T2594 and TA68
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 United Firefighters Union of Tasmania and Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 FIRE BRIGADES AWARD
Award - Wage Rates and Conditions of Employment - Firefighters "special case" application - State Wage Case October 1989 - Structural Efficiency Principle REASONS FOR INTERIM DECISION Matter T.2594 of 1990 concerns an application by the United Firefighters Union of Tasmania (UFU) which was lodged with the Commission on 10 July 1990 and sought an increase in wage rates for classifications contained in the Fire Brigades Award of 3%, being the second of two increases made possible by those who could illustrate compliance with the "Structural Efficiency Principle". On 13 July 1990 Anomalies Conference No. 22 considered an application by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council (TTLC) for proposals to vary the Fire Brigades Award to be granted arguable special case status and, as a consequence, for wage claims to be made which exceed the ordinary limits applicable pursuant to the Commission's wage fixing principles. No members of the Anomalies Conference opposed the application and the President granted arguable special case status and initially referred the matter to a Full Bench. Subsequently, the President referred the claim by the UFU to me for hearing and determination. I sought clarification from the applicant as to the precise terms of the claim and consequently allowed an application to amend the formal claim, which was as follows:-
The base rate of pay claimed is inclusive of both a disability allowance (currently $7.00 per week) and service payments which range from $47.40 to $55.80 per week, depending upon actual years of service. The UFU claim represents a significant departure from the existing classification structure contained in the award. This matter has a long history and the case became protracted for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the parties requested various adjournments and held private discussions and negotiations over a long period of time. The Commission encouraged the continuation of these exercises for so long as indications suggested that progress was being made. No doubt that time was well spent, but in the event no mutually acceptable outcome was achieved and the case was therefore finally put to arbitration. The length of formal proceedings in this matter was far in excess of any other case involving consideration of the Fire Brigades Award and this was indicative of the thoroughness of preparation and presentation of both parties. The UFU proposal was for a classification and progression structure based upon the attainment of relevant skills and qualifications which, it said, it understood to be not inconsistent with the broader plans and objectives of the government regarding the creation and maintenance of an increasingly efficient, productive and cost effective fire service for Tasmania. In this regard the UFU argued that its proposals were wholly consistent with that part of the wage fixing principles which went to the adoption of measures designed to enhance the efficiency and productivity of enterprises through the establishment of "skill related career paths which provide an incentive to workers to continue to participate in skill formation". The case was also prosecuted by the UFU on a number of separate, but sometimes interrelated grounds. Principal among those grounds was an actual devolution of responsibilities throughout the whole of the ranking structure, together with a new requirement that as from January 1992, promotion to the rank of station officer would be dependent upon the attainment of the TAFE Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Fire Technology). The UFU argued that the adoption of this diploma as both a requirement by the employing authority and a goal for aspiring fire fighters had already resulted in an enhancement of the level of training being provided through the adoption of "Australian Fire Services Draft Competency Standards" and thereby led to increased skills acquisition. These elements together formed an integral part of the UFU case, but were also associated with changes to the conditions under which the work is being performed. The changed conditions related to the use of more sophisticated items of equipment, such as breathing apparatus and suits which enabled longer and closer exposure to fumes, smoke and heat, than had previously been possible; and use of helicopters and abseiling from tall buildings by a number of specialist fire fighters. Mr Devine for the UFU detailed to the Commission the changes which had occurred so far as the responsibilities and functions of various ranks was concerned. As an example Mr Devine submitted at page 18 of transcript of 11 June 1992:-
The Minister Administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 (the Government) correctly took exception to the use of unofficial "position descriptions" which were submitted by the UFU to illustrate alleged changes and I agree that such exhibits in this regard did not have the status they would normally have if they were "official". Nevertheless with this qualification they formed part of the chosen manner in which the UFU wished to illustrate its case and I allowed them to be introduced on that basis only. At pages 19 and 20 of transcript Mr Devine further elaborated upon the extent of changed functions and responsibilities and explained why they had occurred:-
