Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T263

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

   

Industrial Relations Act, 1984

   
T. No. 263 of 1985 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION TO VARY THE TEACHING SERVICE (MEDIA CENTRE) AWARD
   
  Re: SALARIES FOR TECHNICAL OFFICERS.
   
COMMISSIONER R.J. WATLING 22 September, 1986.
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Tasmanian Public Service
Association
- Mr. J. Geursen with
  Mr. M. Thurstans (7.11.85) and
  Mrs. D. Briscoe (6.8.86)
   
For the Tasmanian Teachers
Federation
- Miss E.M. Backhouse (7.11.85)
- Miss G. Crotty
- Mr. C. Lane (6.8.86)
   
For the Minister for Public
Administration
- Mr. L. Johnson with
  Mr. J. Kenny (7.11.85)
   
Intervening on behalf of the
Minister for Industrial Relations
- Mr. M. Stevens with
  Mr. H. Buckland (4.3.86 and
  a.m. of 6.3.86)
- Mr. J. McCabe with
  Mr. H. Buckland p.m. of 6.3.86)
- Mr. J. McCabe (11.3.86)
- Mr. M Jarman with
  Mr. J. McCabe (18.3.1986)
- Mr. M. Stevens (22.4.1986)

- Mr. M. Stevens with
  Mr. M. Jarman (a.m. only) (1.5.86)

   
DATE & PLACE OF HEARINGS:  
   
7 November 1985 - Hobart
6 February 1986 - Inspections - Media Centre, Argyle Street, Hobart
4 March 1986 - Hobart
6 March 1986 - Hobart
11 March 1986 - Hobart
18 March 1986 - Hobart
22 April 1986 - Hobart
1 May 1986 - Hobart
6 August 1986 - Hobart

THE CLAIM

This application, made by the Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.P.S.A.), was lodged with the Commission on 1 November 1985 and identified as T. No. 263 of 1985.

The hearings commenced on 7 November 1985 and concluded on 6 August 1986 with a total of eight sitting days and one day for inspections.

The claim by the T.P.S.A. was to:-

    (i) conduct a work value case on behalf of all classifications of employees covered by the Teaching Service (Media Centre) Award;

    (ii) the work value case to be conducted concurrent with a restructuring of Clause 8 - Salaries, to include the precise salary scales now appearing in the Technical Officers Award:

    (iii) vary a number of clauses in the award as a consequence of the proclamation of the State Service Act, 1984.

PERIOD UNDER REVIEW

Mr. Geursen, representing the T.P.S.A., maintained the award has not been reviewed in depth since 1978, however, there was recognition by all the parties that the award was varied as part of the general work value case in 1981, granting a 5.5% increase operative from 1 January 1981.

It was established that the period under review for the purpose of this work value case was from 1 January 1981 to 1 November 1985.

CLASSIFICATIONS UNDER REVIEW

The following classifications contained in this award were the subject of review:-

1.      Film Library Staff

(a) Senior Media Officer, Class I
(b) Senior Media Officer, Class II

2.      Art Staff

(a) Media Officer, Class I, Grade 1
(b) Media Officer, Class I, Grade 2
(c) Media Officer, Class II, Grade 1
(d) Media Officer, Class III, Grade 1

3.      Photographic Staff

(a) Media Officer, Class II, Grade 1
(b) Media Officer, Class II, Grade 2

4.      Production Staff

(a) Media Officer, Class I, Grade 1
(b) Media Officer, Class II, Grade 1

5.      Electronics Staff

(a) Media Officer, Class I, Grade 1
(b) Media Officer, Class I, Grade 2
(c) Media Officer, Class II, Grade 1
(d) Media Officer, Class II, Grade 2
(e) Media Officer, Class III, Grade 1
(d) Media Officer, Class III, Grade 2 and above

6.      Recording Studio Staff

(a) Media Assistant, Class II, Grade 2

7.      Supervisor's Assistant

(a) Senior Media Officer, Class IV

8.      Media Officer - Studio Production.

WITNESSES

The following witnesses were called by the Unions:-

    Mr. T.E. Lobban - Supervisor's Assistant
    Mr. N.G. Schapira - Electronics Staff
    Mr. G. Kerfoot - Electronics Staff
    Mr. J.A. Dwyer - Electronics Staff
    Mr. W.D. Enright - Supervisor's Assistant
    Mr. J.D. Wise - Production Staff
    Mr. G.L. Young - Production Staff
    Mr. F.J. McIvor - Media Officer - Studio Production
    Mr. A.J. Talbot - Media Officer - Studio Production
    Mr. V. Nase - Film Library Staff
    Mrs. B. Russmann - Recording Studio Staff
    Mr. D.M. Harrex - Art Staff

No witnesses were called by the employer.

EVIDENCE

From the outset it must be stated that this work value case was not made any easier when the parties could not even agree on the basic organisational structure of the Media Centre within the Education Department which seemed to me to be continually changing, even during the course of this hearing.

