IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

THE APPLICATION

This application by the Police Association seeks, among other things, consolidation of the Police Award and its consequent reissue in a format consistent with the Commission's general policy regarding award configuration.

Coincident with that exercise, the Association, having cast through the present award and the 30 or more variations made to it, catalogued a list of definitions, miscellaneous provisions and award language now regarded as redundant and in need of either deletion or revision.

In addition the claim sought merit consideration of certain existing allowances for certain breath Analysis personnel, members of the Scientific Bureau and those who constitute the Special Weapons Squad (previously Armed Offenders Squad), together with the introduction of new allowances for members of the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, Criminal Investigation Bureau and Computer Branch personnel. The Association also requested the inclusion of a scale of kilometreage allowances for the authorized use of private motor vehicles and motor cycles.

PRINCIPLES OF WAGE DETERMINATION

The Commission was informed during preliminary proceedings that a significant measure of agreement had been reached between the Association and the Commissioner of Police.

But as all matters coming before the Commission must be processed in a manner consistent with the Guidelines and in accordance with the general undertaking given by all unions, it was necessary for the applicant to identify the Principles of Wage Determination called in aid in the present case.

It was also necessary to produce certain documentary and oral evidence to substantiate what was sought and what was agreed.

In the event, the Commission was advised that Principles 9(a)(iii) (review of existing allowances because of changes in the work), 9(b)(iii), and 9(b)(iv) (new allowances for changes in the work and allowances for new work) were relied upon in support of the case presented by Mr McDermott.

INSPECTIONS

The following comprehensive inspections were carried out.

In addition a field inspection took place at a site believed to be the locality of a suspected murder. On the day the inspection took place the scene was being investigated jointly by CIB and Scientific Bureau personnel.

EVIDENCE

Oral evidence was led from the following:

EXHIBITS AND TRANSCRIPT

A total of 22 exhibits were tendered. Transcript of proceedings ran through 340 pages and covered four sitting days.

ATTITUDE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Except to the extent referred to elsewhere, the Commissioner of Police did not oppose the application which was costed by him in broad terms at $250,000 per annum.

ATTITUDE OF STATUTORY INTERVENOR

The Minister for Industrial Relations, through his representative, intervened in the public interest. At the conclusion of proceedings he expressed satisfaction that all matters pursued by the applicant fell within the Guidelines and had been properly scrutinized in that regard by the Commission.

The Minister did not object to the cost and accepted that this award has application to a discrete group of persons whose salary rates and employment conditions have no flow-on potential.

Where, and to the extent indicated elsewhere, the controlling authority differed with the Association over a particular part of the claim, the Minister's preferred view was in line with that of the Commissioner of Police. In all other respects he agreed with the parties' proposals.

PUBLIC INTEREST

Having had before it details as to cost and the expressed views of the statutory intervener, together with other relevant information, the Commission was able to apply its mind properly to the statutory requirements of Section 36 of the Act.

The Tasmania Police is comprised of 1,037 members for whom the annual payroll approximates $24.1 million. If the $250,000 cost estimate is discounted for the cost of overtime which will no longer be attracted in one-man stations, the figure of $250,000 must inevitably be reduced to below $200,000, or in broad terms a little less than 1% of the annual wages cost.

However, only a relative handful of uniform members are likely to receive any financial benefit at all. It follows therefore that those who become entitled to new or revised allowances as a consequence of this application may attract amounts (on a temporary or permanent basis) in excess of 1% of salary. Nevertheless as most allowances are payable on a discretionary basis, the amended figure of just under $200,000 per annum may well need to be further reduced. Moreover, the principles of Wage Determination - and in particular considerations of work value - must be applied to any proposed revision of allowances where the work has changed. The Principles envisage allowances being paid where and when attracted and not across-the-board. It must also be remembered that this award differs fundamentally from any other award dealt with by the Commission. The reason for this is self-evident. For so long as a military-type of ranking system continues to be applied to designations of police officer, prescription of allowances - some permanent and some temporary - to recognise differentials in skill, training and responsibility of persons holding similar rank will, of necessity, continue to be a feature of police awards throughout Australia.

After thirteen years' association with this award in one capacity or another, I am more than ever convinced that those external manifestations of rank which take the form of a distinctive uniform, arabesque or insignia, unquestionably convey a clear message to the public. But these trappings of office also tend to confuse those who must eventually determine, applying standard criteria, fair and reasonable salaries for members who publicly (and quite properly) exhibit traditional adornments of this kind, and those who do not.

To illustrate the point by example: It was given in evidence that a plain clothes Detective Constable or Detective Senior Constable could easily do the work of a uniformed Sergeant; but the reverse would not necessarily apply. Similarly it was submitted that in the Computer Section a uniformed Constable with computer programming skills could perform at a higher level than, say, a uniformed Senior Constable or Sergeant.

