TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Decision Appealed - See T5452

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.23 application for award or variation of award

Australian Municipal, Administrative,
Clerical and Services Union
(T.4146 of 1992)
(T.2311 of 1990)

and

Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
(T.2225 of 1989)

COMMUNITY SERVICES AWARD

Award variation - classification structure/definitions

REASONS FOR DECISION

The making of the Community Services Award has been a protracted exercise. The background to it was addressed in previous decisions1 therefore it is not necessary to do so again. Suffice it to say the applications in this matter date back to November 1989 when application T2225 of 1989 was made by the then Tasmanian Confederation of Industries for the making of the Community Services (Private Sector) Award. Subsequently the then Australian Social Welfare Union, Tasmania Branch in matter T2311 of 1990 sought award coverage for the industry of Community and Social Welfare Services. The foregoing applications along with application T2691 of 1990 by the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch (HSUA), which was for the variation of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award to create a new Division in that award, were all joined for hearing purposes. The application by the HSUA was later permitted to be withdrawn by the Full Bench which determined the Title and Scope of the Community Services Award2. For completeness it should be noted that the HSUA's withdrawal of application T2691 of 1990 was predicated on a Memorandum of Understanding between the then Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch and the Australian Social Welfare Union, Tasmanian Branch. This was a demarcation document applicable to those unions and is attached as Appendix 1. The parties are also reminded that they had agreed to examine and seek to vary the scope clauses of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award and the Hospitals Award in order to prevent those awards cutting across each other and across the Community Services Award. This task should not be overlooked.

Following the making of the Community Services Award by the Full Bench as discussed above, the finalisation of the award in respect of content was referred to the Commission as constituted in this matter. The primary vehicle for that process was application T4146 of 1992 by the Australian Social Welfare Union, Tasmanian Branch. Subsequently the Commission gave progressive effect3 to consent conditions of employment for inclusion in the Community Services Award. Those decisions chronicle the progress of the parties in gradually securing conditions of employment in the award through a process of constructive co-operation.

Given the diversity of this industry, it is a credit to the parties that they have achieved so much by way of agreement. Mr Fitzgerald and more recently Mr Watson for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (TCCI) are commended for their efforts as is Mr Kay for the Community Services Employer Organisation Tasmania (CSEOT) who provided additional impetus to the finalisation of this case. The commitment of Mr Paterson for the ASWU and in the latter part for the Australian Municipal Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMACSU) to see this matter through to finality was outstanding. He was a driving force in these matters over the years and in my opinion richly deserves that acknowledgment.

As indicated much was achieved in this case by consent. However notwithstanding many attempts by the parties issues relating to classification structure and definitions, rates of pay relativities and a classification implementation schedule were not able to be agreed. Training and study leave arrangements were also not resolved. Submissions on all these matters commenced on 27 September 1994 and hearings were concluded on 10 November 1994. Those submissions are now considered.

Mr Paterson submitted that the joint TCCI and AMACSU survey of wages and conditions applicable in the community services industry showed that rates of pay varied significantly throughout the industry and were not regulated by market forces. He informed the Commission that rates of pay related to funding arrangements which had no relationship to any relevant wage fixing principle. In that context Mr Paterson submitted that the Structural Efficiency Principle should be relied upon for the determination of the classification structure and appropriate wage rate relativities. Mr Paterson submitted that the classification structure put forward by AMACSU gave effect to the Structural Efficiency Principle because it established skill related career paths, provided for skill acquisition, created relativities between different categories of workers within the award and fixed proper rates of pay for each classification.

Mr Paterson submitted that the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) was one of the major components in the community services industry. He stated that the review of the SAAP in a report titled "Moving On" (Exhibit ASU 13) contained elements that "will cascade down to shaping how service providers designed and developed services and the relationship between service delivery and the people delivering the service" (transcript p218). Mr Paterson submitted that funding bodies i.e. governments were demanding that certain outcomes were required to be achieved. In that regard Mr Paterson said that in work value terms client assessment, a case management approach, improved access to and linkages with other related services and improved strategic planning, contributed to the worth of the work being performed by service providers. Mr Paterson made the point that service delivery had been fairly adhoc and the range of functions required varied enormously between community service organisations. Mr Paterson said:

"I think we can look to some of the services we visited on our inspections, being Bethlehem House, City Mission Service in Launceston, Centacare's Barton Lodge, the Devonport Youth Shelter, the range of functions that were required of their employees varied enormously. What we are now getting is a direction which will, in my submission, mean that most employees involved with a significant client contact will be required to be across the skills involved in assessment case management than intervention.

Further on and perhaps more pertinently on page 9, we see an emphasis that is applied as part of this government offices review on training. And the building on current infrastructure, as it says in the second major paragraph there towards the end, as one course that could be adopted building on current infrastructure such as TAFE courses that provide formal qualifications, could be one strategy adopted. Without in any way pre-determining what shape or form that training is going to take, this strategy for a significant and major funded program in this industry has got a renewed commitment to training and the training of the people engaged in delivering services.

Going further on in the document to page 11, 12 through to 14, there are a number of special issues identified which I think also, whilst not intending here and now to go into any great detail on the, indicate that there are areas of need that have been identified that relate to specialist clients, in particular clients suffering from mental health problems, young people, which has always been a target client group of the SAAP program certainly since it has been known and developed and implemented as such, children accompanying parents and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people from non English speaking backgrounds.

My intention in tabling this is to essentially to point to some of the developments that are happening that show the trends in the industry and the things that reinforce the need for an appropriate classification structure to deal with those and to enable the industry to deal with these trends when it comes to questions of designing and developing and implementing jobs and job descriptions."

My underlining Transcript p219/20

Mr Paterson tendered Exhibits ASU 13 to 15 to demonstrate to the Commission that the nature of the industry was diverse and that the conditions under which people worked generally meant that supervision defined the way work was monitored. He submitted that the AMACSU structure was developed on the basis that regular supervision "where work is subject to progress checking is only at the Community Services Worker Level 1" (transcript p227). Mr Paterson submitted that general supervision was the general trend and that at higher levels it could be categorised "minimal general" (transcript p227) or it was by way of reporting. He said:

"Immediate supervision is used to refer to the situation in which the supervising employee is normally immediately available, and I've used direction as the more extensive definition which is used to distinguish people's jobs and the nature of responsibility by virtue of how they are given their instructions or how they are told or directed to perform their duties and it's my submission that that - that that use, subject to whatever may be put forward by other parties but I believe that this stands as a useful and appropriate range and typology, if you like, of supervision and direction."

Transcript p227

Mr Paterson referred to the hierarchy of definitions set out in Exhibit ASU 11 which related to the various classification levels. Mr Paterson indicated that these would assist in the clarification and interpretation of the classification structure and definitions appropriate to the Community Services industry.

