T2314, T2541 and T2692
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees, Federated Clerks Union of Australia and Pasminco Metals - EZ ELECTROLYTIC ZINC AWARD
Wage Rates - State Wage November 1989 - Structural Efficiency Principle Second Stage REASONS FOR DECISION In this matter Pasminco Metals - EZ (PMEZ) sought the variation of the Electrolytic Zinc Award to reflect the second instalment structural efficiency adjustment. As the separate applications1 by the Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees, Tasmanian Branch (ADSTE) and the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (FCU) could not be processed in isolation from the award in its entirety, all applications were joined for hearing purposes. At the outset I can indicate that I consider that the watershed changes negotiated by the parties will provide employees with the opportunity to participate in "more varied fulfilling and better paid jobs"2 and enable PMEZ to achieve improved efficiencies and productivity. This in turn should enhance its competitiveness when the structural efficiencies start to positively impact on cost structures. Steps to achieve those particular outcomes commenced over two and a half years ago. Indeed an appropriate datum point for the Commission is February 1988 when the parties were involved in proceedings leading to the endorsement by the Commission in November 1988 of the EZ Risdon Restructuring Agreement3. Since then there have been a number of matters before the Commission by way of conferences and hearings, the objective of which have been to facilitate the overall thrust of the parties to restructure the award and put in place more flexible work practices. In my Reasons for Decision4 awarding the first instalment structural efficiency adjustment I referred to a document titled "Agreement for the Implementation of the First Instalment". That document detailed an extensive array of efficiency measures including 18 specific agreed work practice changes. Additionally the document addressed the acquisition of skills and competency by employees, which if achieved would facilitate the elimination of demarcations on the basis of providing employees with wider job scope. I said at that time that the parties had encapsulated the philosophy behind restructuring in that part of the document outlining the benefits that would flow from greater work place flexibility and consequential productivity improvements. I said: "There is an acknowledgement that employee skill traditionally not available to the Company either because of demarcation or non-possession of the necessary additional skills in the first place, will be addressed to: (i) provide a wider range of skills for employees, yielding increased flexibility and productivity; (ii) expand the number of skills available to provide an employee with the opportunity for further advancement through the classification structure. The parties have made significant progress in their structural efficiency negotiations. An important outstanding issue to be resolved is the relevant "points" score to be allocated to respective employee skills ascertained from a jointly conducted Skills Audit. I encourage the parties to quickly resolve that particular matter. This will facilitate Training and the formation of Skills Modules which are of course an integral part of maximising employee flexibi1ity and employee rewards on the one hand and Company efficiency, enhanced competitiveness and productivity on the other. The parties are totally cognisant of the foregoing and are to be congratulated on their endeavours to date." T.2293 p. 3/4 Against that background I now turn to the applications currently before the Commission for the second instalment structural efficiency adjustment. As on previous occasions Mr Nally was the principal advocate for PMEZ whilst Mr Forster, ably supported by other union representatives, was the principal advocate for the unions, party to the award. The application by PMEZ in this matter was first before the Commission on 11 September 1990. In subsequent proceedings some difficulties manifested which were canvassed in my Reasons for Interim Decision5. Suffice it to say that those difficulties concerned the incompleted negotiations between PMEZ, the FCU and ADSTE and that the career structure for award employees had not been agreed and arbitration was not sought at that stage. Subsequently the parties were able to satisfy the Commission on those matters and I therefore awarded the second instalment structural efficiency adjustment operative from 19 October 1990 on the basis that I considered that in toto sufficient progress had been made to enable the variation of the award. However the parties were requested and agreed to expeditiously progress outstanding issues which would facilitate the award to be further varied (apart from wage rates) to incorporate relevant structural efficiency measures. In the event, in proceedings on 19 November 1990, the parties informed me that the principal outstanding issues of concern to the Commission had been resolved. That is to say the parties had reached agreement on the upper limit of the career path; the allocation of skill derived points for progression, training available to employees to acquire skills for progression; and on the deletion of the Divisions in the award relating to the FCU and ADSTE. I was informed that the issue of the Boiler Certificate qualification and the form of the definitions for Grades 8, 9 and 10 in the Tradespersons career stream should be able to be resolved by the parties. If not, then those matters can of course be brought forward to the Commission. In any event it is reasonable to state that those particular issues are peripheral having regard to the structural efficiency package in its entirety. The objective of the parties in this matter was to put in place measures which will enable the achievement of a highly skilled motivated and flexible workforce. Exhibit N1 submitted by Mr Nally discusses the implementation of the structural efficiency principle in great detail. As well as containing philosophical statements of intent and direction the document details actual changes negotiated and puts in place a consultative management process. The approach developed by the parties should stand them in good stead in the future. Obviously the changes have to permeate the workforce through training and the provision of