It was under these conditions, Mr. Geursen, representing the Tasmanian Public Service Association and Miss Crotty representing the Tasmanian Teachers Federation proceeded to put their submissions and examine witnesses for changes in work value within the previously mentioned sections of the award.

There was virtually no agreement between the parties on which sections (if any) within the Media Centre should receive a salary increase based on changes in work value and there was definitely no agreement on the quantum.

However, the parties did agree that the most significant changes that had taken place were amongst the electronics staff and the studio production staff, and they highlighted the electronics staff's move from analogue to digital technology.

It was also pointed out that during the review period the equipment maintenance section, (contained within the electronics section) became responsible for the installation and wiring of equipment in schools. This work had been previously carried out by contractors.

In relation to the studio production section employees, it was stated that there had been some changes leading to an increase in work value because of the higher standard of work and improved performance required to meet the clients' expectation and the competition from commercial producers.

The Unions submitted that any increases in work value should be reflected in the award by placing the salary scales now appearing in the Technical Officers Award in this award.

The rationale behind this submission was that the present salary scales bear little relationship to the work actually taking place within the Media Centre of the Education Department and organisational structure of the Centre itself.

This view was not opposed by Mr. Johnson, representing the Minister for Public Administration.

It was the T.P.S.A's. contention that by placing the new salary scales in the award as suggested, it would enable individual employees within the Media Centre to seek a reclassification within the new structure based on work value criteria.

There was also a view expressed by the T.P.S.A. that it was the Commission's role to merely provide a salary administration structure which would allow the classification or reclassification of employees to be undertaken by the Head of Agency or the Commissioner for Review under the State Service Act, 1984.

This narrow and limited view of the role of the Commission does not receive my support.

Whilst recognising that it is not the Commission's function to classify individual employees within the salary scales appearing in the award, nevertheless, the Commission has the responsibility, amongst other things, to satisfy itself that the range and size of salaries and the classifications are adequate and appropriate and cater for the needs of those employees falling within the scope of the award.

WORK VALUE

For any wage increase to be obtained under Principle 4 of the Wage Fixation Principles, the crucial determining factor and strict test must be that the change should constitute such a significant nett addition to the work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification.

The significant changes may arise in:

(i) the nature of the work,
(ii) skill,
(iii) responsibility,
(iv) the conditions under which the work is performed.

In my view, the Wage Fixation Principles do not envisage `across the board' increases based on an averaging concept which seemed to be the system operating during the 70's. Instead, the changes must be significant enough to warrant an upgrading of each separate position or classification.

The onus is on the applicant to:-

    (a) clearly establish how the functions, skills and responsibilities have changed and how those changes can be considered `a significant nett addition', thus warranting a new classification;

    (b) identify the individual or individuals concerned and their relevant classification;

    (c) prove why existing classifications within the award are unsatisfactory in relation to the functions, skills and the responsibilities.

I have considered all the evidence relating to the work value changes in this matter with the previously mentioned criteria in mind and I have arrived at the conclusion that no work value increases will be granted to the salary scales within the following sections.

(a) Film Library Staff,
(b) Art Staff,
(c) Photographic Staff,
(d) Production Staff,
(e) Recording Studio Staff,
(f) Electronics Staff
(g) Studio Production Staff

Whilst I was shown areas of `change' in all the previously mentioned sections, nevertheless, the precise change in terms of work, skills, responsibility or conditions under which the work is performed by the individual employees concerned was not sufficient to enable me to arrive at the conclusion that increases should be granted.

It must be remembered that changes in work by themselves may not lead to changes in award rates. In fact, in some instances `change' may make the job less skilful and/or lower the responsibility.

In a number of instances the evidence put to me could be considered as an increase in productivity, which does not fall within the parameters of Principle 4 of the Wage Fixation Principles.

However, there was one separate classification contained in the award that was capable of being examined for work value changes to the extent required. This was the position of Supervisor's Assistant which is a single classification attracting a specific salary.

It is my view that this classification should receive an increase and I am going to insert into the award a Senior Media Officer, Class V rate of $28948 which will be the new rate for this classification.

One of the major problems I encountered in this matter was the extreme difficulty associated with establishing work value increases in an award that only contains a range of salary scale and no specific classifications that could be examined individually for changes in work value.

If, to use an example, I was to grant a 10% increase to an electronics staff employee who was classified as a Media Officer, Class II, Grade 1 and I varied the scale in the award accordingly, I would at the same time be granting increases to the art staff, photographic staff, production staff and studio production staff as all these sections within the Media Centre use the Media Officer scales, Class II, Grade 1.

As can be seen from the previous example, it could be possible for other employees to gain salary increases without establishing work value changes in accordance with the Wage Fixation Principles.