Thus it becomes almost impossible, applying the current doctrines of wage fixation, to determine a correct rate for rank other than at base Constable level and at and above Chief Superintendent.

It would therefore appear that the only equitable method of determining a rate for a particular job or function is to vest in the Commissioner fairly wide-ranging discretion to supplement within pre-determined limits, and on a temporary or permanent basis, the salary applicable to a member's substantive rank. And only then in circumstances where it appears that not to do so would be manifestly unfair.

It is unlikely that the present system will change as it must be acknowledged that there are many devotees of this age-old tradition who could present substantial argument for retention of current practice. But I regard the existing arrangement as being potentially divisive between uniformed and non-uniformed members. There are, I believe, alternatives that could be examined with a view to rationalizing the classification or designation of individuals. But such initiatives, I feel, would be more likely to gain acceptance were they to originate from within instead of from persons who are not police officers.

It is against this background therefore that the cost of reviewed or new allowances must be considered and understood.

It needs to be made clear also that a police force is constantly reviewing its activities, adopting new procedures and assuming extra responsibilities arising from new or amended legislation. It must therefore be prepared to be both inward and outward looking in its anxiety to meet head on the challenges emanating from a growing incidence of sophisticated crime.

During the past thirteen years I have been made aware of many changes in procedures and techniques used in the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension of criminals. Many of those changes have been the natural consequence of evolution. But more recent procedural alterations and initiatives have been quite dramatic. These have necessitated dynamic, complex and confidential training being undertaken and maintained by many more individuals at all levels of responsibility.

The obvious need for confidentiality precludes examples being given, although these have been communicated and demonstrated to me during proceedings. Those changes are accepted as bona fide. In this case actual translation of change into money equivalents, where justified, must be carried out in accordance with Principle 9.

Nevertheless I am concerned that sooner or later some rationalization of salary rates by rank ought to be undertaken if the present alarming proliferation of allowances is to be curtailed.

It seems to me that with the high standard of training now available at adult entry (and at later intervals in areas of specialization) it should be possible to establish "all up" substantive rates for uniformed and non-uniformed members who presently attract a miscellany of grafted allowances for skill on a permanent or temporary basis.

THE CLAIMS

I propose to deal firstly with those matters of some cost significance and conclude with items of a more or less machinery nature agreed to by the parties as necessary or desirable deletions or variations to be effected prior to issuing a consolidated award. Main matters falling into the former category include the claim for a specialist allowance for CIB personnel, revision of existing allowances for Scientific Bureau members, and alteration to one-man station allowance.

SPECIALIST COMPENSATION ALLOWANCE - CIB PERSONNEL

For some years now the award has contained a scale of alphabetically indexed money amounts ranging in ascending order from Index A (equals $211 per annum) to Index m (equals $2732 per annum).

It is from this standard scale that authorised allowances for the many specialized areas identified by name in the award are selected. For example, a member in charge of three persons in the Records Section can, at the discretion of the Commissioner, attract an allowance falling within Index D to F; ie any amount being not less than $1054 and not more than $1470 per annum.

In the instant case the Association has requested that CIB personnel below the level of officer should now qualify (subject to certain prerequisites determined by the Commissioner) for specialist allowances. The Commissioner has agreed with this request.

It was put by way of submission, and supported by oral evidence led from selective but widely representative sections or branches of the CIB, that recognition of this kind is necessary, having regard for the dynamic nature of CIB work. It was also argued, and supported by evidence and inspection, that the requirements put upon modern-day detectives to learn new skills and update old techniques in order to cope with "sophisticated" contemporary crime patterns is now fundamental to the duty of any detective.

In addition the Commission was given quite graphic detailed visual evidence of modern crime detection methods and the measure of basic and post-basic qualifications, and practical experience necessary to equip today's detective to cope with the every-day challenges of crime detection and the apprehension of criminal suspects.

I have already expressed concern that the rate for rank cannot always be assumed to mean the rate for the job. It needs to be understood that all uniformed and non-uniformed members sit the same examination for promotion to higher rank. However in the case of a detective he must also have had around two years' experience in uniform before being eligible to undertake a 3-week basic detective course. Successful completion of that course opens the way to a 6-week intensive period of training leading to a 12-month probationary appointment as a detective. Any member who fails his probation automatically reverts to uniform.

I do not propose detailing in meticulous order the new and revised methods of detection, prevention and apprehension that have been adapted, adopted or put into place since 1981 (the year of the last work-value adjustment for police officers). Suffice it to say there have been changes in all areas. Some have been quite dramatic - others not so spectacular. For reasons of security and confidentiality these ought not be catalogued here but are none the less on record.

