who no longer required their leave during this short period.

'Our concerns have been brought up with management several times but unfortunately have been ignored'.

We appreciate that the report has been necessarily deidentified, however we would argue this is incorrect. As mentioned earlier, we have been working very closely with [Union] representatives, including the [Union] organiser, for over 12 months to work through a fair and reasonable approach to the management of leave and the implementation of the new [fatigue policy]. We have also established our [committee] which has convened twice already to discuss these matters.

We have documented evidence of regular engagements with these representatives and have been leading the push to work collaboratively with the [Union] and employees on this issue – as agreed during the EA negotiations. We are highly conscious of our responsibilities under Rail Safety National Law (RSNL), including in respect of fatigue management. We refute the concern that [Operator] has been, or is being, non-compliant.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this REPCON and are more than willing to discuss any of the above points in further detail if necessary.