Susan Ware

D.O.B 24/3/1969

27 Somers St

Burwood Vict. 3215

22 August 2012

Senior Wage Assessor

Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service

Locked bag 8720

Canberra ACT 2601

Dear Sir/Madam

I upset by the recent assessment by Holly BlackCRS and the length of time in which I have to respond.

Holly Black watched me at work at Brunswick North Primary School on Thursday 1 August . Her report is dated 7 August but I did not receive it until nine days after on Thursday 16 August.

I believe this assessment is wrong and unfair because the assessor did not see all the tasks that I generally do. I can and do work independently. I can work by myself, with my co-workers and also help Nick my supervisor with whatever he asks me to do. My normal practice at work at Hi City is to:

  • Do the task
  • Ask Nick what he wants done next
  • If I am not wanted, return the tools to the trailer, clean the mower,fold the mower handle down, screw it down and with the help of the boys put the mowers on the trailer.
  • Once we have finished at the site I make sure the equipment is either stowed on the trailer or the other co-workers have the equipment in their hands.
  • I check the rubbish is in bags and drag it to the dumpmaster if required.
  • Ihelp Nick support a tree branch when he is sawing it off so that it does not tear.

When I was raking during the assessment Nick did not ask me to rake the hill of fake grass (which I normally do) at Brunswick Primary. I usually do the whole lot there.

When I did the litter pickup the pickup tool was too long to use comfortably and do the job well. I had to put the litter in a big plastic bag which was awkward because it flopped around and it was hard to get the litter into the bag with the long pickup tool.

Ican do all the tasks in the assessment and it is unfair to rate me as Not Yet Competent and to only pay me $5.70 an hour.

Susan Josephine Ware 22 August 2012

Coral Ware

26 Cairo Rd

Mont Albert North Vict. 3129

22 August 2012

Senior Wage Assessor

Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service

Locked bag 8720

Canberra ACT 2601

Dear Sir/Madam,

I believe the recent Business Services Wage Tool assessment for my daughter Susan Ware conducted by Holly Black on 1 August 2012 and the resulting Report dated 7 August 2012 is inaccurate in regards to competency and productivity and the wage assessment resulting thereof. I was present during the interview and the practical component of the assessment.

The interview was conducted in the HiCity van. I was there to support Susan but Holly Black did not seem comfortable with my presence or any questions I had. At one point she said patronisingly that Susan was working in a supported workplace because “she can’t get another job”. I thought this was very demeaning and replied on Susan’s behalf that the only reason she could not get another job was that the formal selection and interview process of outside workplaces was too difficult for to Susan navigate but once in a job she could do it well and that she had worked at another place for twenty years.

I was present during the practical assessment and my observations differ from those in the Report. The Report comprises 8 core competency checklists each of which is given a final scoreof Not Yet Competent and a Productivity Assessment Checklist with a score of 69.48%. The scores for each core competency checklist are respectively:

  • Follow Workplace Health and Safety Practices - NYC 3, C 10 - overall score NYC!
  • Communicate in the Workplace - NYC 3, C 5 - overall score NYC!
  • Work with others – NYC 3, C 2 - overall score NYC (the only competency where the NYC is greater than the C)
  • Apply Quality Standards – NYC 1, C 4 - overall score NYC!
  • Industry Competency 1 Support Turf Work – NYC 4, C 13 - overall score NYC!
  • Industry Competency 2 Collect Waste Refuse or Recyclables – NYC 2, C 6 - overall score NYC!
  • Industry Competency 3 Support Gardening Work – NYC 5, C 12 - overall score NYC!
  • Industry Competency 4 Prune Shrubs and Small Trees – NYC 3, C 7 - overall score NYC!

Specifically I would like to comment on each of these from my observations on the day.