It is quite clear that today's detective needs to be qualified academically to a much higher level than ever before. He must be able to interchange with detectives in other specialist areas (sometimes necessitating more in-service training) and is expected to handle on average two-and-a-half files per working day. This heavy work load means inevitably that priorities need to be allocated and reallocated to files waiting attention.

It was given in evidence and not denied that it takes approximately three yeas to acquire "expert status". But from the point of acceptance on probation a detective immediately assumes duties and responsibilities - increasing in importance year by year - above and beyond a uniformed member of equal or even higher rank.

I am therefore satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out for extra recognition above and beyond uniform rates for some ranks. This can only take the form of an allowance for reasons already discussed. Nevertheless I reiterate my concern at "promotion" of the status of plain clothes' members to the exclusion of hard-working, dedicated uniformed personnel who for the most part project the main image of the police force to the public. After all it is they who are seen more often by the community they serve.

Having already accepted that a case has been made out for payment of some allowances, I determine the parameters of those allowances as falling within Index B to I. However, quantification of the actual amounts payable is best left to the decision of the Commissioner after consultation with the Association. In determining the matter in this way I caution against too liberal an allocation of money amounts in the first instance. I am mindful that Scientific Bureau members have for many years enjoyed special allowances for specialist skills above rates for detectives. I am therefore of the opinion that to advance "all-up" detective rates now to, and in some cases beyond, Scientific Bureau personnel - notwithstanding the evidence presented during proceedings - may result in disaffection in the Scientific Bureau. It may also give rise to applications before an Anomalies Conference from Scientific Bureau members or uniformed officers. However, subject to certain minor exceptions, no case was made out for any adjustment to rates or allowances for uniformed police per se.

In all the circumstances I propose that for 12 months, or such lesser or greater period that the Commission may later determine, no allowance of a specialist nature shall be payable to any detective until approved by the Commission. In taking this decision I invoke Section 32(3)(b) of the Act which states:

"An award may -

(a) ...

(b) in resect of any matter to which the award relates, require anything to be done to the satisfaction of the Commission or prohibit anything being done without the consent of the Commission."

The award definition of "Detective" will also need to be varied to allow the Commissioner to deem BCI and other specialist area personnel to be considered for allowance - subject to my prior approval. But any such inclusion must be squarely in line with the evidence presented during this case. In this regard it would be consistent with this decision if different rates were struck for detectives performing duties in certain peripheral areas that have not necessarily been subjected to the same level of change seen to have been experienced by the generality.

SCIENTIFIC BUREAU

The claim was for the extension of the existing overall allowance parameters of $211 to $1890 (Index A to G) to $841 ranging to $2313 per annum (Index C to J).

These ranges do not of course constitute actual incremental escalations - only the limits within which allowances may be awarded. Thus a member might be awarded an allowance assessed at $850 or perhaps $1000 per annum up to the approved limits, depending upon circumstances.

As with detectives, the evidence of change since 1981 was, for the most part, overwhelming. This was not unexpected. Perhaps the most important aspects of change were the new methods of raising fingerprints, the wide-ranging use and processing of colour film, videos, new procedures in use in relation to questioned documents, forgeries, handwriting etc. Moreover, having had the opportunity to inspect at first-hand an alleged crime scene examination, the Commission was able to witness an actual case of major crime-scene examiners or crime-scene investigators at work. The team was controlled by the Southern District CIB Detective Superintendent and was comprised of a highly skilled team of detectives and Scientific Bureau officers and members. Each had a well-understood and well-rehearsed role to play in gathering, identifying, recording and taking custody of every piece of evidentiary material and other information relating to the alleged crime. Both CIB and Scientific Bureau officers, because of their specialized skills, meld together to form a complete team. This simultaneous pooling of skill, equipment and experience helps considerably to facilitate the speedy detection of suspects and ensures that prosecutions are not likely to fail because of insufficient evidence.

Furthermore those who comprise these teams are invariably called at short notice from other areas of specialization in other locations.

I therefore regard the agreed variations as reasonable, although as was the case with "detective allowance", somewhat more liberal at the upper levels than I would have awarded had I been required to decide the issue myself. But as quantification of worth boils down to an act of judgment, and rests largely upon the weight given to evidence presented, on balance it is difficult to say with absolute precision that the agreed increase in index ratings was either too generous or too little.

In allowing the claim, I will impose the same twelve months requirement on the Commissioner to satisfy me that adjustments of allowances flowing from this decision are fairly indicative of the evidence presented during the case. In this context, and in the case of "detective allowance", no lateral or vertical "sympathy" or "relativity"-type adjustments will receive Commission approval.