Mr Paterson informed the Commission that Appendix 1 to Exhibit ASU 11 was a guide to making the classification structure work and facilitated a proper understanding of its features. It also enabled the determination of appropriate classification levels for the translation of employees. Mr Paterson submitted that the format of the document was predicated on five key sections applicable to each classification, i.e. qualifications and training; broad characteristics of the classification level; requirements relating to knowledge and understanding principles; indicative tasks and responsibility.

Community Services Worker Class I was categorised by Mr Paterson to be concerned with the performance of functions defined by established routines and standards with limited scope for initiative. It entailed the provision of routine information and maintaining basic client and service records. Mr Paterson submitted that the AMACSU's seven level classification structure was built around Community Services Worker Class 2. He said:

"The key issue is, I think - has been for the union the situating an associate diploma without relevant experience at Class 2 at a 105 per cent. That has been what has really shaped the framework of the seven levels, where they come and how they fit together as a package. It's our observation as a union covering this union nationally, that the significant characteristic of work in this industry - as was mentioned by Ms de Vries from the Migrant Resource Centre - is client contact at a very early - well at a very - at virtually the basic and entry level, the lowest levels of classification, I think we can expect to have a significant degree of client contact and the - structure of supervision and direction, the nature of work and how - are key determinants which shape what might appear to be a higher than otherwise acceptable entry level at 90 per cent.

Transcript p230/231

Mr Paterson emphasised that because client contact was a feature of the work in the Community Services industry and because it occurred "at virtually the basic entry level" (transcript p231) of the classification structure that this is where the responsibility was largely derived from.

Mr Paterson stated that the principal issues were the concepts embodied in the classification structure particularly the characteristic tasks, functions and responsibilities. He informed the Commission that it was in respect of the alignment of qualifications and training that the AMACSU and TCCI disagreed. Therefore whilst a seven level structure was agreed, the issue relating to where qualifications and training fitted in the structure was not.

Mr Paterson indicated that Class I was the unqualified entry level but that it remained the AMACSU's position that there should be provision for the recognition of equivalent skills not attained through formal qualifications.

The Class 2 classification was considered by Mr Paterson to be the appropriate entry point for people with an Associate Diploma with no experience. The proposed entry point was at a relativity of 105 per cent. An Associate Diploma holder with 1 year's experience would be classified at Class 2 Level 3 (115 per cent relativity) moving to Class 3, Level 2 (130 per cent relativity) after a further 12 months service.

Mr Paterson submitted that the progression for Associate Diploma holders was to give effect to the relativities that were established initially within the Metals Award framework. The intention was that an Associate Diploma holder would achieve a classification of Class 3 level 4 at 145 per cent relativity. The above may be tabulated as follows:

Mr Paterson also submitted that the AMACSU wished to have recognised that people may enter with an Associate Diploma and no experience or, conversely, they may have considerable experience and may be studying towards an Associate Diploma qualification or its equivalent.

With regard to progression within the classification structure, Mr Paterson submitted that at Classes 1, 2 and 3 progression would be at 12 monthly intervals subject to satisfactory performance assessment until the top level within each Class was achieved. In the event performance appraisals were not undertaken within 15 months from the due date then progression to the next level would be automatic. It was further submitted by Mr Paterson that an "In All Cases" proviso should be included in the award in the terms outlined hereunder, in order to remind award users that the Community Services Award was a minimum rates award and there was no impediment to higher levels of pay where this could be justified or agreed; and to ensure that the appointment of an employee took into account previous experience which facilitated portability of experience in the industry. The proviso was as follows:

"IN ALL CASES:

. increases above the highest level shall be negotiable;

. appointment shall take account of previous service at comparable classification levels, including that prior to the classification clause taking effect;

. an employee shall not be appointed to a level within a classification lower than a previous level of engagement under this award (subject to satisfactory performance);

. by negotiation an employee may commence at a higher level."

Exhibit ASU 11 page 28

Mr Paterson submitted that the features of the Class 2 classification included the scope for employees to exercise initiative within guidelines. In the event supervisory responsibilities were exercised then the employee concerned would commence at Class 2 level 2 (110 per cent relativity). Mr Paterson contended that it was a characteristic of the community services industry that these type of functions were undertaken what in other industries may be seen to be at fairly low levels. Mr Paterson submitted that initiative and judgement would be exercised within a defined framework under the immediate supervision of a higher classified employee. This was said by Mr Paterson to be a significant difference between the positions of the AMACSU and TCCI which contemplated that a Class 2 employee may work without immediate supervision.

With regard to Class 3 the submissions of Mr Paterson ranged over a variety of matters including:

• That Class 3 Level 3 (135 or cent relativity) would be the commencement  point for employees with specialised responsibilities including -

"Where primary responsibility lies in a specialised field, employees at this level would undertake at least some of the following:

. Undertake some minor phase of broad or more complex assignment;

. Provide assistance to higher classified employees;

. Perform duties of a specialised or professional nature;

. Provide a range of information services;

. Plan and co-ordinate elementary community-based projects or programmes;

. Perform moderately complex functions, including social planning, demographic analysis, survey design and analysis;

. Such employees shall commence at Level 3.

Exhibit ASU 11 p13".

The Class 3, level 3 commencement point would also apply to employees with the following responsibilities:

"Is required to exercise functions related to the management of an organisation; or

Co-Ordinates a single programme service or a small, local organisation with a limited range of related programmes, not including specialist services or services outside the industry of community social welfare as defined, provided they are not required to exercise delegated management functions.

Exhibit ASU 11 p14".

Progression for Class 3, Level 3 employees referred to above would be to Class 3, Level 4, (the same as for Community Service Workers holding relevant qualifications) subject to:

"Progression to Level 4 (145%) subject to 12 months satisfactory performance at Level 3 and shall occur where the employee:

* Holds a relevant qualification equivalent to at least Associate Diploma; or

* Exercises functions related to management or co-ordination of a service or programme; or

* Exercises supervisory responsibilities; or

* Is engaged in work of a specialised nature.

Exhibit ASU 11 p14".

Community Services Worker Class 4 was advanced by Mr Paterson as the first level of significant specialisation and as the first substantial level of co-ordination. This was also the point in the structure where entry was able to be achieved for three or four year degree holders with relevant experience. Mr Paterson said:

"...the lesser the qualification, the greater the requirement of experience to attain the same level of skill."

Transcript p279

Mr Paterson submitted some of the key characteristics of this classification contemplated that employees:

"... will be expected to contribute knowledge in establishing procedures in the appropriate work related field and to exercise considerable discretion and initiative. In addition, employees at this level may be required to supervise various functions within a work area or activities of a complex nature."

