ࡱ> DFC` f$bjbj .<g 8<Rz(hjjjjjj$h=hhn `Ep^ Fh0)X)).j   Submission to: Striking the Balance, women, men, work and family Discussion Paper 2005. By Trevor Shell  HYPERLINK "mailto:trevor.shell@csiro.au" trevor.shell@csiro.au INTRODUCTION. As a worker in Australian industry for over 23 years I believe I have reasonable background knowledge of the employment conditions I have experienced and those for similar workers with other employers. I have experienced less than ideal employer demands related to my duties for work that impact my personal and family life. Accordingly I wish to see improvements for personal and family issues of workers and make this submission for your consideration. WORKPLACE BACKGROUND. I currently work for the CSIRO in the Engineering section, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Livestock Industries. This section maintains and operates a wide range of industrial machinery and plant that provides the high microbiological security of the secure laboratory, including the support services. Myself and the below mentioned colleagues are trade/technical staff employed by CSIRO. There currently exists no female trade staff. My definitions of a spouse include marriages, defactos and partners. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS: Restriction Duty. In my workplace staff are bound by conditions of employment that include restriction duty. Restriction duty forces the employee to return to work for jobs of an emergent nature outside of normal business hours. The duty is administered by 2 types of roster systems called close call and on call. A typical call to return to work is made by the employer in the non business hours of weekdays, the 48 hours over a weekend and any 24 hour period of various public holidays. Staff on restriction duty receive an allowance for the time they are restricted, typically a week at a time, and an overtime payment for work performed when recalled to work. They are bound by stringent conditions relating to the travelling time they can be away from the work site, and the time they must respond to and commence the journey back to the work site when recalled. The numbers of staff on any of the rosters vary from 3 to 8 staff. When members of the roster are away sick or take holidays the frequency of the restriction duty is shortened and in some cases has been known to be week about or consecutive weeks. It is currently the case that only a percentage of staff are subject to Restriction Duty meaning the same staff are consistently performing the duty. It can only be estimated that the reason for not providing a system to share the duty is to curtail the cost of training other staff. IN RELATION TO THE DISCUSSION PAPER I wish to have my submission considered in a similar way to cases considering impacts of work on family life and the rights and responsibilities of men and women to act as parents and carers. I would also like to see my submission considered with a view to making workplace law cover the right to adequate rest from work, access to leisure time, and equity amongst employees to proper sharing of work duties. IMPACTS TO RESTRICTED STAFF: In my position it is only men who are directly affected by restriction duty notwithstanding the possibility for this situation to change to include women. When staff are called back to work they suffer interruptions to their personal life and to their ability to care for and raise children. At any undetermined moment a call to return to work can be made when a situation at the workplace is deemed to require their attention. In rarer cases this results in advice being given over the phone but mainly the call requires a return to work. In Relation to Staff Parental Roles and Spouses. The demands of my employment relating to restriction duty affect our families, our duty as a parent to care for and raise children, our personal and leisure time, and the freedoms of our predominantly female spouses. In reference to the last point I believe there is an unspoken expectation by our employer that when staff are restricted (outside normal work hours) and a call is made to return to work the duty of attending to family needs and children automatically becomes the responsibility of the spouse. This is evident when discussions with management are held relating to unavailability of a spouse to pick up the care/duty for children and the response is a demand to return to work or face disciplinary procedures. This type of response excludes the restricted staff from their right to continue with their parental duties. This last point is significant because the employer is making a demand of the staff spouses to take a greater share of family responsibility and duties. Staff on restriction duty report that both being restricted for their rostered week and when recalled to work interrupts their personal life, leisure time, sporting activities, and family life and responsibilities. They report that friction and stress is caused to spousal relationships because of the removal of the worker from parental roles when recalled