It was submitted that these changes to responsibilities and functions started to occur when superintendents began moving from shift work to day work in October 1991, first occurring in Launceston and later in Hobart in February 1992. Supporting evidence of the changes referred to was contained in copies of correspondence between the Tasmanian Fire Service and the UFU which were presented. In particular the UFU sought to illustrate the existence of what was known as the "Global Manning Agreement" and the recognition given by the employing authority to certain increased responsibilities already recognised through the agreed payment of $10.00 per shift to designated officers in accordance with the "Chain of Command" following the transfer of superintendents to day work. This payment was in the form of a "more responsible duty allowance". And emphasis was given to the fact that this devolution of responsibilities permeated right through the ranks and included "control room operators", which the UFU prefer to now call "communications operators". The UFU contended that the rate for a Tasmanian public sector tradesperson, level 6, when aligned with the qualifications, training, working duties and functions of the fully qualified Tasmanian firefighter can operate as a benchmark from which to determine a more appropriate rate and relativity structure for Tasmanian fire service employees. In this regard it was argued that the qualified 4th year Tasmanian Fire Service firefighter should be in receipt of rates of wages at least equivalent to those of the qualified public sector tradesperson. It was the submission of the UFU that the sought after base rate and relativities rationalisation was consistent with the prescriptions of National Wage Case guidelines concerning the setting of tradesperson rates. It referred in particular to the 1989 National Wage Case decision1 where at page 12 the Full Bench of the federal commission stated:-
Mr Ositis said that the union read this to mean that, in addition to representing a rate that could be applied to qualified tradespersons in a number of industries, the $407 qualified metals and building industries tradesperson rate, was clearly ascribed as a reference point against which the work value of other classifications in other awards could be measured and appropriate base rates and relativities subsequently set. He also said that it is precisely within such a framework that this particular section of its claim is being pursued. In this case, however, rather than utilising the old $407 per week benchmark (now superseded) he suggested that by subsequent developments in the system of wage fixation the UFU proposed to avail itself of what it considered to be a much more relevant and contemporary benchmark and that is that of the Tasmanian public sector level 6 operational tradesperson rate which was set down in the decision as $453.10 per week. This rate was determined as being relevant to a tradesperson in sectors of the Tasmanian State Service by a Full Bench of this Commission in the Public Sector Awards wage case - Further Interim Decision2 - 29 November 1991. Such a tradesperson was described in appendix 2 of the decision, which was in the form of a "model award". The UFU claimed that a detailed description of classification standards and definitions relating to "supervision" and "general supervision" which were determined by the Full Bench could equally be equated to those now applying to a first class firefighter (level 1). More particularly the classification standard set by the Full Bench for a level 6 position provides as follows: Level 6 Under general supervision either individually or in a team environment, performs trade work requiring a high level of trade skill, employs initiative and judgment above that undertaken at the general trades level; or Under limited direction, operates vehicles/equipment requiring an advanced level of skill; or Under limited supervision, supervises, plans and co-ordinates the work of small work teams or controls the operations of an organisational element of a program which undertakes predominantly a variety of manual tasks. A person in a supervisory role at this level could be expected to exercise initiative and judgment in solving day to day operational problems including -
And the Full Bench also defined "general supervision" and "limited direction" which the UFU said also accorded with the type of duties, functions, and responsibilities now required of a first class firefighter (level 1). The UFU submitted that it also had proper grounds for calling into aid the terms expressed by the "Work Value Principle", as there had been a significant net addition in the nature of the work, skill and responsibilities and the conditions under which the work is performed. In this regard the UFU said that their circumstances had much in common with an earlier decided case which was accepted by the then Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In his decision3 of 8 March 1985 Mr Commissioner Payne noted that in the matter then before him two significant developments were highlighted i.e.:-
The UFU submitted that the criteria used for assessing change, which was accepted by Mr Commissioner Payne in the Alcoa matter, could well be adapted to a fire service situation. The criteria which was accepted at that time for assessing change was:-
