TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONIndustrial Relations Act 1984
TASMANIAN STATE SERVICE AWARD
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (TASMANIAN STATE SERVICE) AWARD
Classification Resolution Process - No award variation - Direction from Commission - application approved
Tasmanian State Service Award [T13394 of 1009] and [2] In both matters the applications seek to vary the relevant awards: “…formulate processes and procedures for the effective review mechanisms as defined in Appendix 1, Translation Arrangements of … (i) the Tasmanian State Service Award [T13394 of 2009] and; [3] The Tasmanian State Service Award was made following proceedings in Matter T13227 of 2008 and was formerly known as the General Conditions of Employment Award. [4] The Health and Human Services (Tasmanian State Service) Award was made following proceedings in Matter T13228 of 2008 and was formerly known as the Community and Health Services (Public Sector) Award. [5] It was submitted during proceedings that the parties had reached agreement on a process to be implemented to address reviews flowing from the Review Process found in each of the awards at Appendix 1 – Translation Arrangements. [6] The agreed process is in the following terms : “CLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION PROCESS The process to resolve classification disputes arising from the introduction of Tasmanian State Service Award (TSSA) and the Health and Human Services (Tasmanian State Service) Award (H&HS(TSS)A) is detailed below. This process is to be followed by all agencies. It supplements the Review Process of those awards and completes the procedure to resolve disputes lodged with the Tasmanian Industrial Commission (TIC). This process has been agreed by the public sector unions and endorsed by the TIC. 1. An employee who lodges a dispute with the TIC regarding the classification of their assigned duties is to provide: (i) The current Statement of Duties (SOD); 2. The Agency is to provide the TIC, with copies to the relevant unions and the PSMO, with the following within 5 working days of receiving notification of the dispute by the TIC: (i) the current SOD; and 3. The TIC, in consultation with the parties, will determine a date for hearing that allows for a conference to be conducted by the Public Sector Management Office (PSMO) before the hearing date. 4. The PSMO will convene a conference of the parties to the dispute to clarify the matters that are not agreed in an attempt to resolve the dispute. 5. Full disclosure by the parties of all the particulars of the dispute is required for the PSMO conference. Witness statements, if available are to be provided at the PSMO conference. 6. A notification of a dispute may be made by an individual employee as a representative of a group of employees who are classified according to the same generic SOD. The outcome of this dispute is to be applied uniformly to employees in the group with the same work value. When notifying a dispute that may affect similar employee(s) the details of the employees affected are to be provided. 7. The outcome of a dispute by an individual employee, which results in duties being reclassified, is to be applied to other employees within the same work group with the same generic SOD from the same operational date, regardless of whether those employees lodged a dispute application for reclassification. 8. The outcome of a dispute may have implications for other employees. The effects on other employees are to be examined for job design consequences. An employee(s) whose duties are reclassified as a result of a dispute process is regarded as being part of the translation process of the awards and is to be translated accordingly from the date a revised workplace restructure and/or classification occurs. 9. An employee who intends to lodge a dispute with the TIC as a result of a review of a SOD conducted by the State Service Commissioner (SSC), is to do so within 14 calendar days of either: (i) receiving advice from SSC that the SOD is as determined by the Agency; or 10. Witness statements, if required to support a claim, are to be provided for the PSMO conference. The relevance of the material and role of witnesses in clarifying the issues in dispute will be assessed by the parties, for their own purposes, in the event the dispute is unresolved and the matter is to proceed to the TIC.” [7] The Commission has acknowledged the agreement reached between the parties and has agreed to allow a period of 30 days, following receipt of an application by the Commission, for the parties to undertake the Classification Resolution Process in an attempt to resolve the claim made. [8] If the Classification Resolution Process fails to resolve the claim the matter will be heard and determined by the Commission in the normal manner. [9] It was submitted by the Minister that although there now exists a new classification structure with uniform standards it does not “alter the State Service Act requirements of Section 34 for Heads of Agencies to assign duties and assign classifications.” And further “….that the organisational design and structures that may be applicable in one agency are not necessarily the same in another agency and that there is no expectation that a classification applying to a job that looks the same, that might have similar wording, is necessarily the same.” [10] For the process to be successful it will be necessary for a consistent process to be applied and followed by all agencies. To that end Form 5 – Job Evaluation Questionnaire, referred to in Exhibit 1 at point 1, will be the document used by all applicants in all agencies. [11] The Classification Review process will require an agency to provide reasons for rejecting a claim by an employee. [12] It may be that a claim by an employee could result in the application being considered a ‘test case’ inasmuch as an applicant may make a claim on behalf of a group of employees in similar positions. The processing of any ‘test case’ application will be identified prior to it being dealt with by the Commission. [13] The implications and any ‘flow on’ effect of a possible ‘test case’ process are addressed in Exhibit A, points 7 and 8. [14] The parties agreed that the awards did not need variation to incorporate the Classification Review Process but that it become a Direction from the Commission. [15] Accordingly the Commission endorses the Classification Review Process as agreed between the parties and directs that the agreed Classification Review Process be undertaken to resolve claims in respect to translation and classification issues. The Commission will provide assistance as and when required.
|