It was ably demonstrated to me during proceedings that without sufficient evidence a case cannot expect to succeed. It follows from that that I would expect the same reasoning to be applied in allocating discretionary allowances to detectives and Scientific Bureau personnel.

It may seem to be somewhat unusual for the Commission to invoke Section 32(3)(b). But the concept has precedent within this award and is motivated by my continuing disquiet at obvious inadequacies in the existing rate for rank structure which so often fails to reflect the appropriate rate for the job.

Speaking generally, it seems to me the present rate for rank as distinct from rate for job produces many situations where the amount paid for the job is palpably too high or too low. I am therefore of the opinion a mechanical progression scheme of allowances cannot be justified if it merely maintains or nurtures the same absurdities.

In exercising his discretion in this regard the Commissioner is urged to take into proper account the fact that allowances of the kind now awarded are intended to balance out the difference between rate for rank and rate for job. To do otherwise would be to ignore the fact that the value placed on a member's substantive rank is not determined solely on the basis of examinations passed. Rank means a position of standing and implies assumption of responsibility. Bearing this in mind, it seems to me that statements made during this case that a detective could quickly do the work of a uniformed sergeant and that rank does not mean anything in the computer section, if true, and if understood in the correct context, must surely signal the need for some re-assessment of allocation of personnel to perform certain functions.

Without close attention to this important aspect, responsible wage determination under our present system of wage fixing principles becomes exceedingly difficult - if not impossible.

ONE-MAN STATIONS

The question of one-man station allowances has been a source of concern from time to time. On each occasion it was made the subject of a claim before the (then) Public Service Board some amelioration of perceived problems bedevilling these stations was given. In the main, relief took the form of a percentage allowance based upon the salary of a (then) First Class Constable Second Grade (now First Class Constable, third year of service). That became the assessed minimum rate for the job - as distinct from minimum rank for the job. The present addition stands at 15 per cent, and is in lieu of shift premiums, call-out overtime on Monday to Friday, and after hours disturbance. Overtime worked by direction on Saturdays, Sundays, Public Holidays and rostered days off is paid for at either the rate of time and one half or double time. But no overtime, whether worked by direction or otherwise, is payable on week days.

Following a series of inspections it was demonstrated that the majority of one-man stations now work in association with adjoining stations or larger multiple-staffed stations. This means that in most cases an unofficial, but none the less approved "roster" system operates whereby the OIC of an individual station can, and does, regularly assume responsibility for an adjoining one-man station.

Of course this arrangement adds to the collective responsibility of each individual but none the less allows members to enjoy certain rostered weekends off without interruption to leisure time. (But this still occurs if a member remains at home during periods he is rostered off, as it is a notorious fact that members of the public will always knock on the local policeman's door after hours whether he is rostered on or rostered off).

It also means each member is "rostered" for shift in a way not before experienced. Previously an officer in charge of a one-man station adjusted his working hours and his days off to suit the needs of the local community.

With the "approved" self-regulating "roster" members now have wider responsibilities, travel more and need to be familiar with or have a wide understanding of the topography of other districts and those who reside in those areas. They are subject to call-out at any time in another member's area when on roster. Nevertheless those interviewed on the whole seemed satisfied with the arrangement, but not with the present method of compensation.

It was finally agreed that on balance a loading of 27.5 per cent would be appropriate to recognise both the true shiftwork nature of the job and to include a new component assessed at approximately 1 ¼ hours per week. This is in compensation for average overtime worked on weekends and holidays for which no payment will in future be attracted.

The cost of the proposal would approximate $50,000 per annum. But paid weekend, rostered days off and public holiday overtime now attracting penalty rates, if worked by direction, will need to be foregone. On my estimate, based upon interviews, it appears to me the cost offsets would all but cancel out the extra $50,000 referred to by the Commissioner.

The claim is granted on the understanding that some review of discretionary allowances for especially busy one-man stations will now take place. Members cannot expect to enjoy the best of both worlds. If officers-in-charge of one-man stations located in exceptionally busy areas are to enjoy an increased base rate at the expense of paid overtime, the Commission would expect a careful sifting of the circumstances attaching to each of the eight stations now in receipt of a special allowance. A review of the factual position relating to those stations may very well justify some downgrading of allowances presently being paid.

In no case would notions of "relativity" be employed to justify approval or withdrawal of allowances. They must, at all times, be supportable.

The Commission would be prepared to consider further one-man station allowances in 12 months in the event it can be demonstrated that the proposal now approved creates problems in certain areas.

SHIFT WORK

Mr McDermott submitted that shift work difficulties had arisen following the creation in 1985 of a new Marine Division manned mainly by members who transferred from previously held positions of Senior Fisheries Inspector.

The nub of the problem was that Marine Division members currently need to work shifts different to those of police personnel.