Other authoritative decisions which endorsed the same approach as Mr Commissioner Payne and which were said to have much in common with the circumstances of this case were put forward as exhibits and formed part of the UFU case. One such decision emanated from the Industrial Commission of South Australia (B C Stanley President; Mr Commissioner R W Fairweather; and Mr Commissioner M G McCulcheon) dated 18 July 1991,4 and concerned a new classification career structure for the employees covered by the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service - Firefighters and Ancillary Employees Award. In that matter the Full Industrial Commission accepted the new career structure put forward by the parties and found that the wage increases sought were justified in accordance with the structural efficiency and special case principles which had been determined in the State Wage Case decision 1989. The UFU quoted a number of passages from the South Australian decision, including the fact that it accepted establishment of the position of 1st Class Firefighter, level 1, as the appropriate benchmark tradesperson level. In this regard the following is to be found at page 6 of the decision:-
It was claimed by the UFU that the approach adopted in that matter was supportive of the case being put in this matter. The datum point from which the UFU sought to measure work value change was 1 January 1988, and this was not a contested issue. Sworn evidence was presented by the UFU from a number of witnesses whose testimony can be categorised under four (4) broad headings:
The witnesses called by the UFU were:-
In addition to the calling of witness evidence the UFU organised inspections which were carried out at the Training Division at Cambridge where a number of demonstrations were staged. These included a fire rescue from a purpose-built building; extinguishment procedures in relation to an actual LPG fire of high intensity; and identification of evidence of fire causes in a purpose-built facility. The Commission and parties were also given the benefit of seeing operational staff in an exercise at Red Cross House which was smoke-filled; Control Room operations at Hobart Headquarters and associated training facilities at the same establishment; and a high building descent by the special rescue squad at the Hobart Marine Board building. The UFU acknowledged that the work value principle requires that the strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that there must have been a change in the nature of the work which constitutes such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification. In this regard Mr Ositis submitted that the evidence of witnesses demonstrated that a feature of the work in the State Fire Service over the recent past has been that there has been a devolution of responsibility across all ranks of firefighter and firefighting officers, as well as control room operators. It was said that virtually all ranks of operational staff have had to assume a range of responsibilities previously held by his or her senior. Similarly, the level of available supervision of operational staff has declined effectively as a function of devolution of responsibility and, to a certain extent, lack of availability of supervisory staff. The UFU argued that this situation, in fact, does meet the first and what is probably the central test of the work value change principle, that indeed the work duties and function of operational staff have changed to a significant degree in terms of their responsibilities. These changes have been as a result of various initiatives with respect to fire service staffing, such as the global manning policy, the rationalisation of the fire service from previously an urban and rural section into a single fire service. It was argued that these changes have brought changes in the nature of the work to such a degree as to constitute a significant net addition to work requirements, so much so as to warrant the creation of a new classification or perhaps, more correctly in this case, the upgrading of staff to a higher classification. Mr Ositis for the UFU said that whilst the principle specifies that an allowance should be payable in the event that only a few employees undertake the higher level of work, and only perhaps from time to time the present case is that virtually all ranks of operational staff have experienced and, indeed, continue to experience the impact on a day-to-day basis of this devolution of responsibility. It was argued that the changes that it had identified had not been previously comprehended in any work evaluation or structural efficiency exercise under the principles of wage fixing. In referring to the conditions under which the work is performed, the UFU contended that the environment in which the work is done is increasingly more hazardous for firefighters and firefighting officers. In explaining this the UFU said that whilst the equipment and techniques may have become more sophisticated, and perhaps in some respects appeared to have made the job safer, the risk had not been eliminated or necessarily made less hazardous. Mr Ositis said that in fact some of the more sophisticated equipment and techniques have ironically made the job less safe in that it has enabled firefighters to tackle the hazard more effectively rather than simply leaving it and departing to a safe distance from the scene. It was also contended by the UFU that it had established that the work value of firefighters, firefighting officers and control room operators was inappropriately measured at the moment in that the current base rates have not properly reflected work duties and functions being carried out. It said that when these particular elements of Tasmanian Fire Service operational staff work value are assessed against the components which go to make up the Tasmanian Public Sector tradesperson rate, that is at level 6, then the base rate of firefighters, officers and control room operators