Transcript p279

Mr Paterson also referred to that part of Exhibit ASU 11 relevant to Class 4 where it was indicated that employees would be expected to exercise supervision of other employees or volunteers. Also that they would be expected to set outcomes and further develop work methods where general procedures were not defined.

Without canvassing the characteristics, qualifications and training required in respect of the remaining classification levels in Exhibit ASU 11, it is important to indicate that Mr Paterson advanced the classification structure on the basis that the community services industry was extremely diverse and that the hierarchical structure in Exhibit ASU 11 was based on experience, qualifications and training and the requirements of the job and each classification class effectively built on that which was established for the Class below. This approach was adopted for each succeeding classification all the way to Class 7. Mr Paterson indicated that the Class 7 classification would have application to positions such as the Executive Director of Tascoss, Director of Marriage Guidance and the Executive Director of the Family Planning Association.

Mr Paterson submitted that in developing its classification structure the AMACSU took note of a number of other exercises in the Commission. In that regard Mr Paterson said:

"The central feature that I draw attention to is that this proposed relativity between the seven classifications effectively puts in place in this industry a structure that is comparable to that found in other industries that have gone through comparable exercises, especially in relationship to this jurisdiction, the evidence I have tabled contained in ASU 19, is what I draw specific attention to. Whilst the industry is not that of surveying or drafting, or professional engineers or scientists, they key qualifications are aligned. The Associate Diploma in Community Services, that which was tabled in ASU 18 has been accredited as an Associate Diploma. It is of a standing equivalent to any other Associate Diplomas - or to comparable Associate Diplomas. Noting in particular the hours of the Associate Diploma in ASU 18, the course work hours are something like 924 with a further 400 in field work placement."

Transcript p288

Having regard to the reference to Exhibit ASU 19, the awards identified by Mr Paterson in that Exhibit were the Professional Engineers and Scientists (Private Industry) Award; Surveyors (Private Industry) Award and the Draughting and Technical Officers (Private Industry) Award. Mr Paterson also made the comparison between Class 2 Community Services Worker and a Level 2 Technical Worker subject to the Public Sector Award Restructuring Case4 where the minimum qualification required was an Associate Diploma. Mr Paterson submitted that one of the difficulties in the Community Services Award classification matter was that there was not a comparable structure or award to refer to. Accordingly the documentation in Exhibit ASU 24 and ASU 25 relating to the Technical Employees and Administrative and Clerical Employees award streams and the material in Exhibit ASU 19 dealing with, inter alia, the Surveyors (Private Industry) Award was tendered as supporting documentation for the classification structure in Exhibit ASU 11. Mr Paterson also referred to the Social and Community Services Award of South Australia, Exhibit ASU 20, which specified a Level 2 entry point for "appropriate diploma" holders without experience. It should be noted that Level 2 in the South Australian Award provided a relativity range of 105-119 per cent in four increments.

Mr Paterson submitted that the Commission should have regard to the Metals framework in determining relativities which provided for a 125 per cent entry point for a three year degree and 130 per cent for a four year degree. He said that these relativities were contained in Exhibit ASU 11. However with regard to descriptions Mr Paterson stated that the various awards referred to by him were indicators of appropriate standards only and the AMACSU standards were drawn from witnesses and information gathered from inspections. Reference to other awards was to reinforce as valid the position of the AMACSU as set out in the classification structure in Exhibit ASU 11.

Mr Paterson submitted that the AMACSU classification structure had regard for the structural efficiency principle which required that classifications were established with appropriate relativities between them. He contended that the classification structure in Exhibit ASU 11 provided a skill related career path and an incentive for employees to continue with skill formation. It was said that the structure met the needs of the industry and accommodated a diversity of services in terms of the type size and nature of work done in those services. Also that it provided an appropriate way to classify employees in accordance with a range of factors including sole employees in a singe service through to co-ordination of multi programs in multi outlet services such as Anglicare. Mr Paterson said:

"The career pathway embraces progressive acquisition of skills and responsibility with increasing specialisation amongst generic service delivery workers. It also embraces the progressive development of a manger/management pathway from co-ordinator through to manager of a sophisticated high level service."

Transcript p302

Mr Brown appearing for the HSUA supported the submissions made by Mr Paterson and the classification structure set out in Exhibit ASU 11. It was submitted by him that this structure complied with the August 1989 State Wage Fixing Principles. In that regard Mr Brown focused on those elements in the Structural Efficiency Principle relating to the establishment of skill related career paths and the continuation by workers to achieve skill acquisition, elimination of impediments to multi skilling and the broadening of the range of tasks which an employee may be required to perform.

Mr Brown submitted that in particular over the last five years considerable progress had been made in respect of Vocational Education and Training systems to better meet the training needs of industry. This was based on competency standards; a national framework for the recognition of training with the objective of providing common requirements or accreditation across Australia; flexibility in terms of competency attainment including the attainment of competencies without going through any formal training processes; the recognition of prior learning and flexibility of training delivery. Mr Brown submitted that the foregoing elements of the Vocational Educational Training systems were designed to allow for multi skilling and to enhance career path options for employees. Mr Brown stated that the net effect was that employees in the future would undertake the majority of their training on the job and that it was important for the Community Services Award to reflect this by recognising progressive competencies attainment whether resulting in a formal qualification or not. He said that the attainment and utilisation of competencies was a life long process and was essential for career advancement. Mr Paterson stated that these aspects were in line with the Structural Efficiency Principle. In that regard Mr Brown submitted that the AMACSU classification structure provided a logical career pathway giving value to the attainment and utilisation of relevant competencies. He submitted that the HSUA's classification structure in Exhibit HSUA 1 outlined progression on the basis of completed Associate Diplomas and Degrees plus experience but also it recognised partial completion of qualifications or the progressive attainment of competencies required in the workplace. Essentially advancement in the structure was facilitated on the basis of experience and or qualifications or a combination of both. The concept advanced by Mr Brown was that on an accumulation of 2 years made up of a variable combination of "Indicative Years of Study" and "Years of Work Experience" the relativity would be at 105 per cent. The relativities would continue as follows:

In respect of the HSUA's position Mr Brown said:

"It is important - the HSUA believes that it is important - that we start to recognise not only completed qualifications as being a single point, but under the new system which increasingly I think takes shape, that competencies don't necessarily form themselves into net qualifications.

In their wisdom, the powers that be have decided to combine the two systems and keep the qualification system, but we see no reason why these industrial awards and particularly under the structural efficiency principle can't recognise both partially completed or in fact fully completed competencies leading towards what we recognise as being qualifications."

Transcript p312/13

Mr Brown submitted that the elimination of impediments to multi skilling and broadening the range of tasks that employees may be required to undertake was significantly advanced by the recognition that a significant part of competency attainment was through on the job experience.