As the award now stands, "night shift means any shift finishing subsequent to midnight and at or before 8 am." This definition has proved satisfactory to date. However the new division now finds it necessary to roster certain members for shifts commencing at around 2am in order to effect proper policing of fishing grounds.

At present no penalty would appear to attach to these shifts. It was therefore claimed by the Association that the shift work definition should be varied to provide night shift allowances for duties commencing after 4pm and before 6am.

The assertion that a shift commencing at 2am (or on occasions 1am) should carry the same premium as an afternoon or night shift, has merit. The award will therefore be varied to accommodate the Association's request.

However, in order to qualify for the appropriate shift penalty, a member must be rostered to work a shift (as distinct from overtime or an early start). Moreover, being on availability after 2am is not shift work and should not be claimed to be. I make this clear now as I am aware that some general duty personnel occasionally hold themselves available until approximately 8am, following completion of a shift at around 2am.

One of the tests employed in determining whether true shifts are worked or not is to discover whether the same work or process performed by one group is carried on by the next or relieving group. This is by no means the sole criterion to be employed in such cases, but is none the less considered to be a useful guide.

The changes to the award considered necessary to give effect to what is now proposed will necessitate alteration to the definition of day work, afternoon shift and night shift. The Association claim goes sufficiently close to addressing the problem to be acceptable. It does not, however, recognize that the spread of hours for a day worker would not cover all day shift situations. It must be remembered that 30 to 60 minutes needs to be added for a lunch break for day workers. This does not apply for day shifts. The parties may therefore need to apply their minds to this relatively minor defect at some later date.

Concurrent with, and complementary to, revision of the present shift work prescription should be inclusion of a suitable definition of "roster". This will be necessary as reference to "rostered shifts" appears twice in the proposed new shift work clause. On interpretation of the award as it now stands it would be possible to hold that a member was not working as a shift worker if his period of duty could not be identified by reference to a roster setting out the names of participants, and the times at which, as well as the days on which, those individuals are required to report for duty.

Rosters should also provide for regular rotation of shifts unless all members in a particular area or establishment desire otherwise and the Commissioner of Police is agreeable. But even in the latter circumstance the roster should demonstrate that a system of shift work is in place.

For that reason I require a suitable definition of "roster" to be included. This may be settled upon before the award is promulgated. However, any agreed definition should address the points to which I have drawn attention.

Coincident with the need for a definition of roster is the requirement to restate in unambiguous terms the definition of "shift worker".

The fact that a small number of police personnel might be working two shifts per day Monday to Friday only, highlights the need for some recasting of the existing definition. The present requirement is for members to work rostered shifts regularly on Saturdays and Sundays.

After anxious consideration I have decided that Mr McDermott's suggested definition will overcome the present problem, provided that it is made that clear shifts should rotate. The proposed definition should therefore read:

"A shift worker means a member who is regularly required to undertake shift work in accordance with a rotating shift roster approved by the controlling authority."

Finally it is considered desirable to recast the language used in Exhibit E. (Afternoon and Night Shift Duty) to obviate any possible confusion that might arise regarding those members excluded from afternoon and night shift premiums. This is referred to at transcript pages 24 and 25 of proceedings.

BREATH ANALYSIS ALLOWANCE

The Association requested variation to the present authority for payment of an allowance to duly qualified breath analysis operators regularly required to carry out those duties including presentation of evidence of breath tests in court.

Since the advent of random breath tests it has become necessary to mobilize, as the occasion demands, qualified breath analysis operators working in other areas of police activity.

This happens infrequently and usually in the less populated police areas such as the North West Coast.

Mr McDermott made it clear that the Association was now requesting payment on a daily, or as attracted, basis for those "occasional" but qualified breath analysis operators who actually carry out breath tests.

No claim was made for members drawn from all areas who from time to time assist in random breath testing exercises by flagging down motorists and requesting them to submit to a "dragger" test. (This is taken by the driver exhaling into a piece of hand-held apparatus while seated in his own vehicle).

Mr McDermott explained that the more likely occasions on which qualified but not regular operators would be utilised would be in circumstances where drink-driving "blitzes" were undertaken. These could occur three or four times per annum, and would be of relatively short duration measured in days. For casual duty of this kind the "recalled" operator would attract an allowance of around $2.42 per shift. The cost would therefore be negligible.

I agree with this claim which, as I have stated in the preamble, was but one of many not opposed by the controlling authority or the intervener.

In order to give effect to what is intended it will be necessary to add a suitable proviso to the existing award provision. In this regard the draft tendered by the Association as Exhibit F appears to be generally suitable but requires some modification. It is therefore suggested that the parties consider the following suggested provisio:

"Provided that a member not attached to this section who is qualified and directed to perform breath analysis duties on an occasional basis shall be paid an allowance for each day or shift he is required to assume such duties.