relevant business information. There are now in place memorandums of understanding going to Temporary Part-time and Casual employees. Agreements have been approved in the Commission and registered by the Registrar concerning Auxiliary Resources (use of contract labour) and 12 Hour Shifts. These have arisen as a consequence of structural efficiency negotiations and form an integral part of the entire package put before the Commission. As well as those agreements, the parties have negotiated site specific agreements with application to nominated work areas. Each of the agreements provide for positive change and much more flexible use of PMEZ's most important resource, people. The agreements have application in the following areas: Casting Division, Leach Services Section, Amonia Division, EZ Fertilizers, Plateshop, Painters Shop, Electrolytic Division Maintenance, Riggers and Field Carpenters, Riggers Locker, Field Carpenters and Wood Machinists, Carpenters and Electricians, Cutting of Parafin Wax Moulds, Plumbers Shop and Transport Services, Field Carpenters and Transport Services, Maintenance and Staff Employees and Transport Services, Painters Shop and Transport Services, Mechanical Workshop and Transport Services, Electrical Services Division, Laying of Paving Slabs, Operator Trades Interchange, Machine Shop Changes. Predicted minimum manning levels have also been referred to the Commission and these are attached as Appendix 1 to this decision. I have selected a number of statements from Exhibit N1 as an attachment to this decision (Appendix 2) as they reflect the approach to structural efficiency by the parties and provide an insight into the overall direction taken to achieve their aim of creating at Pasminco Metals - EZ "... a world-class operation with world class employees, processes and technologies" (Exhibit N1, page 2) A very significant aspect of the matters before the Commission concerns employee career paths. A staggering amount of effort was committed to the development and implementation of dedicated career paths. To gain an insight into "The Grading System" the following extract from Exhibit N3 is useful: "The Employee Development Scheme provides career levels or grades which reflect the stages of skill progression. An individual passes through the career levels by acquiring more skills. As the individual demonstrates the ability to perform those skills contained within a training module they are credited with the points for that module. Each employee will be provided with an INDIVIDUAL CAREER STATEMENT which records all accreditation. Once an employee accumulates the number of points for each grade he/she will progress to that grade and receive the pay rate for that grade. All employees will be given reasonable opportunity to progress to the highest skill level in their appropriate area classification." A very detailed skills audit has been undertaken and points agreed for each level in the respective career streams so that employees know exactly the points score they have to achieve to gain access to the next level or grade. Progression in an employee's career stream is predicated on the person acquiring the necessary skills/qualifications (where these are not already held) and being accredited with the appropriate number of points. To facilitate acquisition of skills and qualifications for accreditation, a comprehensive Employee Development Scheme and Training Strategy (Exhibit N3) was agreed by the parties against the "Background" contained in Appendix 3 to this decision. Available training falls into three broad training modules, i.e. Area/Stream Specific Skills; Plantwide Application Skills; Enabling Skills. Each training matrix will contain a combination of the three types of modules. The advantages of this type of approach were stated to be as follows: "1. Training will provide a blend of skills for employees, yielding greater flexibility and productivity. 2. The number of skills available in certain areas/streams can be expanded to provide an employee with the opportunity for further advancement through the grades. Each module is assigned a number of points dependent upon several factors including the difficulty and complexity of the particular skills. The points are derived from the JOB ANALYSIS (SKILLS AUDIT) information and subsequent TASK ANALYSIS. Points are allocated to training modules according to TRAINING DELIVERY TIME. One point equals one hour of training delivery time." Exhibit N3 Having regard to the foregoing it is evident that the parties have addressed themselves in great depth to providing the wherewithal necessary for employees to gain improved skills and progression. The ideal of achieving more varied work and better paid jobs and more work flexibility and improved output comes into very sharp focus when regard is had for the extensive training that will be available for employees. The systematic and orderly upskilling of workers will produce the outcomes, over time, that the parties have committed to and which are encapsulated, to an extent in the Introduction to Appendix 2 attached to this decision. In respect of work place changes these have been identified in exhibit N8. Some of them have been agreed in toto whilst others are the subject of ongoing discussions. The Union parties and PMEZ have agreed to keep each other informed in respect of any future changes that may be considered. This is good industrial practice. It allows for "peak" discussions to take place at the outset and it provides for the appropriate involvement of Employees, Area Delegates, Senior Delegates and Supervisors. Turning to Divisions B and C of the award applicable to the FCU and ADSTE respectively, these will be deleted from the award as those particular employee organisations will continue their industrial relationship with PMEZ by virtue of agreements which will be sought to be approved by the Commission for registration by the Registrar. In this decision I have endeavoured to convey that the structural efficiency initiatives presented to the Commission are of an extremely significant nature and will have far reaching and positive implications for PMEZ, its workforce and their union representatives. The parties are commended on their achievements and their perseverance. The Order and operative from 19 October 1990 is attached.
R K Gozzi Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 T.2314 of 1990 (ADSTE) T2541 of 1990 |