should be at least the equivalent rate. The UFU contend that not only are the responsibilities of a first class firefighter (Level 1) in the Tasmanian Fire Service at least as great as that of a tradesperson in other areas of the state service but firefighters are exposed to a much greater occupational risk than would, for example, the qualified tradesperson employed in a relatively static environment such as a workshop or, indeed, a manufacturing environment. The UFU relied also upon consideration of the improved training of staff which is now provided by reference to the National Firefighting Industry Draft Competency Standards, which in turn arose out of a set of documents known as the National Firefighting Industry Training Codes. Considerable detail was provided and the parties were greatly assisted in this regard by the evidence of Mr Alan Shaw who was involved in the development of both the Tasmanian Fire Service training program and the competency standards required to be achieved at various levels. The introduction and use of the Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Fire Technology) which was developed by TAFE Tasmania for the fire service was given much weight by the UFU to support its case. In dealing separately with the changed role of control room officers, special mention was made of the fact that not only have they been affected by the general devolution of responsibilities and revised training to enhance skills but the last few years has seen the introduction of a single regional control room in the north of the state which replaced two old control rooms in Launceston that dealt with country and urban fire services. Mr Devine said that the operators have had to learn new skills and procedures to be able to work in the new centre and that the northern regional centre is the first step in a major overhaul of communication centres in the state. Furthermore, in the near future it is the fire service's intention to go to a single regional control centre in the southern region of Tasmania. He believed that in the not too distant future it is conceivable that there could be a single control room for the whole state. Regionalised control has meant that these operators are required, during fire permit periods, to receive permit information from the entire region which constitutes half of the state. In addition they are now required to list information by municipality, and keep summary sheets for permits that are issued. Operators must plot locations of fires and permits on maps and update this information as permits expire. Permit information must now be collated and faxed to all forestry officers in the region. A changed circumstance is that operators today are the first contact for the media and are expected to keep the media informed of incidents and general enquiries on fires in the region. They must now maintain a register of the movements and contactability of urban and regional staff so they may be kept informed of any events requiring them to return to work. They are also required to compile and transmit situation reports on daily activities and on major incidents to headquarters. It was said that circumstances may now exist where the control room operator is, more often than not, in the communication centre on his/her own. Mr Devine advised the Commission that there has been a large increase in the type of records that need to be kept and updated, not least of which is a contact list, telephone numbers of personnel, alarm record information, together with the updating of municipal and state fire disaster plans. The Commission was also apprised of considerable other details relating to the control room operators added responsibilities, including the need for knowledge of the type of personnel and firefighting facilities and equipment available at various times in rural areas. The same operators are now required to use upgraded computer equipment which had been installed at Launceston, Hobart and Burnie control centres. All control room operators from Hobart and some from northern Tasmania were sent to Perth, Western Australia in 1989 to be trained in the use of these computer systems. As a further illustration of the upgraded responsibilities of control room operators it was reiterated that these persons are now responsible for the security, issue and maintenance of security of keys of buildings for which fire service alarms are connected. This important function was previously the responsibility of the superintendent and duty officer. The Minister opposed the UFU claim through the calling of witnesses, the production of exhibits and through submissions. The first witness called by the Minister was Mr John Brian Gledhill who is the Regional Officer of the Southern Region of the Tasmanian Fire Service. He has been with this organisation since its inception in 1979 and prior to that was with the Rural Fires Board since 1974. Mr Gledhill gave details of the changes to management structures and altered areas of responsibilities which had occurred in recent years. He also said that in this context he believed the same fundamental skills were being utilised as previously, and the integration of urban and rural brigades and changes in the scope of the Fire Brigades Award had financially advantaged some classifications from the rural areas. He said the effect on district officers varied from district to district, but the most significant change to them was that they were given a wider responsibility to cover all brigades in their area. Mr Gledhill also dealt with the way in which the training program for recruit firefighters