to work. Marital stress also occurs because there is transference of responsibility of parenting roles to the spouse due to the constant chance for a recall to work. When the situation arises where a spouse is unavailable for the carers role and a call is made to return to work the worker experiences a great deal of stress trying to balance his responsibilities of work and being a parent. In many cases workers have had to find care for children with friends, relatives and neighbours and it is my opinion that this situation will one day result in the worst possible outcome for child and parent. Impacts to Grandparent Roles. My knowledge of Australian family life is that Grandparents play a significant role in caring for and raising young children. It is well known that grandparents help to raise and provide high quality care for children in a very stable environment whilst the parents attend to work commitments and other lifestyle choices. In a similar way to that expressed above restricted staff as grandparents suffer similar impacts to their personal life and to their often new found roles. I believe they need similar consideration from this discussion paper to ensure their rights and responsibilities are protected. CONCLUSION In conclusion I feel that Australian Law must adequately protect a fundamental right to carry out parental (and Grandparental) roles and responsibilities to ensure children receive the best possible family environment. This must also include the right for the provision of developmental roles for children in sport, the family environment and society. Also requiring protection is the individuals right to attend to carer roles, to have adequate rest from work demands and access to leisure and personal requirements. An equitable workplace is required such that the burden of work commitments must not be borne by the few but shared across the many. To this end the employer must provide adequate facility for their workers to attend to their needs, especially parental and spousal responsibilities relating to role sharing, so that work life balance is maintained.     Submission to Striking the Balance Discussion Paper Page  PAGE 1 of  NUMPAGES 3 @AWXYhklܼyj`SE:hn5OJQJ^Jhwhn5OJQJ^JhnhwOJQJ^JhnOJQJ^Jh6Yhw0JOJQJ^J'jh6YhwOJQJU^JjhwOJQJU^JhwOJQJ^JhnOJQJ^JhwhwOJQJ^Jh{+CJ(OJQJ^JaJ(#h`h{+5CJ(OJQJ^JaJ( h`h{+CJ(OJQJ^JaJ(#hsh{+5CJ(OJQJ^JaJ(XY $%9:^gdn$a$gdw$a$gd{+#e$  m u   h Ƚ೦~qf[hr'x5OJQJ^Jhh5OJQJ^JhhhhOJQJ^Jh:4OJQJ^Jhg$OJQJ^Jh_,KOJQJ^Jhr&OJQJ^Jhr&hr&OJQJ^JhhOJQJ^Jhn5OJQJ^Jhs5OJQJ^JhshsOJQJ^JhsOJQJ^JhnOJQJ^Jhn5OJQJ^J! x!%(=DPfg PU89:]ԘԘʎʎԢyoohhOJQJ^Jh_5OJQJ^JhnOJQJ^Jh@jOJQJ^Jhp-4OJQJ^Jhr&OJQJ^JhJFOJQJ^JhsOJQJ^Jh/OJQJ^Jh:4OJQJ^Jh`OJQJ^Jhn5OJQJ^Jhn5OJQJ^Jhq[5OJQJ^J+O!356fgh !"07?øخΙ؁؁wmmchHS*OJQJ^JhG`OJQJ^JhnOJQJ^Jh:4OJQJ^Jh8Yihr'x5OJQJ^Jh8Yi5OJQJ^JhZLbOJQJ^Jh8YiOJQJ^Jhr'x5OJQJ^Jh_5OJQJ^Jhr'xOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^Jh_OJQJ^Jh xOJQJ^Jh@jOJQJ^J&56gDERSTUV  ) !!!#"###gdwgdG`gd8Yi,ABG]zR[DE! +PQV%) ĺ~~h`OJQJ^JhDOJQJ^JhZLbOJQJ^Jh:4OJQJ^JhbOJQJ^JhBgOJQJ^JhFOJQJ^Jh8YiOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhnOJQJ^JhG`OJQJ^JhHS*OJQJ^Jhr'xOJQJ^J1   () j H N !!!!!i#########$$$$$$ $ɿ쵪umimimimih(jh(UhG`OJQJ^JhwOJQJ^JhYthqOJQJ^JhFOJQJ^JhqOJQJ^JhYt5OJQJ^JhV uOJQJ^JhYtOJQJ^Jh`OJQJ^Jh`h`5OJQJ^Jh`5OJQJ^Jh8YiOJQJ^JhFOJQJ^J&####$$$$$$ $ $>$?$@$b$c$d$e$f$$a$gdw$a$gdwgdG`gdw $>$?$@$E$F$L$M$N$O$S$T$^$_$`$a$b$c$d$e$f$ʳʟʳʟueaWhV uOJQJ^Jh(h0JCJOJQJ^JaJ)h50JCJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu)h) 0JCJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu'jh0JCJOJQJU^JaJ-jhwh0JCJOJQJU^JaJ$hwh0JCJOJQJ^JaJh hwhCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ,1h. A!"#$% DyK trevor.shell@csiro.auyK :mailto:trevor.shell@csiro.au@@@ {+NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 4@4 wHeader  9r 4 @4 wFooter  9r .)@. w Page Number6U@!6 w Hyperlink >*B*phH2H 5 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJf<XY$%9 : ^    56gDERSTUV  )!"  >?@bcdgy0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y000000000000000000000000000000000000000y00y00y00y00y00y00y00y00@0@0y00@0@0y00y00 BBfffi   $f$#f$e$kfXGNPU`bi!k  EOSadgkPUV Y 6f (  EOSadg333333333333k  )  @EOSabdgk  dg.-h`g$H(HS*p-4:4F_,Kq[G`ZLbBg8Yi@jGnA;pYtV u xr'xp~G_5nD) s/wAnJFr&(`{+?\pbqFn@/PfP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma"1hifif9$F-2-2 4d2qHP ?H(2VSubmission to: Striking the Balance, women, men, work and family Discussion Paper 2005she260squsaOh+'0 (4H Xd    XSubmission to: Striking the Balance, women, men, work and family Discussion Paper 2005she260 Normal.dotsqusa2Microsoft Office Word@F#@:Ѱ@.^@.^-՜.+,D՜.+,D hp  #CSIRO2 WSubmission to: Striking the Balance, women, men, work and family Discussion Paper 2005 TitleHlt _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceAtB,mailto:trevor.shell@csiro.auk(Submission to "Striking the Balance".Trevor.Shell@csiro.auShell, Trevor (LI, Geelong)  !"#$%&()*+,-./012456789:<=>?@ABERoot Entry F`r^GData 1Table')WordDocument.<SummaryInformation(3DocumentSummaryInformation8;CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q