He said that the AMACSU classification structure enabled progressive recognition of competencies and experience and the HSUA structure clarified how that might work. Mr Brown said that the AMACSU structure was in the public interest. He stated that the nature of the work was not routine and whilst the issues may be similar the specifics were not. Mr Brown indicated that a range of skills were required and in many circumstances, particularly crisis type work, a routine approach was not possible given the assessments required to be made to ensure an effective response. Mr Brown also referred to the nature of the work which he submitted meant that employees were constantly dealing with new issues for which they often had no training. He referred to the AIDS-HIV virus as an example where ten years ago the related issues were not known but they were today. Mr Brown informed the Commission that in the 18 years he had worked in this industry employees had to respond to new problems which had not existed previously and "therefore the competencies to continually be responding, learning new approaches and new skills .. is something that all workers within this industry need to address" (transcript p315). Mr Brown submitted that encouraging employees to undertake skills acquisition while in employment by recognising and rewarding such efforts would be to the good of the industry and for the employees involved and was in keeping with the objects of the Structural Efficiency Principle.

Intervention - Minister for Industrial Relations

The Minister for Industrial Relations intervened in these proceedings pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Act. Ms Pammenter appearing for the Minister apologised for the late intervention in this matter indicating that there had been "a lot of speculation" (transcript p323) over comments made by the Minister for Community and Health Services (Minister for Health) in relation to funding matters associated with the introduction of this award. Ms Pammenter said that the Minister for Health held meetings with organisations which expressed different funding expectations regarding this matter. She stated that it was appropriate for some submissions to be put to the Commission and to clarify the position of the Minister for Health.

Ms Pammenter informed the Commission that the Tasmanian Government provided significant levels of funding and that it was its responsibility to ensure that a high quality service was delivered to people requiring assistance. She said with the introduction of the award that the Tasmanian Government had an obligation to ensure that costs were minimised. Out of a total of 175 organisations funded by the Tasmanian Government 15 departmental grants programs were expected to come within the scope of this award costing in the order of $16.06 million per annum. The major component of that went to SAAP which accounted for $6.1 million per annum. HAAC and the Family Support program receives $4.3 and $1.4 million respectively.

The position of the Minister for Health was that clients of those services would not be disadvantaged through the introduction of award rates of pay. Ms Pammenter indicated that whilst preliminary costings had been made, final cost implications would only be known when the award was handed down. As the Minister for Health had a responsibility to ensure that all public funds in his portfolio were allocated on the basis of highest demonstrated need a number of issues would need to be examined including:

. a determination of each organisation's capacity to meet increases within their current allocated budgets;

. an examination of all options which enhanced effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery and administration;

. examination of the structure of organisations and the methods and procedures employed by them;

. proper translation of employees by ensuring that appropriate classification levels were assigned which accurately reflected the work required to be performed.

The Commission was informed that the Minister for Health had held discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister where the issue of Commonwealth supplementation for award wage rates was raised. In order to qualify for supplementation the criteria included the demonstration of efficiency measures and adherence to accepted community standards. In respect of funding supplementation where services were jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the State the Tasmanian Government would be required to match any funding dollar for dollar. It was only in respect of solely funded Commonwealth programs that full supplementation may be available. Ms Pammenter submitted that there were no easy funding solutions and that it would be necessary for the organisations subject to this award to review their operations in order to achieve efficiency outcomes which would be in the best interests of their clients.

TCCI SUBMISSIONS

Mr Watson appearing for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited and the Community Services Employer Organisation Tasmania (TCCI/CSEOT) also informed the Commission that the community services industry in Tasmania had not been previously regulated by award rates of pay. Because of this organisations had determined rates of pay in a number of ways including on what could be afforded, on funding received, on State and Federal award rates and in some cases having regard to market rates. Mr Watson said that a survey of the industry indicated that the average relativity was at 71 per cent to the tradesperson's rate of pay. With the consent introduction of penalty payments in the Community Services Award in July 1994, average increases in some areas, particularly SAAP, "was anything up to 600 per cent" (transcript p326). Mr Watson said that this may be inflated because prior to the introduction of penalty payments some organisations "weren't paying anything at all" (transcript p326). One of the problems referred to by Mr Watson was that notwithstanding the significant efforts of TCCI and CSEOT to ascertain from the industry the likely cost impact of the award, inclusive of conditions of employment matters, many organisations were still unaware of these proceedings and had not responded.

Mr Watson submitted that in developing the TCCI/CSEOT classification structure regard was had for the nature of the industry, the history and methods of pay fixation by organisations; the creation of a career path for employees; to other awards of the Commission with reference to percentage relativities, classification; descriptions and work value considerations; the structural efficiency and first awards wage fixing principles; the effect on organisations of the cost implications having regard also to the impact of conditions of employment matters effective from July 1994. The proposed TCCI/CSEOT classification structure (employers structure) was outlined in Exhibit TCI 8.

That structure was that Community Services Worker Level 1 should commence at 90 per cent relativity and after the first 12 months progress to 95 per cent relativity subject to satisfactory performance. Mr Watson submitted that Level 1 would apply to new employees who would participate in on the job training. He stated that direct supervision and specific direction would be provided and in most cases Level 1 employees would assist employees classified at Level 2. Mr Watson submitted that the general characteristics and tasks of Level 1 matched up with the AMACSU's Community Services Worker Class 1. Mr Watson pointed out that the difference was that Level 1 stopped at 95 per cent whereas the AMACSU classification structure provided for a third relativity point at 100 per cent. Mr Watson submitted that it was inappropriate to have the 100 per cent relativity within the entry level of the classification structure. He said the descriptors (features and characteristics) for Level 1 including the provision of direct and immediate supervision, specific direction and instruction could not be found within the 100 per cent metals relativities where employees at that level were required to work under limited supervision and to exercise some discretion. Mr Watson submitted that if the 100 per cent relativity description in the Public Sector restructuring case5 was considered it would also show employees working under general or limited supervision whilst in turn supervising other staff or work teams and exercising independent judgement.

The Level 2 classification at 100 per cent relativity was said by Mr Watson to be the "first practitioner level" (transcript p328) where it was contemplated that employees would plan and manage their work load with general direction and supervision being provided notwithstanding that tasks would be expected to be carried out without a supervisor being present. Also employees may be required to work on shift or remain on sleepover. Mr Watson submitted that at this Level established guidelines and procedures were required to be followed. Employees would have access to more senior employees for supervision, including through on-call services. Additionally Level 2 employees would be expected to provide assistance and guide a limited number of Level 1 employees and/or volunteers. Formal qualifications would not be required at Level 2.