needed to be revised as a consequence of the integration of the rural and urban brigades. He said that recruit training used to be 12 weeks. It was then increased to 15 weeks to take account of the inclusion of additional subjects, some of which were related to country firefighting. From the beginning of 1988 the training course was further extended to 17 weeks to take account of a greater amount of subject matter relating to country firefighting. The objective of the employer was to create firefighters and officers who had a knowledge of all types of firefighting likely to be encountered anywhere in the State, whether in the city or in country areas. The evidence of Mr Gledhill was that tasks are now done in a more professional manner and there is now far more flexibility to move officers within the organisation. At that stage of proceedings (on 28 July, 1992) the Government indicated to the Commission that there were a number of other issues that it believed were part of structural efficiency and award restructuring matters which would be pursued before the public sector Full Bench which was said to be dealing with such matters at that time. However the Government subsequently decided to make a separate application (T.3969) to vary the Fire Brigades Award in a comprehensive manner. This application was also referred to me but, given its late receipt in relation to the point reached in the UFU matter, was separately heard. Following the presentation of Mr Gledhill's evidence the Minister called Mr Graham Otley, Brigade Chief attached to the Launceston Fire Brigade. Mr Otley gave details of the extent of his responsibility in the northern area. He agreed that his primary tasks and levels of responsibility are the same as for that of Hobart Fire Brigade Chief. Mr Otley also dealt in some detail with the duties, responsibilities and functions of other levels of personnel under his area of responsibility, together with changes which occurred in training, devolution of responsibility and improved union co-operation on a range of matters following the reaching of the "State Fire Commission (Interim Structural Efficiency Changes) Industrial Agreement", effective from 1 January 1991. However, he said that the knowledge and skills of other fire service personnel would not have changed. From his visits to the other states of Australia Mr Otley was able to say that in his view the standards of competency and efficiency reached by superintendents and station officers in Tasmania are most certainly equal to those prevailing in Adelaide, and are "on a par" with those in the Queensland Fire Service. He said that he had not been in a position to make similar comparisons so far as other classifications are concerned. Sworn evidence was also given by Mr Peter Alexander after being called by the Government. Mr Alexander is Brigade Chief of the Hobart Fire Brigade. His evidence included details of the benefits flowing from the Global Manning Agreement. He said that whereas there previously existed definitive minimum manning levels, subsequently there was a requirement that officers demonstrate a capacity to manage the resources available as best they could and were now directly accountable for their decisions. Previously, they would have simply referred day to day problems to their superintendent, but now that has changed. One of the most significant benefits which was mentioned was a reduction in overtime work through recalls. He also dealt with issues such as the effects of taking superintendents off shift work and having them on day shift permanently. Mr Alexander said that:
and later when the question of global manning and training were raised:
The Minister recalled Mr Alan Shaw whose evidence covered a range of matters going to the operation of the Training Division and the responsibilities of training officers. In addition Mr Shaw's evidence went to the matter of training activities and competencies; the TAFE Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Fire Technology); the relevance of trade skills to firefighting; and the development of national competencies for firefighters and fire officers. Among other things Mr Shaw said the Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Fire Technology) is now the mandatory qualification for promotion to the rank of Station Officer, Grade 2. The Government also called upon Mr John Edward Dineley to give sworn evidence. Mr Dineley has a long history of involvement in technical education and is a former principal of the Hobart Technical College. His evidence addressed the requirement to achieve tradespersons status and associated matters. Further submissions were presented by the Minister for Industrial Relations in relation to the cost implications of the UFU claim, if it was granted. In this regard Dr Dan Norton explained the fiscal situation of Tasmania and said the State had a lack of flexibility in coping with any additional expenditure requirements. Dr Norton quoted from relevant parts of the Budget Speeches 1992 - 93, Budget Paper No 1, and a publication titled "Tasmania - Economic, Insights and Outlook 1991 - 92 Annual Review". Dr Norton said it was the Government's view that, given the priorities that the State has in getting its finances back together, it does not have a capacity to pay any increases in salaries which are a result of non-cost neutral outcomes. Next, Mr Ogle addressed this Commission's Wage Fixing Principles as determined by the Full Bench decision5 of 13 August 1991, and in particular the Work Value Principles. In this regard Mr Ogle had this to say:
Mr Ogle also quoted extensively from the August 1989 National Wage Case Decision6 to support the view that wage increases available from whatever principle is used are limited. Quotes were also taken from other decided cases. Some emphasis was given by Mr Ogle to the continued relevance of the Structural Efficiency Principle and the need to join with this "special case" an exhaustive list of conditions matters contained in the Minister's separate application which was lodged only at a time when the UFU case was completed, save for exercising its final right of reply. In response the UFU opposed the joining of the two applications and submitted that it was entitled to have considered its application for the creation of a more appropriate base rate and relativity structure which is more appropriately reflective of the work of fire service operational staff. In this regard Mr Ositis said the UFU had actively sat down with the employer to discuss the other agenda but somewhat despaired at ultimately not being able to reach any agreement. Furthermore the UFU rejected any suggestion that increases previously gained under the "Structural Efficiency Principle" had been obtained under "false pretences". In the result I did not join the two matters but heard them separately. Next, Mr Ogle went through a number of position descriptions and said that in the Government's view duties of the various officers had not changed. He said also it is important that classification standards are incorporated into the award. Mr Ogle put forward an exhibit (MASSA37) which represented the Government's position in relation to salaries and relativities. The salaries assumed no work value increases but were current salaries which also incorporated various allowances currently contained in the award, together with absorption of a current higher duties allowance which is being paid. A separate submission was made on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations (the Minister). In this regard Mrs Burgess referred to the Wage Fixing Principles and the Full Bench Decision7 of 30 October 1989 and what it said in relation to "Special Cases". Mrs Burgess also quoted from both the transcript of Anomalies Conference No 22 of 13 July 1990 and the Wage Fixing Principles to illustrate "Special Cases" should be considered in accordance with the structural efficiency and other relevant principles. She said some structural efficiency items have not yet been progressed to finality and the Interim Structural Efficiency Agreement which enabled the payment of the second 3% wage increase has only a life of 3 years from 1 January 1991 and it is predicated on all agreed changes being included in the final award after the special case is completed. The submission of Mrs Burgess refuted that the UFU had proved a work value case and said any changes which had occurred have either been taken into account in previous work value cases, prior to the agreed datum point of 1 January 1988; have been taken into account under structural efficiency; or are evolutionary changes. She said the South Australian decision was a consent matter and was not relevant to Tasmania in the Minister's view because there are structural and other differences in the two fire brigades and the type of areas they each serve. Mrs Burgess also reminded the Commission of the earlier submission by Dr Norton and the Commission's obligation to consider public interest in accordance with Section 36 of the Act. Mr Ogle subsequently put forward a number of position descriptions for the purpose of supporting the Government's case that the duties of various classifications have not changed. Other exhibits which were put forward contained classification standards which, it was submitted, should be incorporated in the award, together with proposed award clauses going to criteria for advancement to replace the present award clause titled "Promotions". The Government's proposal was to re-affirm present salary levels and relativities on the basis of there being no alteration to work value, but at the same time it supports the conversion of weekly rates of wages to annual salaries which absorb all allowances, i.e.:- (a) Disability Allowance Mr Ogle told the Commission that the Tasmanian Fire Service had earlier incorporated a steering committee and its views and the Government's position are as one. In this regard Mr Ogle said:-
Mr Ogle argued that there was no work value case to answer and that the increases sought by the UFU should really be categorised as falling within the area of structural efficiency measures which have already been compensated. Reference was also made to costings if the claim was granted in full and Mr Ogle said the claim would be $1.78 million if allowances are to be included in total salaries, and if not a further $100,000 per annum would need to be added. Mr Ogle dissected each facet of the UFU case in some details and in relation to the devolution of responsibilities previously held by superior ranks, Mr Ogle said:-
and later:-
