Professionals Australia’s response on behalf of members in relation to the proposed restructure

PA met with engineers who work in the Engineering Division on two occasions at WNSW Parramatta offices with members dialling-in from regional NSW. PA encouraged members to put forward their professional views on the proposed restructure on whether it addressed existing problems. PA has received some very detailed responses from our members. It is clear there is a high level of concern that the restructure will have undesired impacts on both employees and the functions of Engineering.

Many members have taken the opportunity to respond directly to the WNSW email address set up for feedback. This submission does not repeat those comments.

This submission is concerned with the first order issue – Does the restructure enhance the undertaking of engineering functions by WaterNSW or not? The next level of concerns which appear to be the main focus of the input provided via the WNSW email are the detail of position descriptions and the arrangements for filling the structure. We understand such matters have also attracted a large number of comments and concerns from members. However, those issues arise only when the first order issue is satisfied. The focus of this submission is whether the restructure has accurately identified the deficiencies and whether the proposal will address those deficiencies.

What can a restructure address?

A restructure can address issues such as resourcing levels, specific function focus and functional alignment. It cannot address issues caused by dysfunctional organisational behaviour, lack of effective processes, etc.

Does the restructure enhance engineering functions at WNSW?

The view of WNSW engineers is that overall the restructure will not result in the enhanced performance of the engineering functions required by WNSW. The following is a selection of comments put forward by engineers with PA comments on those set out in brackets:

• The apparent reduction in the number of mechanical and electrical engineering positions in the business. [PA does not see a demonstrable business case for this reduction] • The mandatory experience requirements for the Project Engineering positions do not appear to require technical experience. Currently the design team provides significant assistance on highly technical aspects to the projects team, it is unclear in the new structure where this will come from? Who will be invited to design review meetings? The design team does not believe it was resourced to achieve what it was established to achieve. [PA notes that in other organisations (e.g. Ausgrid), a key reform is to put design functions in the Projects area. This enables the commercial implications of variations to be appreciated by the design team, amongst other things.] • The new projects structure appears to have each Project Manager and Project Engineer across a large quantity of projects. The concern is this will lead to project engineers doing project manager work and not the engineering. Has industry benchmarking been undertaken regarding the practicality of such an arrangement. [PA notes a similar arrangement was set up in Delivery Management at Water. However, this was an employee driven change which permitted flexibility for those opting one or the other without a set number established. It was purposely developed to enable a business supported skill uplift]. • The inclusion of the maintenance auditing team within the SOAM business unit. Maintenance audits provide significant input to asset planning driving the requirement for new projects. Having the same team charted with the maintenance budget doing the audit is a conflict of interest. Previous experience has shown having maintenance providers perform assets audits to be problematic. [PA agrees that there is an implicit conflict of interest in the roles as proposed.] • The apparent reduction in the number of personnel conducting the maintenance audits is likely to lead to a reduction in the quantity and quality of the audits. Specifically, only one mechanical and no electrical auditors being transferred. [PA does not see how this aspect of the proposal enhances the performance of the engineering function at all] • The structure appears to be reinforcing silo creation as opposed to breaking them down, with perceived barriers and potential conflict between the managers and engineers. • It is not clear how the proposed structure will reduce duplication of work or clarity of which team does what work. Note in some circumstances the appearance of duplication of work is inaccurate because the people involved bring different skillsets. Having different skill sets that complement each other in different roles assists breaking down silos. It is also required to come to the solution or true identification of the problem and promote knowledge transfer. [PA notes that ‘matrix’ organisations require engaged employees – engagement issues at WNSW are discussed further below.]

Abolition of reliability engineering

The decision to remove a dedicated reliability engineering group raises serious questions with some of a public interest nature. This view is shared across the PA membership including those outside of the Engineering Division.

Firstly, the work undertaken by this group is not limited to audit work as the following indicates:

1. Reliability Engineering Non-Audit Tasks – major work only • Warragamba Pipeline inspection and rectification of defects. Mamre Rd works, report writing, design, development procedures, engineering solutions, data entry, etc. • Parcelling of painting work at proposed sites – • Prospect pump rebuild – Specification, Inspection • Tallowa access road and crane. • Flood damage • Standardised crane maintenance • Glennies Creek Land Slide • pipeline lead issue • OPT procedure • ACAC and PM Backlog– Substitute for maintenance planners • Pipeline sink hole at AB66 • Kangaroo Pipeline support failure • Cataract FCDV • Pindari FCDV • Burrawang pumping Station. Urgent specification for mechanical works (~1.5 Mill.) • Rock bolting • Warragamba Prospect Pipeline valves • Warragamba Dam Radial gate investigations • Warragamba Dam Drum gate refurbishment works • Warragamba Dam Drum Gate stop log Design and specification input for Geotech. • Warragamba Dam turbidity issue • Warragamba Dam radial gate brakes • Woronora Bridge • Cascade Dam electrical upgrade • – Penstock Internal protective coating • Euston Lock Gates (Redesign, Identification & Rectification of Issues • Assisting ASI with CIMS • expansion joint • Upper Avon Road support • Tallowa Dam fish lift support • Organised and conducted hydraulic training • Burrendong Dam CWPC– weeks of onsite support • VSD and refurbishment works spec. • Warragamba Corridor Bridges - review of load ratings • Pipeline third party bridge proposal Archbold road • GSR known issues list and risk evaluation • Northern Rd upgrade • Greaves Creek handrail augmentation on crest • Warragamba Dam radial gate exercising and maintenance program to CIMs • Establish pilot program for LV single line diagrams • State wide WHS infrastructure register • Menangle Weir bank restoration and fishway Piping • Mollee Fishway post project defect rectification

Secondly, the proposal to abolish reliability engineering when it has identified significant serious issues that have exceeded the capacity of the Projects Team to meet is a strange business response.