With regard to Level 3 Mr Watson submitted that this was the first level where it was considered that a qualification "would most probably be a pre requisite or a determining factor in employment" (transcript p330). Mr Watson described this classification Level as the senior practitioner level where employees would be performing a variety of tasks and may have responsibilities for activities within a defined area including planning and co-ordination. Supervision would be general and limited direction would be provided. Level 3 classified employees would assist in guiding employees at Levels 1 and 2 as well as volunteers. Mr Watson submitted that Level 3 would be an appropriate level for the Associate Diploma with the ability for employers to recognise experience or other accredited training. The Commission was informed by Mr Watson that Level 3 was consistent with the AMACSU position in that this would be the entry point at 105 per cent relativity for Associate Diploma holders without experience moving to 115 per cent after 12 months experience subject to satisfactory performance. Mr Watson also informed the Commission that in the Public Sector Restructuring Case6 105 per cent was the entry point for Associate Diploma holders moving to 110 per cent after 12 months and 115 per cent after a further 12 months. In the Surveyors (Private Industry) Award the entry point for progression towards an Associate Diploma was also 105 per cent.

Mr Watson contended that in relation to the entry point and associated relativities for the Associate Diploma there was "not a lot of difference between the position of the employer and the union" (transcript p331). Significantly however the AMACSU classification structure in Exhibit ASU 11 extended the entry point to 130 per cent where an Associate Diploma holder had 2 years experience. Mr Watson submitted that a 115 per cent relativity ceiling for an Associate Diploma was adequate and that further progression would be by promotion.

Mr Watson made the point that the descriptors (classification standards) for Level 3 and Class 2 respectively, including percentage relativities, were virtually the same. He indicated that in respect of supervision that this was general and direction given limited. The respective Level 3 and Class 2 classifications contemplated employees assisting and guiding lower classified employees. Also the requirement to exercise initiative and judgement was common to both classification structures. Level 3 contained references to more complex service delivery whilst Class 2 referred to moderately complex operational work. Other points of comparison were also made by Mr Watson with regard to these respective classification levels, including that the indicative tasks and functions, qualifications and responsibilities involved were consistent "to a certain extent" (transcript p332) with other awards, frameworks and proposals. He said general supervision in the "metals relativities" was at the 105 per cent entry level moving through to limited supervision at higher relativity levels.

With regard to Level 4, Mr Watson submitted that this was the appropriate entry point for 4 year degree holders; but that access to that classification would not necessarily require a qualification. He contrasted the 125 per cent relativity at Level 4 with Class 3 Level 2, (130 per cent relativity) for persons with a 4 year degree. Mr Watson indicated that 125 per cent was the entry level in the Surveyors (Private Industry) Award and in the Public Sector Case7 it was 117.5 per cent moving to 125 per cent with one year of experience.

Mr Watson also submitted that Level 4 should be for employees with considerable experience across a wide range of functions, including client management which required a high degree of professional judgement. Other features of that Level included -

. Providing assistance to Level 1, 2 and 3 employees

. Co-ordinating tasks and activities of Level 1, 2 and 3 employees

. Providing limited supervision

. Providing specialist advice

. Liaising with professional staff

. Managing a specialised function.

. Providing broad direction for service management.

Mr Watson highlighted the similarities between the Level 4 and Class 3 classifications. It was acknowledged by him that in the metals award framework (transcript p334) 125 per cent was the entry point for 3 year degree holders and 130 per cent for 4 year degree holders. He considered, over time, the distinction between 3 and 4 year degrees would disappear in favour of degree holders only. Mr Watson submitted that whilst the descriptions for Class 3 and Level 4 respectively were "not too far apart" (transcript p334) the big difference was that the AMACSU structure provided for 4 year degree holders to progress through to 145 per cent.

It was the submission of Mr Watson that the AMACSU structure became inflated at Class 3. He said that the TCCI and the CSEOT did not believe a 4 step incremental progression within Class 3 was necessary given that it was essentially the first professional level in the structure. Mr Watson considered that a one spot salary level was sufficient which was not inconsistent with some of the other awards referred to in these proceedings e.g. Professional Engineers And Scientists, (Private Industry) Award, Surveyors (Private Industry) Award and Draughting And Technical Officers (Private Industry) Award.

Mr Watson submitted that the Level 5 classification at 130 per cent relativity was the first senior management level within the structure. He indicated that at this Level there may be a requirement for employees to hold qualifications or they would gain access because of previous relevant experience. Mr Watson said that in broad terms at Level 5 employees may be expected to control service delivery across a number of functions, operate independently with a significant degree of autonomy in decision making, direct and co-ordinate the activities of a number of employees with regard to functions or programs and establish programs and procedures. Limited supervision and broad direction would be provided from service management. Mr Watson submitted that at Level 5 the relative classification structures varied significantly particularly with regard to percentage relativities. The top of the employers classification structure was 140 per cent for Level 7 whilst Class 7 in the AMACSU structure was 210 per cent. Mr Watson submitted that senior management positions would be at Levels 6 and 7 with the work involved including undertaking managerial responsibilities, staffing matters, budgets, planning, directing and evaluating of operations.

Mr Watson submitted that the classification structure outlined Exhibit in TCI 8 was "put together with certain reference points tied to qualifications which matched the ASU'S application in some respects as well as other awards and decisions" (transcript p337). Mr Watson said:

"As I said ... before the industry is not however built around employees with qualifications, and we've tried to provide a balance between not wanting to directly disadvantage employees who have been working within the industry and working very well but may not have qualifications and may never get them, and also the balance between putting in place a career path which is structured around qualifications to a certain extent in relations to the move within this industry, I guess, as with other industries to qualifications in competencies. But again we, as I said, we put the structure together trying to balance between those two scenarios.

So we believe, Commissioner, that in relation to the lower levels and some of the key entry points in associated qualifications, as I've said, that the two positions are perhaps not too far apart in terms of descriptors, but of course the percentage relativities are a mile apart."

Transcript p337/338

Mr Watson's submissions may be summarised as follows:

"...ranging from management of a range of functions of a designated area of an organisation through to management of an organisation or designated area of a multi specialist organisation through to managerial control of an organisation in all respects except for a course directing and supervising professional staff regarding professional matters. So in effect the top levels are management levels in the administrative sense to a large degree."

Transcript p338

Mr Watson contended that Class 7 at 210 per cent relativity was far too high. He submitted that on a comparative basis that level of relativity applied to Professional Engineers, Scientists and Surveyors where considerable independence in approach/knowledge in more than one field was involved.

"So the distinction that we would draw, Commissioner is that we believe that the 210% relativity in those awards where you have - where you're talking about professionals has professionals - supervising professionals directing professionals, as well as being a professional themselves, and as well as having to have knowledge across different aspects of a profession as opposed to the unit position which has employees in fact being able to reach that top level who may undertake some sort of professional supervision or direction but not necessarily having to. So we would see that that is the critical difference - or our - I guess our argument against the 210% being too high.