Decision The UFU claim sought the introduction of a new classification structure, revised relativities and base rates of pay, with the pivotal classifications being that of first class firefighter (after 3 years' service) and a senior communications operator (on completion of 2 years' service) which it equated with a tradesperson in the State Service. Whilst the Government opposed any pay rises, it too accepted the need to restructure award classifications in order to improve efficiency and enhance clearer career paths. Both parties agreed to the concept of annualised instead of weekly salaries, but whilst the Government wished to absorb all allowances, the UFU believed that only service payments, the computer allowance and the disability allowance should be absorbed. It was also mutually recognised that appropriate definitions, classification standards and transitional arrangements need to be included in the award, however, there was disagreement as to essential details. The most fundamental differences between the parties concerned the question of salary levels and their percentage settings, based upon "structural efficiency", "work value considerations" and "special case criteria". The Commission must also be satisfied on public interest criteria. I now deal with each of those criteria under their respective headings:- 1. Structural Efficiency The evidence is that over a period of time preceding this case, and indeed at various stages since the lodgement of its claim, the UFU has significantly co-operated with management to ensure that measures to meet the competitive requirements of the enterprise, i.e. the State Fire Service, have been positively examined. Quite a number of important changes going to such matters as reduced manning levels and more flexible hours of work have already been implemented. These positive consultative procedures which have resulted in changes to conditions (with salary increases up to the general limits allowable) have been consistent with the requirements of the Structural Efficiency Principle. Further discussions and negotiations have continued to produce positive outcomes going to other conditions matters, but finally a minority of those items which could not be agreed have been left for arbitration and are awaiting a decision. It is well understood by the parties that there may be some of those remaining agenda items which need to eventually go to a Full Bench and this will cause further unavoidable delay. Thus it is self evident that structural efficiency measures are properly ongoing and there ought to be no suggestion that they have some finite date of completion because this would be inconsistent with the whole thrust of the principles. An important part of the restructuring process which has been neglected for too long goes to :-
I therefore decide to accept, as the parties do, that there is a case for revising the classification structure contained in the award and setting appropriate relativities. Similarly, I accept that the award should include definitions, position descriptions and criteria for advancement. 2. Special Case The Government and the Minister argued that any changes which have occurred have either been taken into account in previous work value cases prior to 1 January 1988; are evolutionary in nature; are part of structural efficiency measures which are yet to be completed; or form part of the Interim Structural Efficiency Agreement which has a life of 3 years from 1 January, 1991. The current "special case" principle provides that:
However, at the time this application was referred to me and prior to the revision of the principles in February 1992 the special case principle was differently worded. It then provided as follows:
In my view the variation which occurred in February 1992 does not alter the essential requirement that cases should continue to be considered in accordance with the structural efficiency and other relevant principles. Whilst I accept that there should be neither any interruption to the progression of structural reform or any deviation from commitments given in this regard, I am entitled to assess the value of the work currently being performed on proper criteria, to discount that which needs to be discounted; and then finally to see if further adjustment is warranted to give effect to the Wage Fixing Principles as a whole, and consistent with public interest. 3. Public Interest Section 36 of the Act requires the Commission to be satisfied that any award made is consistent with the public interest. In deciding this question the Commission shall:
The Minister called Dr Norton as an agent to make a submission on behalf of the Government as an employer. Apart from providing a lucid explanation of the Government's fiscal situation and budget objectives Dr Norton said it was the Government's view that, given its priorities it does not have a capacity to pay any increases in salaries which are the result of non-cost neutral outcomes. Whilst the Government's aims and objectives in reducing the net financing requirement (NFR) as rapidly as possible are understood, this is a policy position and is not to be confused with "economic incapacity" which of course can be argued if necessary by recourse to that particular principle. Government policy in relation to wage increases, like the policy settings of any other employer of labour can change form time to time to meet different priorities, but the Commission is required to be consistent in dealing with each matter on merit in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and Wage Fixing Principles in force. I am not satisfied that, given the delays which have occurred and the phasing-in arrangements of the modest wage increase I have granted,? there should be any adverse effects to the economic circumstances of the Tasmanian Fire Service given its special funding arrangements and, savings already made, nor to the economy of Tasmania or the level of employment. Conversely I am satisfied that it is consistent with public interest to support those measures which will enhance the productivity and efficiency of the Tasmanian Fire Service by setting appropriate career paths for its employees and at salary settings which are commensurate with the levels