|
|
If you apply the principles in this Handbook, and in particular the 11 step decision-making process in Section 6, most of your decisions should be sound. However, occasionally there may be situations where additional information comes to light after you have made a final decision that leads you to believe that you would have made a different decision had you been given that information at the time. |
|
|
There may be times when you think that a decision you have made should be remade. This could be because of any of these matters. § The required process has not been followed. § Procedural fairness rules have not been followed. § You did not have the authority to make the decision. § The power to make the decision was improperly exercised.
Examples: - You were not given all the facts that would influence your decision. - You discover later that some of the facts you were given were incorrect. - An irrelevant consideration was taken into account when you made the decision. - A relevant consideration was not taken into account when you made the decision. - The decision was made in bad faith. - The decision has been made on the direction of another. - The decision has been made strictly in accordance with a rule or policy without having regard to the merits of the case. - A decision has been made that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it.
§ You realise that the decision involved an error of law or was even illegal. § You realise that there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence to justify the decision.
|
|
|
Sometimes you will be sure that even if you had known the true facts, you would have made the same decision. In this case you do not need to make another decision. Following the steps set down in Section 6 will help you avoid most of the common mistakes made when making a decision. Note: Some decisions in the APS are non-reviewable and cannot be remade once the decision has taken effect. They can be found on the DCR Homepage. |
|
|
If additional information comes to light that may lead you to reconsider your original decision, you may need to seek advice to ensure that it is appropriate to proceed. In some cases it may not be possible to make a new decision or doing so may have an unintended adverse consequence. |
|
|
|
This advice can be obtained from: |
|
|
|
|
Group HR Managers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directorate of Conditions Information and Policy Services
Email: pacman@defence.gov.au
|
|
|
If you proceed to reconsider the issue, you should keep these matters in mind. § This will be a new decision even though you have considered the facts before, and you must consider the facts with fresh eyes. § If you are concerned that you are unable to approach the decision in an unbiased way you should ask another decision-maker with the same powers to look at the case. |
|
|
|
Example 1: A manager makes a decision to defer the payment of performance progression to an APS 4 employee, as he believes that the employee has not been working at the APS 4 level for at least 6 months. The employee is able to provide evidence such as previous performance agreements and pay slips, to show that before being promoted that they were receiving additional responsibility pay at the APS 4 level. The period of ARP brings the total period of performance at the APS 4 level during the performance progression year, up to at least 6 months. (The employee's ARP experience was not used to justify an above base salary on promotion.) The manager makes a new decision to approve the payment of performance progression to the employee. |
|
|
Example 2: A Commander does not get a telephone message from a Lieutenant, to say that he is unable to attend an interview to present evidence about his application seeking extra travel costs. Because he does not show up, the Commander decides there is no reason to give him the extra money he has asked for. In fact, the Lieutenant has a lot of receipts to show extra expenses that he was required to incur on his business trip. There is an error in the decision because procedural fairness was not provided to the Lieutenant. When the Commander finds out that the Lieutenant was too sick to come to the interview and had notified his inability to attend, the Commander makes a new time to see the Lieutenant. After the Lieutenant presents his receipts, the Commander decides to grant his request for payment of the extra costs. |
|
|
Non-example 1: An Army Captain does not like a decision made by one of his staff, a Warrant Officer, so he makes another decision about the same case to replace the original decision. The applicant makes a successful application for review of this situation. The Warrant Officer's decision was notified as a final decision and is found to be made properly. The applicant is entitled to rely on it. |
|
|
Non-example 2: An EL1 does not like the decision made by her EL2 to refuse her application for part-time work. She mentions this to her Branch Head at lunch in the canteen. The Branch Head asks the EL2 to change the original decision in favour of the EL1. The EL2 followed the 10 steps for good decision-making. The decision was made properly and the EL1 was asked for any additional information before the EL2 made a final decision. The EL2 recorded her reasons for the refusal on the application form and provided this to the EL1. The Branch Head cannot interfere in the decision-making process. Once the decision is made that process ends. The decision is then final. |
|
|
You will need to advise the person about whom the original decision was made that the decision is being reconsidered. You may need to give the person another opportunity to put their case again in light of the new information. |