Without clear and precise classifications contained in the award, it is my view that the likelihood of any successful prosecution of a work value case taken under the current guidelines may be formidable.

REORGANISATION OF MEDIA CENTRE

It became quite obvious during the course of the hearing that the organisational structure of the Media Centre was under constant review and it was brought to my attention on more than one occasion that the current award structure could no longer cater for the changing nature of the Centre.

I am prepared to accept that a reorganisation has taken place within the Media Centre which, prima facie, may necessitate a review of some existing award provisions. Therefore, I am going to take this opportunity to refer back to the parties the following questions for their consideration:-

    (i) is the existing award capable of meeting the needs of all the parties in view of the reorganisation of the Media Centre?

    (ii) if not, what part(s) of the current award are incompatible and how and when should the award be varied to cater for the current and future needs of the parties?

In asking the parties to consider these questions, I would like to make the following observations:

    (i) If there is going to be any restructuring of the award then it should be undertaken in accordance with the Wage Fixation Principles;

    (ii) I would not envisage any increases being granted to the current award rates, except in exceptional or compelling circumstances, and only then in accordance with the Wage Fixation Principles;

    (iii) I would expect the parties to undertake private discussions in an attempt to reach agreement on any proposed restructuring of the award prior to the matter being heard by the Commission.

OTHER AWARD VARIATIONS

I now wish to turn to the third part of the claim which was to vary a number of clauses contained in the award as a consequence of the proclamation of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 and, for other reasons.

    (i)     Title

      the parties agreed that the title of the award should be known as the `Education Media Services Staff Award' as it reflected the true position.

      I endorse the proposal and the award will be varied accordingly.

    (ii)    Scope

      The current scope of the award refers to persons employed under the provisions of the Education Act 1932. This, of course, has been superseded by the proclamation of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984.

      There is also a need to make it perfectly clear that this award only applies to persons undertaking duties of a technical nature in specified areas of the Education Department and does not cover all employees who work within what is commonly referred to as the `Media Centre'.

      I endorse the new `scope' clause as drafted by the parties and the order will reflect the agreed position.

    (iii)    Supersession and Savings

      The variation sought to this clause was of an administrative nature arising out of the proclamation of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984, and it receives my support.

    (iv)    Parties and Persons Bound

      The parties requested that the clause be varied to include the Minister responsible for the administration of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984.

      I endorse the request of the parties.

    (v)    Definitions

      The parties presented an agreed position and requested the Commission to include in this award definitions for part-time, full-time, temporary and casual employees.

      This amendment is consistent with the variations made to other awards of the Commission and, therefore, I have no hesitation in adopting similar provisions in this award.

    (vi)    Part-time and Casual Employees.

      The parties sought to include in Clause 8, Salaries, a section dealing with part-time and casual employees and, whilst I endorse the clause as it relates to the method of calculating the rates of pay for part-time and casual employees and the proviso that states "provided further that persons engaged as temporary, part-time and casual employees prior to the date of this award shall not suffer any loss of entitlement", nevertheless, I would like to hear further submissions from the parties at a later date on how the rates being paid to part-time and casual employees, prior to the making of this award, are finally brought back into line with the new formula inserted in the award for this class of employee.

    (vii)   Allowances

      The parties requested that the `District Allowance', `First Aid Allowance' and `Other Allowances' be deleted from this award as these provisions were already contained in the General Conditions of Service Award and it was their preferred position that all employees covered by this award should look to that award for their general conditions of employment along with other public sector employees.

      I have no problem with accepting the proposed alteration to this clause which will mean that Clause 9 - Allowances, will only contain a provision for `Higher Duties Allowance' and `Regional Responsibility Allowance' and, I decide accordingly.

    (viii)  Conditions of Service

      The parties requested that Clause 10 - Conditions of Service, be deleted and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

        "The conditions of service of employees classified under this award shall be those set out in the General Conditions of Service Award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission and the provisions of the Tasmanian State Service Act and regulations."

      Whilst I do not disagree with the overall thrust of this clause, nevertheless, I believe employees are entitled to know where to find all their conditions of service and I am going to insert the following clause in the award:

        "Until otherwise determined by the Tasmanian Industrial Commission, and unless otherwise prescribed in this award, the conditions of service for employees classified under this award shall be those set out in the General Conditions of Service Award, being an award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission.

        However, where conditions of service are not contained in this award or the General Conditions of Service Award, then the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 and the regulations made thereunder shall prevail."

    (ix)   Obsolete Clauses

      Having decided to insert a new clause relating to conditions of employment, it makes the following clauses in the award obsolete and, therefore, they will be deleted -

        Clause 10 - Deductions from Salary
        Clause 11 - Hours of Duty
        Clause 13 - Overtime and Extra Remuneration.

OPERATIVE DATE

The operative date of this decision shall be from the first full pay period to commence on or after 22 September, 1986.

 

R.J. Watling
COMMISSIONER