Now I do make reference to Mr Duncombe who gave evidence for the ASU on the first day of hearing where he - or it was his view that he would go to a level 7 as being an administrator of a fairly large organisation with professional employees, but we then found out that Mr Duncombe's responsibilities are basically administrative and he wouldn't actually have control or exercise supervision in the professional sense to other professionals who work in the organisation.

So we would say that in fact is the critical difference. So again - again, Commissioner, we say that the percentage rates in the upper levels of ASU 11 in fact inflate the scale which in turn inflates the percentage rates for the whole levels."

Transcript p338

With regard to progression Mr Watson submitted that at Level 1 this would be from 90 to 95 per cent relativity after 12 months satisfactory performance. Level 2 stood alone at 100 per cent relativity. At Level 3 progression would be from 105 to 115 per cent after 12 months satisfactory performance. Mr Watson submitted each of the seven Levels in the classification structure were discrete classification Levels. Accordingly there was no automatic progression between Levels. However within Levels 1 and 3 progression would be subject to satisfactory performance.

Mr Watson submitted that employees would be classified at particular Levels based on the work required to be undertaken by the employer. Mr Watson contrasted this with the AMACSU structure which provided for progression to 145 per cent by qualification and/or experience. He submitted that it was the employers function to inform employees of their responsibilities and to provide accurate job descriptions. Mr Watson submitted that it was all very well for employees to gain skills and competencies however that it was up to the employer to pay award rates based on the work required by the employer. Mr Watson stated that the AMACSU structure enabled employees to progress not necessarily on what the employer required by way of the performance of duties and responsibilities but by acquisition of particular skills that may be achieved. He contended that the seven level structure was based on what the employer required and provided for promotion between levels having regard to that particular premise.

With regard to the South Australian Social and Community Services Award Mr Watson submitted that the AMACSU structure was nearly a carbon copy of that. He stated that this award was developed by the Community Employees Association and the AMACSU in South Australia. According to Mr Watson that award was based on salaries in the South Australian Department of Family and Community Services applicable to social and youth work. Mr Watson indicated that the structure had no work value relationship to the August 1989 Wage Fixing Principles which were applicable in this case. He said the matter was processed by consent of the parties in South Australia. Exhibit TCI 9 demonstrated a salary link between the South Australian Social and Community Services Award and public sector rates applicable to the Department of Family and Community Services. Mr Watson said that those award rates were inserted by consent and were a "mishmash of public sector and registered nursing rates" (Transcript p343).

Hours of Work

Mr Watson submitted that the Community Services Award provided for a 38 hour week and that represented the full relativity value of whatever was determined for rates of pay. That is those employees who worked less than 38 hours would, in Mr Watson's submission, receive pro rata payment to 38 hours in the event hours were not increased to 38 hours a week.

Costs and Funding

Mr Watson submitted that the AMACSU classification structure would increase weekly pay rates by an average of 30 per cent. This together with penalty rates costs would result in an average increase of 50 per cent. Mr Watson submitted that the employers classification structure would add around 15 per cent for the wages component. Also there would be a lesser impact on the cost of penalty rates. However Mr Watson indicated that it was difficult to provide exact costings because of the limited access to organisations and because of the mishmash of rates being paid.

Mr Watson agreed that funding per se was not an industrial issue but that it was interwoven with public interest considerations. Mr Watson submitted that public interest should be considered in two ways:

1. impact on the public purse and

2. provision of services to the community

With regard to public purse considerations Mr Watson submitted that the Commission should be cognisant of the cost implications contained in Exhibit ASU 11. In the event costs placed too much pressure on organisations, Mr Watson submitted that this would mean reduced levels of services to the community. Mr Watson stated that the public interest issues were those in Section 36 of the Act. He said that the community services industry was not in a strong position and only a limited number of services had the capacity to generate income. Mr Watson submitted that most organisations relied on government funding and that it would not be in the public interest to put further pressures on those organisations in this financial year, given the effect of penalty rates introduced in July 1994.

Phasing

Exhibit TCI 10 was a three stage phasing proposal commencing on 1 July 1995 with two further adjustments six months apart, i.e. on 1 January 1996 and 1 July 1996. Mr Watson stated that the phasing arrangement outlined by him would provide the necessary time for organisations to properly complete up to date and accurate job descriptions, undertake job redesign and to examine efficiency measures. Also that it would not place pressure on organisations by them having to seek funding adjustments mid year. It would mean that penalty rates and wage increase costs would not come in the same year. Additionally Mr Watson submitted that by adopting the TCCI/CSEOT phasing arrangements

. it would allow the government to assess the cost of the new structure and consult with organisations on funding arrangements;

. it would fit in with the next two funding cycles and would provide a type of minimum rates adjustment process over three instalments.

Translation

Mr Watson submitted that translation to any new structure should not take place until position descriptions were completed by individual organisations. This would allow matching job descriptions with position descriptors thereby facilitating the determination of classifications. Mr Watson indicated in the event any employee not satisfied with the classification assigned could seek redress in the Commission.

Incapacity To Pay

Mr Watson submitted that if the operative date of 1 July 1995 was adopted by the Commission incapacity to pay arguments would be "stifled to a large extent" transcript p345) however it would be left to individual organisations to seek relief having regard to their own particular circumstances.

Wage Fixing Principles

It was submitted by Mr Watson that the employers classification structure created a skill related career path with appropriate relativities between classifications. He stated that the structure was built around established benchmarks and work value established by this Commission.

Union Right of Reply

Mr Paterson submitted that the percentage penalty rate increases referred to by Mr Watson were a nonsense "when you have a zero base to start with" (transcript p350). Also that with the great disparity in rates of pay all sorts of exercises could be undertaken to conclude what the most meaningful figure would be in terms of prospective increases. Mr Paterson stated that it was uncostable until the award outcome was known,

With regard to hours of work Mr Paterson highlighted the fact that he was not seeking anything other than the award to reflect 38 hours for full time employment.

With regard to the South Australian Award Mr Paterson submitted that from his information the award related more to local government in South Australia than to the public sector. He submitted all that Exhibit TCI 9 demonstrated was comparable relativities in the public and private sectors.