of skills and responsibility being applied in a co-operative and conscientious way. 4. Work Value The UFU produced witnesses who testified to the fact that the Tasmanian Fire Service has been subjected to constant change with a marked acceleration over the past 2 to 3 years. Those changes have been in the areas of training; communications; the role, function and responsibilities of all staff; the encouragement of more decision making; grater flexibility of functions; the creation of an integrated fire service; a devolution of responsibility; the introduction of more advanced appliances and equipment; and the development of a small specialist rescue fire fighting unit. Documentary evidence supported much which had occurred, especially in relation to reduced manning policies, training manuals, and requirements as to advancement. The evidence of most of the Government's witnesses tended to substantially support statements made by the UFU witnesses, apart from different emphasis. Typical of this situation was the senior ranking Government witness who said most of the increased responsibilities of recent times affect those at the top, but then conceded that he would not be surprised if this devolution of responsibility filtered right down through the other ranks of the State Fire Service. In my view there have been some evolutionary changes, and they and some others commenced before the datum point and then continued past it. The effects of integration of the rural and urban fire services is a good example. Accordingly, allowance needs to be made for the fact that such changes have previously been taken into account. Equally, there is a residue of other matters in a similar category and named under labels such as "agency specific" matters which are still in the process of implementation. Similarly, some changes have impacted more upon some regions of the State than on others to this time, and specialist groups such as those who use abseiling and helicopters are only small. Over and above this there have been clearly dramatic changes of late which have constituted a significant net addition to work requirements and, in my assessment, have not been fully compensated. Of special significance is the fact that training has been extended and, at the same time, become more structured. This in turn impacted upon skill acquisition. There has also been a marked increase in responsibility throughout all ranks, and I am of the view that there remains a residue of compensation due to those who have been affected. I have therefore decided that a case has been made out for some further wage adjustment in respect of all classifications conditional upon the continued implementation of structural efficiency measures. 5. Form of Adjustment Apart from the question of wage rates the Government and the UFU adopted different positions in relation to a number of associated matters, e.g. -
Whilst earlier working parties have apparently made progress in reconciling many of the more fundamental issues, the failure of the parties to finally arrive at a consensus situation has presented the Commission with a task which would normally be outside of its charter. I have therefore decided to issue an "in-principle" decision which will be interim in nature but will address key areas of disagreement. Having done that I will require the Government and the UFU to form a working party to address the balance of matters outstanding. I would be surprised if agreement could not then be reached, but the avenue of recourse back to the Commission will be an encouragement to settle any points needing further direction. Finally there will be a reconvened hearing to conclude still outstanding matters at a date to be fixed. 6. Revised Salaries The UFU based its claim largely upon the model award streams determined by the Public Sector Full Bench8 issued on 20 November 1991. In particular the UFU sought parity with classification standard, level 6, tradesperson (equivalent) with a salary of $23,561 per annum for a firefighter on completion of 3 years of service. Whilst the Full Bench decided on 23 April 1993 to move away from the service wide process for dealing with award restructuring, conditions reform and workplace efficiency issues, it never the less said at page 2 -
However, reference to those standards and those rates of wages in this matter can be no more than a guide because firefighting is a unique occupation and the same Full Bench decided with the President to divorce this award from other awards then before it. I am aware also that the rate at which State Service tradespersons are to be paid at the entry level is the subject of some controversy at the present time and may need to be settled by a Full Bench. For these reasons I am not prepared to create such a nexus at this time. In the alternative I have made an independent assessment of work value increase since 1 January 1988 to the present time and taken into consideration a discounting factor, and it is therefore my decision that:
Initially all relevant award allowances are to continue to be added separately where they ordinarily apply.
The Commission may be involved as necessary. Date of Operation Salary adjustments determined by this decision shall apply in two steps. The first increase of 5% shall come into operation from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 January 1994. The second increase, representing the balance in money terms, shall come into operation from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 July 1994 Order is attached.
A Robinson Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 Print H9100 |