Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:08:32 GMT
From: Peter ODonoghue <pjodsec@iaccess.com.au>
Subject: Promotion Guidelines

Dear delegates (especially in IAPP)

The Consultative council meeting last week discussed the issue of promotion
guidelines, especially regarding a document prepared by IAPP.

Members in IAPP Divisions had raised concerns about the document with us,
and we had written to Bruce Walker about the document.

Basically the concerns related to the apparent requirements for forced
distribution of PPE outcomes, (eg, at least 5% should be rated in the bottom
box), and the requirements for 'sustained performance.'

In discussion, Dr McIntosh made the following points:

There is some value in expecting a certain distribution of PPE outcomes
aggregated across the Organisation (it was unclear whether there could be
meaningful aggregation across an Institute but given the Institutes will
soon not exist any longer this is a moot point).  However, it was not
self-evident what that distribution would look like, and it would not
necessarily be a bell curve.  People should not be put into the bottom or
top categories simply to satisfy an excpected distributional outcome.

He is committed to proper consultative processes being observed, and expects
that documents about implementing PPE processes will be prepared in
consultation with us, not unilaterally issued as this one was.

He will instruct IAPP and other parts of CSIRO that expectations of
distributional outcomes not be rigidly enforced.

Further discussions will need to occur about the meaning of 'sustained
performance'  (defined in the IAPP document as at least 2 years at the top
of a level with top or second top box PPE outcomes).  In my view, this
definition is not legally sustainable and has not been arrived at after
proper consultation with us.  It may be appropriate in some circumstances,
but not in others.

Please tell us if the implementation of PPE and promotion guidelines are
continuing to create problems for members.

Regards 

Sandy