  • Follow Health and Safety Practices Susan set up and checked the lawn mower. She was not told to make safety checks or to be aware of hazards. She needed a little help with the correct procedure to fill the mower with fuel. Following instructions she successfully mowed three adjacent areas of grass in good time. She worked safely and efficiently. Susan was able to demonstrate that she knew how to operate the lawn mower safely, to follow instructions given and complete the task in a timely manner. The comments by the assessor bear this out. I believe therefore that the score for this should be C
  • Communicate in the Workplace I observed that on at least two assessment tasks, pruning small shrubs Susan was not given clear instructions on what was required, ie the end result, what tools to use and how shape the shrub. The instructions given were vague and unclear and how long to spend on the task. I noticed that Nick simply told Susan to shape the shrub using his hands to indicate the top of the shrub. If what was required was to take 10cm off the top and sides and to cut the top flat then Nick, having supervised Susan for more than a year, should have made this very clear to Susan.

A similar situation occurred when Susan was told to trim some little shrubs near the play equipment. Once again she was not given clear instruction and a demonstration so she did what she thought was right.

During the assessment Susan was not working with other crew members except Nick the supervisor, so the allegation that her “interactions with others were observed to be not constructive” is simply not true. It is true that she became upset when talking to the assessor Holly Black during the morning tea break and this was because Susan was trying to explain that she has a prior workplace injury with carpal tunnel and that her arms become sore and tender when she does a lot of the same task. Susan also became very upset during the interview when the issue of pruning 64 roses at another workplace was raised. Susan explained she was trying to do a good job of that pruning and was told to hurry up. She said that she couldn’t and that her arms were sore. Susan was so upset she started crying. Holly said words to the effect that there was a bigger picture she was not privy to.

I believe that in the interests of good communication in the workplace that at the start of each day or at each site, the supervisor needs to explain clearly to the crew ‘the bigger picture’ what they are doing, to ask for questions and repeat and clarify the information if the supervisor thinks the crew don’t understand. I don’t believe this is happening with the result that Susan, in trying to do the best she can, and not knowing what is required, can sometimes spend too long on a task. In fact, the Comments section bears this out, ie “that Susan has a very good work ethic.”

I believe that Susan should be rated C for this unit.

  • Work with Others participate in group processes, co-workers’ individual differences etc. This was scored at NYC yet there was no way this could have been tested. At no time was Susan told to do a task with another co-worker; all the tasks were set and assessed for Susan alone and taking instruction from Nick which she did cheerfully and eagerly to show that she liked what she did and was good at it. Susan has told me in casual conversation how some of the other workers in the factory are a little different and she understands that they are not like ‘normal’ people and she makes allowance for that.

Once again, I believe that although the comments state that “Susan struggles with the concept of ‘near enough is good enough’” she is not being given clear instruction, clear timelines and the bigger picture of what needs to be done at each site.

In response to the question about a workplace disagreement Susan did give an appropriate and correct answer, ie to walk away from the conflict and tell the supervisor. She is not working indoors and so does not have easy and immediate access to the next line manager so if she neglected to mention going ‘higher up’ that is understandable.

I believe that Susan has been rated unfairly on this assessment which should be a C.

  • Apply Quality Standards Susan does follow instructions and performs tasks well and has very high standards. Comments in the Report bear this out eg “When working she was observed to be very quality conscious … her mowing, sweeping and raking were observed to meet quality standards” However, she is not given clear instructions on what has to be done, how, and the time allowed. ‘Trim this shrub’ and generally waving a hand over it is not enough instruction for someone who is very particular and likes to do the best job they can do.

When Susan trimmed the first large shrub I noticed the way she was holding the hedge clippers. An attentive supervisor would have gently reminded and shown Susan the most efficient way of holding the clippers.

I believe Susan demonstrated that she works to a high standard and should be rated C for this unit.