WH&S risks identified by reliability engineering (those which could cause serious injury to WNSW staff or the public)

Woronora Spillway Bridge

• Corroded bearing fasteners and loose public handrails providing unsafe public access. Consultant reports will validate. • Unterminated compressor cables lying on floor providing potential electrocution. • Overhead crane hitting high bay lights. Risk falling objects/electrocution. Cascades Dam • Fire hydrants non operational • Risk to public due to spalling concrete • Handrail over Spillway Bridge corroded to point of failure. Risk injury/death.

Nepean Dam • Access ladder to thermistor chain for the dam does not prevent falling from height.(>30m) • Upper Valve House plated flooring is not safe due to inadequate load bearing. Risk injury/death, fall from height (>10m) Prospect • Pooling water in electrical cubical risk of panel explosion due to major short. • High voltage transmission line in flood zone. Major Public safety risk. • Insufficient earthing to switchboard, floating earth. Risk of electrocution. Broughtons Pass • Accessible Live power found in building. Extreme risk of electrocution. Various Locations • Non-compliant stop board lifting frames – i.e. Risk injury/death. Warragamba DWPS • Gas detectors not functioning whilst personnel working in station. • SCADA Alarm disabled for chlorine leak. Risk chlorine inundation of station and risk of death to occupants. • Crane rail loose risk of crane derailing causing injury/death.

Pheasants Nest • Stoney Gate access ladder/platform corroded beyond repair. Counter weight for gate suspended above walkway/platform. Risk fall injury/crush injury/death.

Kangaroo Control Structure • Eye-wash stations not compliant. Risk serious injury/electrocution. • Gate at first level of Surge Tank not self-closing or lockable. Risk fall from height (>3m) injury/death • Kangaroo Shaft inspection lift for personnel not certified. Risk injury/death.

Bendeela Control Structure • Eye-wash stations not compliant. Risk serious injury/electrocution. • Gate at first level of Surge Tank not self-closing or lockable. Risk fall from height (>3m) injury/death

Fitzroy Falls Reservoir • Eye-wash stations not compliant. Risk serious injury/electrocution.

Menindee Lakes • Access to crane atop outlet regulator open with no hand railing to restrict fall. Risk serious injury/death. (>10m.)

Menindee Main Weir • Cathodic protection panel open access to live bus and electrical terminations. Risk injury/death.

Carcoar Dam • Left/right embankment ladders/platforms not compliant. Open sides allowing access to fall from height. Risk injury/death.

Greaves Creek PS • Suction main flange fasteners failed. Risk injury/death.

It is noted that these issues would not have been identified but for the reliability engineering group despite their WH&S implications. This in PA’s view undercuts the proposed restructure’s premise that other areas have either the skills level or the appropriate probity requirements to perform an essential function of WNSW : to meet its WH&S obligations towards its employees, contractors and the general public.

Thirdly, there is an issue of the good faith involved in the decision to abolish reliability engineering.

This restructure follows the earlier restructure which occurred soon after the establishment of WNSW.

One of the purported benefits of the establishment of WNSW was that it would bring together precious engineering expertise and resources in the area of water management.

At the time of the restructure, statements were made and expectations raised about how the new engineering division would operate. In terms of reliability engineering when it was formed two years ago, PA’s advice is that you charged the group to “crawl all over the assets and identify any deficiencies”. It was also stated that “without fear or favour, you need to speak out if you see anything that isn’t right”.

Issues were to be triaged by the reliability engineering group; solved by them or moved to either design or asset planning. It would appear that the volume and complexity of work generated by the reliability engineering has swamped the Projects area. Given the level of resourcing of the Projects area is not significantly increased under the restructure proposal, it is hard to see how this issue is being addressed. The cynic may think that the problem goes away with the abolition of reliability engineering.

However, in this respect members of the reliability engineering team who contributed to this submission are disappointed that the proposed restructure commenced only a few months after Dion & George personally met with David Harris to raise issues in respect to how long it is taking for maintenance and project works to be initiated/completed.

What the restructure will not address

• Mismanagement and lack of leadership. Mismanagement, for example, three teams carrying out the same engineering task under the current structure, i.e. Warragamba Pipeline repairs, Burrendong Curtain investigation/repair, Pindari FCD valves, Warragamba Drum Gate stoplogs, Warragamba Dam Radial Gates trunnion bearing issue, Hume Dam Penstock painting and a range of other issues. Lack of leadership, for example, the audit findings on assets need clear championing to address. • Lack of staff engagement by management. It is a very ‘management’ solution to have a restructure when other options such as re-deploying knowledgeable and skilled staff to urgent priorities (Projects) are easily achieved through discussions with those staff. A lot of the issues which have emerged are a direct result of the serious lack of engagement of management with its engineers. This does not reflect the view of our membership towards Andrew George however, the same cannot be said of other key managers in the business at the next level within the Divison • Procurement systems seemingly unable to respond to address high risk emergency issues that arise. Eg. Pipeline repairs, Warragamba Dam Rock bolting. Emergency funding was obtained from CEO for immediate work but no site work for issue commenced to date. (> 18 months) • The appropriate level of resourcing. There are failures across the business to identify/plan urgent corrective work. Asset maintenance engineers currently not picking up issues on site that are being detected by audits, this won’t change. Currently maintenance engineers cannot keep up with their work and seven reliability engineers can barely keep up with the audit program. How does an overall reduced number of positions intend to manage the workload? This does not resonate at all with one of the stated purposes of establishing WNSW which was to enhance its engineering resources.

The premises of the proposed restructure need to be discussed further. The engineers at WNSW are seeking a dialogue and a genuine consideration of the issues raised in this submission.

Margaret Buchanan Principal Industrial Officer

24 April 2018