The rate of allowance shall be the daily equivalent of the appropriate amount that would have been payable had the operator concerned been a regular member of the Breath Analysis Section."

COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES - CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS

Partly as a result of my own enquiries following inspections and questioning during those inspections, and partly on the initiative of the parties, a question arose regarding the adequacy or otherwise of allowances being trialled for Chief Superintendent and Assistant Commissioners.

In the event it was made clear to me that the present range of allowances to compensate for after hours disturbance (with a component intended as contribution toward costs necessarily incurred while representing the Commission or the Department) were no longer reasonable in the circumstances. The original authority for inclusion of this provision on a trial basis was given in 1980 and has not been reviewed since.

Information available to me as a consequence of inspections and discussions discloses that the incidence of after hours call-out or disturbance has tended to increase due to the expanded areas of police activity and a growing incidence of serious crime. These circumstances, together with revised administrative arrangements necessitate senior officers suffering more disturbance at home. More often than not, the Chief Superintendent and individual Assistant Commissioners find it necessary to turn out after hours in order to give personal attention, direction or advice on matters of particular importance then under investigation.

I have decided therefore to confirm this provision now and determine the parameters of allowances payable as falling within the range A to E. But it will be left to the discretion of the Commissioner to decide exact amounts payable to individuals from time to time.

I also intend giving leave reserved to present further evidence in this regard relating to the situation of the Deputy Commissioner.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

The Association requested variation to the overtime provision to accommodate the circumstance of members seconded to perform duties in other states or territories. For the most part, secondments are to ACT. The variation sought was couched in the following terms:

"Provided always that a member seconded for duty interstate shall observe any public holiday or any special public service holidays proclaimed for the locality in which the member is employed in lieu of the aforementioned holidays."

Mr McDermott argued that certain members of the Tasmania Police Force are from time to time seconded to Canberra for periods of up to two years. The reason for assignments of this kind are known to the Commission and need not be referred to for reasons of security.

Suffice it to say special provisions have from time to time been included in this award to cater for perceived difficulties regarding accommodation of seconded personnel.

In the instant matter I am unable to concur with the Association although I fully understand the kind of relief being sought and the reason for the claim.

In my opinion, the application, if granted in its present form, could fail to meet the Association's objective.

I therefore intend to include in the award a provision saving the situation of any seconded employee who would otherwise miss out on public holidays in his own state during the period of his secondment.

This means that no seconded member will enjoy fewer public holidays while working in another state or territory than he would have enjoyed had he not been working away from his home base.

Furthermore it will ensure that penalties will be attracted or compensation will be payable for each day a seconded employee works on a day that would have been a public holiday had he been in Tasmania. Show Day, and the first Monday in November are but two examples.

Where a "local" holiday occurs on a day that does not coincide with a Tasmanian holiday (and there may be two or three in the ACT) the member concerned could be expected to work if work is available and he can access his place of employment. If, on the other hand, he cannot be usefully employed but is otherwise ready, willing and able to work on that day, he must be regarded as having been "locked out" and would therefore be entitled to payment at ordinary rates as for that day.

This problem is not unique and applies to a greater or lesser extent in this state. For example, field officers who are frequently working in the south-western part of the island, would never enjoy Show Holidays, were they not "deemed" to be on duty in the area or base location of their substantive attachment.

To suggest that persons moving out of their own area for short periods should then enjoy the holidays occurring in the area of their temporary location is fraught with potential difficulties, and in my experience will not work in an equitable way if holidays are foregone in one area and not compensated for in another.

Rightly or wrongly, it seems tribunals today are regarding the inclusion in awards of named public holidays as, among other things, identification of additional leisure days to be enjoyed as paid non-working days. Or if they are not taken off, compensation by way of payment at penalty rates is allowed.

The claim as drawn is therefore refused but relief will be given by way of a suitably cast provision intended to "save" the situation of seconded personnel.

It follows from the foregoing that seconded members cannot expect to enjoy or be paid for the same holidays (eg Labour Day) twice unless "locked out' on one of those days. But Canberra Day and 4^th August 1986 are not Tasmanian holidays and cannot be included in the list. However, a seconded member ready, willing and able to work on those days, if unable to do so must, as I have said, be paid for the day at ordinary rates whether required to work or not.

KILOMETREAGE ALLOWANCE

The claim for inclusion of a shortened version of kilometreage allowance setting out rates for motor cars and motor cycles in line with the rates prescribed in the General Conditions of service Award is granted.

A suitable clause will be framed which will ensure that rates will be those determined by the General Conditions of Service from time to time and that any alteration to the level of allowances prescribed by that award will operate simultaneously in the Police Award.