  • Industry Competency 1 SupportTurf Work Susan mowed three areas of grass very capably. She had minimal instruction from her supervisor and the assessor apart from being told to mow within the marked out area and this she did. There were no other users of the turf or the area at the time so the NYC rating for ‘interactions with other staff ‘is not justified. Likewise Susan met the criteria for timelines and standards . (Susan could not have mowed any faster unless she ran with the mower. Furthermore, even Nick said it was hard to see what difference mowing made at this time of year, ie winter, when the grass does not grow much!)

I believe that Susan should be rated C for this unit.

  • Industry Competency 2 Collect Waste Refuse or Recyclables For this part of the assessment Nick spread rubbish from the bin on the ground. Susan collected the rubbish with a long pickup tool and placed it in a large black garbage bag. The pickup tool was faulty and Nick told Susan to go and get another from the truck which she did immediately. Using the replacement tool Susan picked up all the rubbish. It was all paper rubbish and food scraps, there was no hazardous material to be identified and reported (unless you count apple cores and discarded school lunches as a hazard!) so this section of the assessment tool is not relevant and should not be rated as NYC!

However, I did observe that there was an inherent flaw in the job design itself. The pickup tool supplied is too long and requires the user to raise their right shoulder up and backwards (and consequently the arm and pickup tool) to lift the rubbish into a container help at hip height. Susan already has bilateral upper limb tendon inflammation. Susan was given a large soft plastic garbage bag for the rubbish which she held in her left hand. The opening would not stay open and she could not get good purchase on the plastic bag. This is poor task design. To collect rubbish off the ground the worker would be better supplied with a low wheeled cart and a pick up tool which matches the opening and causes minimal or no movement of the upper arm and shoulder.

I believe the rating for this unit should be C because Susan did what was required promptly and efficiently.

  • Industry Competency 3 Support Gardening Work Susan used the tools supplied for each job and followed instructions so why was she rated NYC for this? I observed that the leaf rakes being used were the small domestic type. When I suggested to Nick that Bunnings sold larger, wider rakes for commercial/industrial use which would be more efficient he thought that was amusing!

Susan demonstrated a professional and positive manner throughout the morning and at each task she did. She was not told that there was a time allotted for each task; consequently it is unfair to rate her performance as NYC when she was not given all the information she needed to do the job.

I believe she should be rated C for this unit.

  • Industry Competency 4 Prune Shrubs and Small Trees There were no OHS hazards to be identified and reported and yet Susan was rated NYC for this unit! The first shrub was about 60cm high and wide with multi-stems. In fact, Susan did say something to the effect that twigs sticking out can be a hazard and they needed to be cut back (which she did). The small shrubs near the playground were under 40cm high. In neither case did the supervisor demonstrate and confirm the pruning method; if he had he would have picked up on the way Susan was handling the hedge clippers and instructed her in their correct use.

I believe it was up to the supervisor to ‘identify pruning requirements’ and demonstrate this clearly to Susan. Because this was not done Susan should be rated C on this unit.

Productivity Assessment Results

  • Pick up rubbish The equipment supplied was faulty and inadequate for the task.
  • Mowing Susan pushed the mower at a steady controlled moderate pace. She could have only been quicker if she had run. The ground was uneven and it was hard to see the mown area because winter grass growth is slow.
  • Sweep gutters This task was done before I arrived at the appointed time.
  • Prune 1 shrub It was not explained clearly to Susan what had to be done and how much time to spend on the task.

Dr Julie Doswell GP has been treating Susan for many years now for a pre-existing repetitive strain injury and lately for bilateral upper limb inflammation and osteoarthritis. She is aware of Susan’s mental capacity and questions the validity of the assessment report and whether it takes into account Susan’s ability to work fast for a long period of time. (I enclose a medical certificate supplied by Dr Doswell.)

From my observations of the way that Susan answered the questions in the interview and performed cheerfully and competently in the assessment tasks that she should be rated Competent on every unit and furthermore that her hourly wage be adjusted to $16.42 per hour.

Yours faithfully,

Coral Ware