Structure

Mr Paterson acknowledged that there was commonality between Community Services Worker Class 1 and Level 1 at the 90 and 95 per cent relativities. He contended however that after that point the AMACSU structure was broader in that it provided in one classification what is contained in a number of classifications in other awards as referred to in Exhibit ASU 19 and other private sector awards. Mr Paterson said that this was:

"... the principle difference between the approach that the ASU has adopted here and the comparisons that can be drawn elsewhere, and on that ground ... a hundred per cent level ... at the top of Community Services Worker Level 1 is in fact appropriate"

Transcript p353

Mr Paterson made the point that at 100 per cent relativity, which was the top of Class 1, a person would have had two years experience in the industry undertaking the work described in the applicable classification standard. Mr Paterson submitted that the skills exercised and the work performed was in effect equivalent to a trade certificate and that was why 100 per cent was not inappropriate in the community services industry. Mr Paterson submitted that the core difference between the respective structures was in respect of Classes and Levels 2, 3, 4 and 5. He submitted that at Classes and Levels 6 and 7 the descriptors were comparable albeit relativities, apart from 90 and 95 per cent relativities, were not in agreement.

Mr Paterson reiterated that Classes 2 (105-115%) and 3 (125-145%) were the benchmarks for Associate Diplomas and Degrees respectively. He submitted that the significant difference between the competing structures was that the employers structure aligned Associate Diploma responsibilities with Degree responsibilities in the AMACSU structure. In other words the employers structure contemplated a range of 105 to 115 per cent relativity for duties and responsibilities which in the AMACSU structure attracted 125-145 per cent relativities. Mr Paterson also submitted that contrary to Mr Watson's submission which was that Level 4 should be compared to Class 3, the comparison should be Level 4 to Class 4 on the basis that the characteristics and features were comparable. This was the case particularly in respect of the undertaking of complex functions, performance of a wide range of complex functions directed towards client management and exercising a high degree of professional judgment. Mr Paterson also contended that Class 3 and Level 3 aligned and that those functions were appropriately located at a Degree entry level and not an Associate Diploma. Mr Paterson said:

"I suppose the best way to describe this is that we have broad agreement ... - on two counts; one a broad agreement on the general descriptors of the classifications; we also have a broad agreement on the relativities between qualifications and rates of pay, but there is slippage between the two standards, and that the ASU position puts a degree alongside functions and responsibilities at class 3, the employers put those same functions and responsibilities alongside an associate diploma qualification or its equivalent."

Transcript p353

Mr Paterson submitted that the AMACSU structure aimed and intended to embrace the range of functions from program support and assistance to higher classified employees providing delivery of social welfare services. He said the AMACSU's objective was to integrate functions which enabled management and co-ordination functions to be mixed with increasing involvement in specialist and specialised service delivery work. Mr Paterson submitted that in practical terms a Class 3 would operate with autonomy and would have a fair degree of responsibility and a relatively high degree of skill in order to deliver services.

At the higher relativities for Class duties would relate to managing and co-ordinating. Mr Paterson submitted that without the 3rd and 4th levels (135 and 145 per cent relativity) in Class 3 it would be inappropriate for people to be performing those functions or to the extent contemplated by the TCCI. Mr Paterson was concerned also that at Level 2 the employers structure provided for employees to remain on premises without an immediate supervisor being present, including overnight in either a shift work or sleep over capacity. Mr Paterson submitted this was inappropriate particularly in a crisis shelter environment where higher levels of initiative and discretion were required to be exercised. He submitted that it was an anomaly to allow a person who was otherwise supervised to be unsupervised at a time when work was more demanding and exacting.

Mr Paterson indicated that there would be significant specialisation in service delivery at Class 4. However he said that the structure provided no hard and fast boundaries that prevented progression or appointment or the upgrading of jobs in various ways. Mr Paterson described it as a graduation process.

On the question of definitions Mr Paterson submitted that they should be included in the award particularly as they related to specifying hierarchies of complexity, supervision, direction, experience, judgment and knowledge. This was not opposed by Mr Watson.

Operative Date, Phasing and Transition

Mr Paterson submitted, given the time it has taken for this matter to be finalised that the outcome be implemented on a phased basis commencing on 1 January 1995. He submitted that there should be two subsequent increases which would see the full rates in place by 1 January 1996. This was supported by Mr Kleyn appearing for the HSUA who submitted that the phasing arrangements advanced by Mr Watson, which would finalise the outcomes in this decision on 1 July 1996, not justified. He submitted that there had been ample time for preparatory steps to have been taken in respect to the outcome of this decision. Mr Kleyn considered that any extension of time would probably result in employers waiting for the implementation date before starting the processes necessary to expedite the translation process.

Finding

The Community Services Industry is remarkably diverse encompassing single outlet services at one end of the scale to multi faceted services delivering a multiplicity of programs at the other end of the scale. Rates of pay in the industry have been established on an adhoc basis and as would be expected with that type of approach rates of pay vary considerably between service providers. To regulate the industry in this regard the parties have put before the Commission two competing classification structures. It may well be that federal award proceedings may overtake this award in due course but in the meantime what is provided here will at least see the development of job descriptions and the possibility of job redesign built around a uniform set of classification standards.

In dealing with the classification structure I am cognisant of those elements which were said by Mr Paterson to underpin the value of the structure advanced by him. Those elements or factors relate to client assessment, case management, access and linkage to other services, strategic planning requirements and levels of supervision. In broad terms those aspects were supported by Mr Watson. In providing a structure for this industry the issue of qualifications was also an important area of difference between the parties.

After giving this matter anxious consideration and endeavouring to balance all of the submissions made, including those relating to public interest, I have decided upon the following structure:

I concur with Mr Watson that it is not necessary to include a 100 per cent relativity level at Class 1. The responsibilities required to be exercised in my opinion are appropriately valued at 90 per cent. The progression after 12 months satisfactory service to 95 per cent relativity recognises the advancement in performance and skill acquisition that can be reasonably expected to occur in a normal work situation

There was a great deal of debate regarding the point in the classification structure where an Associate Diploma holder should commence. A percentage relativity of 105 per cent was agreed by the parties however the TCCI/CSEOT had that relativity at Level 3 and the AMACSU at Class 2. Mr Watson submitted that a Level 2 classification at 100 per cent relativity should precede the point at which recognition is given to the Associate Diploma. That is not unreasonable and adds balance in terms of work value progression and structural efficiency to the overall classification structure. However I also consider that what was termed to be the first practitioner level, that progression should be provided to 105 per cent, subject to satisfactory performance after 12 months.