SPECIAL WEAPONS SQUAD (INCORPORATING ARMED OFFENDERS SQUAD)

Detailed inspections were undertaken and evidence led regarding the alteration and description and activities of the group of specially trained members who comprise what is now known as the "Special Weapons Squad".

Members of the group are drawn from all areas, including plain clothes and uniform personnel. They are without doubt highly skilled in those combat techniques needed to counter terrorist and similar activities which obviously require specialist intervention in the public good.

Highly sophisticated weaponry, not of the kind in general usage, is an important component of the training undertaken. This is of a level above that which might otherwise be required of an officer assigned to general duties. In addition confidential, complex and potentially dangerous tactical manoeuvres and strategies are a feature of the training undertaken.

These additional skills and patent responsibilities need to be separately recognised. However, certain allowances which were attracted by members of the old "armed Offenders Squad" will now be absorbed or, where appropriate, extended to recognise the new skills acquired over and above those identified previously for members of the armed Offenders Squad.

The Association sought special allowances within Index ranges C to F. The Commissioner and the intervener opposed that range but indicated support for a lesser Index rating of A to C.

I will allow the claim for an extended range but will determine the maximum allowances payable at Level C.

If after 12 months it can be demonstrated that what is now proposed is unreasonable, the Association or the Commissioner will be at liberty to further apply.

I will leave it to the Commissioner to determine, on the evidence available to him from time to time, the exact amounts payable to individual members of the group. However, as in the case of other discretionary allowances, I caution against mechanical application of such salary additions. Allowances should be paid in circumstances when not to do so would be manifestly unfair. Notions of "relativity", "comparative wage justice" or compensations for shifts not worked are not in themselves reasons for payment of allowances determined on work value grounds, and for that reason form no part of current wage-fixing criteria.

ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS TRAINED AS COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS OR COMPUTER ANALYSTS

The Association called evidence directed to the measure of computer equipment now in use and the type of use to which that equipment is being applied.

In this regard the recently appointed Director of the Computer Branch, Mr Newcombe, was able to present expert evidence regarding the level of expertise expected of police personnel attached to the Centre.

While acknowledging that at present one Senior Constable employed at the Centre had acquired skills and expertise in computer programming and that his expertise was broadly equivalent to a private industry computer programmer, Mr Newcombe none the less readily agreed with Mr McDermott that it was also desirable, perhaps essential, for Computer branch personnel, or some of them, to have police training as well.

He explained that for reasons of security it had not been possible to utilize State Computer Centre equipment to the extent that he would have liked, although some main-frame systems were utilized. Systems now in use were mainly of an administrative nature, such as budgetary, personnel management and transport items.

More detailed input and retrieval systems of a confidential nature are now being developed and should soon be in place. This developmental work is being carried out by uniformed personnel under the overall supervision of the Director.

The Branch will eventually have an establishment of nine or ten persons and will be comprised broadly of a fifty-fifty mix of civilians and police.

A disturbing, albeit accurate, observation made during proceedings, was that:

"The Branch itself is not based on a rank structure, because of the nature of the work it has to be on ability. And there will be cases where, I would imagine, we will have a constable who may very well lead a tem of senior police officers purely on his ability."

And the further observation that -

"And therefore I believe that the [allowance] payments should be paid on ability. They are not a time or a rank structure type of environment."

I do not doubt the veracity of the foregoing statements by Mr Newcombe. I regard him as an expert. But I do believe when that time comes the Commissioner and the Association will need to look objectively at the whole question of rate for rank; or exclude police personnel entirely from activities that seem really to fall within the traditional professional domain of civilians.

However that may be, a case was made out for still another allowance for sub officers and below who now have, or who will in future acquire such discrete (police) skills as computer programmers or analysts.

My concern in this regard is that a civilian graduate in computer science for example might be paid less in the earlier part of his professional career than a First Class Constable who may be a non-graduate but attracting allowances on top of his rate for rank.

On present rates a professional scientist with a three-year degree commences on a salary of $19090 per annum (or $19901 per annum if he holds a four-year degree) and progresses to $25984 per annum in five or four years as the case may be.

On the other hand a First Class Constable's salary commences at $19982 per annum and progresses by three additional increments to $20995 per annum.

A police Sergeant enjoys a salary of $25043, while a Senior Sergeant attracts $28665 per annum.

It is clear therefore that if internal disputation over pay and allowances is to be avoided some care will need to be exercised in bringing together civilians and police personnel in the way referred to in evidence.

Moreover, responsibility for providing justification for differential rates being paid to persons performing the same work must rest squarely upon the shoulders of those into whose care the task falls for determining exact scales of allowances to be established within the authorised index levels.

