the use of the data in the Draft Report and specific responses to technical issues Commission’s arising in chapters of the Draft Report. Chapter 3: Institutions Page Section in Draft Report Fair Work Commission Reference response/comment p. 151 The Draft Report states that certain findings The Southey and Fry 2012 research are supported by earlier research finding referred to does not find that member “… that at in decision making, the background be a ‘pinch points’ “can ‘significant past professional history of decision makers predictor of The research outcomes”. can be a significant predictor of outcomes found: (Southey and Fry 2012).” between work “A mild association exists history and arbitration decisions, on this analysis alone it would be imprudent to suggest that judicial bias featured in these decisions. The influence of an arbitrator’s work background on his or her decisions would be one among many potential variables influencing arbitration results.” (p. 118) The Southey and Fry 2012 research analyses cases heard under a previous legislative framework (the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (pre-reform)). The analysis has little relevance to the way the system currently operates. See also the to the Draft “Response by Prof. A Stewart et al of Report” September 2015 (Submission DR271), discussing some of the limitations of the Southey and Fry and Booth and Freyens research (at pp. 5-6). p. 152 The Draft Report notes that on As at 1 August 2015, the average length “Data existing members suggests that the average of appointment for the 41 Commission’s duration of current appointments is around 6 primary appointments was 9.62 years and years, with some members having served the mode was 13.76 years. for close to 15 years”. p. 159 The Draft Report suggests that there should This citation appears to be incorrect (as it be an independent performance review of relates to the General 2012 Manager’s the unfair dismissal report into Individual Flexibility Commission’s conciliation operations along the lines of Arrangements). recent FWO evaluation. Citation references O’Neill 2012a. Chapter 5: Unfair dismissal Page Section in Draft Report Fair Work Commission Reference response/comment
the use of the Commission’s data in the Draft Report and specific responses to technical issues arising in chapters of the Draft Report. Chapter 3: Institutions Page Reference Section in Draft Report Fair Work Commission response/comment p. 151 The Draft Report states that certain findings are “… supported by earlier research finding that at ‘pinch points’ in decision making, the past professional history of decision makers can be a significant predictor of outcomes (Southey and Fry 2012).” The Southey and Fry 2012 research referred to does not find that member background “can be a ‘significant predictor of outcomes”. The research found: “A mild association exists between work history and arbitration decisions, on this analysis alone it would be imprudent to suggest that judicial bias featured in these decisions. The influence of an arbitrator’s work background on his or her decisions would be one among many potential variables influencing arbitration results.” (p. 118) The Southey and Fry 2012 research analyses cases heard under a previous legislative framework (the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (pre-reform)). The analysis has little relevance to the way the system currently operates. See also the “Response to the Draft Report” by Prof. A Stewart et al of September 2015 (Submission DR271), discussing some of the limitations of the Southey and Fry and Booth and Freyens research (at pp. 5-6). p. 152 The Draft Report notes that “Data on existing members suggests that the average duration of current appointments is around 6 years, with some members having served for close to 15 years”. As at 1 August 2015, the average length of appointment for the Commission’s 41 primary appointments was 9.62 years and the mode was 13.76 years. p. 159 The Draft Report suggests that there should be an independent performance review of the Commission’s unfair dismissal conciliation operations along the lines of recent FWO evaluation. Citation references O’Neill 2012a. This citation appears to be incorrect (as it relates to the General Manager’s 2012 report into Individual Flexibility Arrangements). Chapter 5: Unfair dismissal Page Reference Section in Draft Report Fair Work Commission response/comment
subdr0357-workplace-relations.docx