Mr Watson described Level 3 as the senior practitioner level. Also that this should be the point at which a relevant Associate Diploma holder should commence. I agree but not with the proposed 105 per cent relativity level. I consider that to be too low particularly when regard is had for the level of responsibility involved and the characteristics of Level 3. Accordingly I intend for Level 3 to commence at 110 per cent relativity and to also make this the starting off point for those with an Associate Diploma with no experience. Having regard to the description of the characteristics and features of the work required to be performed at Class 3 and what is contained in Level 3 there is ample scope for the career structure to be broadened out into three grades each of which will be accessible subject to satisfactory performance. In referring to grades I consider that terminology to be useful to distinguish between wage rate levels within each classification range. Therefore Class 3 and Level 3 work will attract 110 per cent at grade 1. Grades 2 and 3 will be at 115 and 125 per cent relativity respectively. In the same way that a person holding an Associate Diploma can enter higher up in the classification structure a relevant degree holder should be able to enter at a higher point. Accordingly the entry point for a degree holder will be at 125 per cent relativity as advanced by the parties. I do not consider it appropriate to distinguish between a 3 or 4 year degree. In my view recognition for the Associate Diploma and Degree, once having been given in the classification structure by way of discrete entry points extinguishes the impact of qualifications on the structure. It should be noted however that the entry points for those with the foregoing qualifications do not contemplate experience. It will be necessary for employers to classify employees within the structure having regard to the work that is required to be undertaken.

The AMACSU and HSUA sought 150 per cent relativity at Class 4 whilst TCCI/CSEOT considered 125 per cent relativity to be appropriate. In my opinion the TCCI/CSEOT structure is too restrictive having regard to the nature of the industry. In that regard I regard the TCCI/CSEOT classification structure at Level 4 and beyond deficient as in my opinion duties and responsibilities were significantly undervalued. Similarly I consider that the relativities for Classes 4, 5, 6 and 7 having regard to the classification standards to be excessive. Accordingly I have rationalised the structure as set out previously.

The foregoing seven level classification structure comprehends the characteristics, requirements of the job, indicative functions and all other aspects of the descriptions provided by the AMACSU in Exhibit ASU 11 and those contained in TCI 8. The parties will be required to provide the Commission with consolidated classification standards for inclusion in the award. In that regard it may be more appropriate to meld Exhibit TCI 8 into Exhibit ASU 11 as the latter document contains detailed definitions which were essentially agreed by the TCCI/CSEOT.

THE BASE RATE

There is no question that the 100 per cent tradespersons rate applicable in this matter is $417.20 a week having regard to the State Wage Case decisions relevant to this matter. The December 1994 State Wage Case Decision8 relating to, inter alia, arbitrated safety net adjustments does not impinge on the 100 per cent relativity.

Operative Date, Phasing and Translation

The parties recognise that the outcome of this decision will require the preparation of job documentation to enable comparisons to be made with the classification criteria. Given that this decision requires the melding of the descriptors for the various classification levels contained in Exhibit TCI 8 and ASU 11 a reasonable time frame to enable this to occur should be provided. Also jobs should be analysed and described in such a manner as to enable them to be classified in accordance with the classification standards. Having regard to those factors I consider it appropriate to give operative effect to this decision in two instalments, the first from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 July 1995 and the second from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 January 1996. In my view that phasing arrangement is equitable given the long period over which this case has run and the opportunity this has afforded the parties to at least undertake some preparatory work. The operative date for the first instalment is sufficiently distant for the necessary work to be undertaken to facilitate the translation process.

With regard to an "In All Cases" proviso as discussed earlier I do not intend to include such a provision. If employers wish to pay over the award then that is a matter for them. In my opinion it is not necessary to include such a provision to emphasise that the Community Services Award is a minimum rates award.

Leave Reserved

As requested leave is reserved to AMACSU to seek a determination in respect of Training and Study Leave provisions.

Draft Order

As discussed, it will be up to the parties to prepare the classification standards underpinning the determination on rates of pay. As indicated I have found that the classification standards in Exhibit's TCI 8 and ASU 11 are capable of being integrated on a point to point basis. Obviously regard must be had to the entry points for those with qualifications when the classification standards are rationalised. The parties may enlist the assistance of the Commission in respect of this task. I reiterate at this point that the operative dates for the first and second instalments will not be deferred in the event the required documentation has not been finalised. A draft order in respect of all matters should be forwarded to the Commission no later than 28 April 1995. Order

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr M Watson with Mr M Sertori and Mr B Fitzgerald for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
Mr T Kay with Dr R Raynor for the Community Services Employer Organisation (Tasmania)
Mr I Paterson for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
Ms K Pammenter for the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984
Mr K O'Brien with Ms P Shelley for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch
Mr T Kleyn with Mr R Warwick, Ms G Crotty and Mr C Brown for the Health Services Union of Australia Tasmania No. 1 Branch
Mr I Grant for the Australian Nursing Federation, Tasmanian Branch

Date and Place of Hearing:
1990.
Hobart:
March 12, 23
April 9
June 15
August 16
September 6
December 6, 17
1991.
Hobart:
March 12
April 12
May 21
September 23
October 1
1992.
Hobart:
April 9
December 23
1993.
Hobart:
March 9, 31
April 28
May 11
September 1
October 18, 19, 20
November 19, 30
December 1
1994.
Hobart:
February 9
March 3
June 28
September 27, 28
October 12
November 10

APPENDIX 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

1. No inference will be drawn by the Australian Social Welfare Union, Tasmania Branch in respect of the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmania Branch not proceeding to vary the scope of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award (W.A.V.A.) at this time.

2. Within the context of the second Structural Efficiency Adjustment as it will apply to the W.A.V.A. Award, the Australian Social Welfare Union will not unreasonably oppose variations to the scope of the W.A.V.A. Award consistent with developments in current services including the provision of home care and direct health care services to Intellectually disabled persons not located in establishments.

3. The Australian Social Welfare Union will not oppose the Hospital Employees' Federation's application for an interest in the Community Services' Award.

4. The Australian Social Welfare Union gives a commitment that it will not actively seek to have as members persons who are primarily employed in the provision of Community Health and Allied Services providing health care or personal care and/or health care advice which is not demonstrably of a social welfare nature.

(Sgd)

APPENDIX 2

Community Services Award

Advanced Entry and Accelerated Progression

1. Completed Associate Diploma

2. Partially Completed Associate Diploma or Equivalent

3. Completed Three Year Degree

4. Completed Four Year Degree

5. Partially Completed Degree (3 & 4 Year)

1 T4146 of 1992 et al dated 24 May 1994, 21 March 1994, 15 December 1993
T4499 of 1993 dated 16 September 1993
T4506 of 1993 dated 16 September 1993
T4352 of 1993 dated 18 May 1993
T4372 of 1993 dated 12 May 1993
T4282 of 1993 dated 31 March 1993
T3685 of 1992 dated 20 March 1992
2 T2225 of 1989 et al dated 22 January 1992
3 T4146 of 1992 dated 15 December 1993, 21 March 1994, 24 May 1994
4 T2399 of 1990 et al
5 T2399 of 1990 et al
6 T2399 of 1990 et al
7 Ibid
8 T5214 of 1994