I determine the index from which allowances may be paid to sub officers and below to A to J. I will also require details of actual allowances determined by the Commissioner on an individual basis to be provided to me for scrutiny and approval in the first instance, and for twelve months thereafter.

DEFINITIONS

I turn now to consider certain matters of a machinery nature which involve consideration of existing definitions. They are:

Detective:

Having regard for the fact that I have approved work value adjustments to detectives to be paid in the nature of allowances, it will be necessary to vary the present definition of detective by deleting specific reference to Criminal Investigation Branch. In lieu of that reference it will be a requirement that a detective be designated as such and actively engaged on investigation of crime.

This is a necessary alteration having regard for the number of areas of police activity in which detectives are used but which, although mainly coming under the umbrella of the CIB, may also involve such specific areas as the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Secondees to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence may also be included.

I propose to accept the Association's revised definition on the understanding that any allowances attracted will only be paid to those who meet the strict requirements of the definition.

In the event that any difficulties arise as a consequence of this, the parties are at liberty to further apply at a later date.

Junior Member:

The words "or as a cadet" are to be deleted from this definition as they are now redundant.

Pain Clothes Duty:

The words "other than as a special constable" are also redundant and should be deleted from this definition.

Special Constable:

The entire definition is now unnecessary. As special constables are no longer appointed to the Tasmania Police Force, this definition shall be deleted.

Plain Clothes Duty:

Reference in this definition to special constables, being no longer appropriate, should now be struck out.

OTHER AGREED AMENDMENTS

Adult Trainees who fail to pass the retention examination:

The present prohibition (twice appearing) against an adult member or trainee progressing beyond the first year of service on the salary scale for a constable (or adult trainee) if he fails the retention examination is no longer relevant.

It was explained that eligibility to progress or otherwise commence a career as a member of Tasmania Police is now determined, inter alia, by assessment and not by retention examination. Those whose assessment is unsatisfactory are dismissed. For this reason the provision is unnecessary and will be deleted.

Salary rates for Special Constables and Cadets:

As there is no longer any requirement for these provisions, all existing references to special constable and cadets should be excluded from the award.

Payment of Specialist Compensation Allowances:

Except in relation to any allowances that may, following promulgation of this award, become due and payable to detectives, Scientific Bureau personnel who might attract allowances beyond the limits presently provided, and Computer Branch personnel, it will no longer be necessary to obtain the prior approval of the Commission for payment of specialist allowances to those groups who immediately preceding determination of this application were subject to the scrutiny of this Commission.

Plain Clothes Allowance:

The Commission will not now need to put its imprimatur of approval on decisions by the Commissioner to authorize payment of plain clothes allowance to designated personnel.

The Commission is satisfied that specialist allowances and plain clothes allowances have been administered fairly and in accordance with the original intention of those provisions.

The Commission is equally confident that the requirement again to seek Commission ratification of certain specialist allowances for detectives, and extended allowances for Scientific Bureau; and for Computer Branch personnel, will be of relatively short duration and may be regarded at this stage as no more than a "fail safe" provision.

Scientific Bureau Specialist Allowances:

Provision should be made now to include new designations of Crime Scene Examiner (or equivalent terminology) and delete reference to Photogrammetric Expert if the present provision is now regarded as redundant.

Proviso relating to allowances payable during reorganization of the Court Prosecuting Section and Police Academy:

Both prescriptions are now superfluous and should be deleted.

OTHER AGREED MATTERS

All other agreed matters of a machinery or incidental nature not requiring consideration in the context of existing guidelines, and having no cost implications at all are approved and will be reflected in the consolidated award to issue shortly.

LEAVE RESERVED

Leave reserved is given to the claim for deletion of reference to CIB in sub-placitum (iv) of Detective Allowance - rates. As no evidence was led to support the change and no attitude was expressed by the Commissioner or the intervener in relation to this item, the Association is hereby given leave to re-apply if it wishes to pursue the matter further.

DATE OF OPERATION

The parties agreed that the operative date for all matters involving money adjustments or potential money adjustments should be the first pay period commencing on or after 31 January 1986 - that being the last sitting day in this case.

At the conclusion of proceedings I indicated to the parties that in view of the excellent manner in which the Association presented its case, marshalled its facts and tendered exhibits, it was my confident expectation that the Commission would be in a position to give its decision on all matters soon after the case concluded.

Unfortunately, due to a combination of circumstances, including my own period of recreation leave and the intervention of other important matters requiring the President's attention, the decision has been somewhat delayed. As none of these matters were the fault of the applicant or the parties I see no reason why the agreed date of operation should not be approved, and I decide accordingly.

In due course the parties are requested to confer with my clerk regarding drafting necessary to give effect to what has now been decided.

L A Koerbin
PRESIDENT

14 April 1986