TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
Industrial Relations Act 1984
s29 application for hearing of an industrial dispute

Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch (Health and Community Services Union)
(T13954 of 2012)

and
Minister administering the State Service Act 2000
(Department of Health and Human Services)

Deputy President WELLS	
HOBART, 11 April 2013	

Industrial dispute – translation process – classification resolution process, classification descriptors – ‘best fit’ – ‘major and substantial’ – order issued

DECISION

[1]	On 20 August 2012, the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No.1 Branch (HSUA) (the applicant), applied to the President, pursuant to s29(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 (the Act) for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with the Minister administering the State Service Act 2000 (MASSA), (the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)) (the respondent) arising out of a translation review process for Mr Ian Norris as contained in Appendix 1 of the Health and Human Services (Tasmanian State Service) Award (the award).

[2]	A hearing was held in Hobart on Wednesday 30 January 2013.

[3]	At the hearing Mr T Jacobson of the HSUA represented Mr Norris.  Mr T Sales of the DHHS represented MASSA with Mr T Witt of the DHHS.

Dispute History and the Role of the Commission

[4]	The first issue to be dealt with in this matter is the role of the Commission in this dispute.  We must first look at the history of the translation review process.

[5]	Mr Norris is employed by the respondent in the Southern Tasmanian Health Organisation – Food Services, in the position of Operational Manager.

[6]	The applicant is seeking a reclassification for the Operational Manager’s role to Band 6 of the general stream classifications.

[7]	Under the previous award structure the Operational Manager was classified as an Administrative and Clerical Employee Level 6.  In March 2009 under the new classification structure of the award, the role was point to point translated to Band 4.  Mr Norris requested a review of his translation and as a result, the Operational Manager role was reclassified to Band 5 in or around August 2010 and back dated to March 2009.

[8]	Pursuant to Appendix 1 cl 3(e) of the award Mr Norris requested an external review of his Statement of Duties (SOD) as he did not believe it accurately reflected the duties of the role.  This review was carried out by the State Service Commissioner and the SOD was agreed as a result of that review.  The agreed SOD was analysed by the respondent and on 9 August 2012 an assessment by DHHS provided that the role of Operational Manager remained classified at Band 5.

[9]	Pursuant to Appendix 1 cl 1(e)(iv) of the award the matter then became a dispute in relation to an industrial matter and was referred to this Commission to be heard under the powers provided for in s29(2) of the Act.  In accordance with the Full Bench decision in T13411 of 2009 the file was referred to the Public Sector Management Office for conference but the matter failed to resolve.

[10]	The Commission has powers under the Act to “conduct hearings for settling industrial disputes”.  The definition as contained in Cl3 of the Act says:

		““industrial dispute” means a dispute in relation to an industrial matter - …
		“industrial matter” means any matter pertaining to the relations of employers and employees and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes –

(a)	a matter relating to –
(i)	the mode, terms and conditions of employment; …”

[11]	I turn to the Full Bench decision T13411 of 2009 which contains the “Classification Resolution Process” as agreed by the parties to the award.  The relevant part of cl 6 of the decision reads:

“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: …(my emphasis)

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.” (my emphasis)

[12]	Clause 8 of the decision states:

		“[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.” (my emphasis)

[13]	Further, in the transcript of the Full Bench decision, Mr Baker representing MASSA stated:

		“President and members of the bench, the process that we are proposing, whilst it actually prescribes a process for the settling of these matters between us, it in no way of course can inhibit an individual’s right in seeking direct access to the commission.  However, we would urge the commission that certainly in the first instance that a process has to be outlined by the parties this morning should be followed in the first instant.”

[14]	The power of the Commission is to deal with this dispute as an industrial matter arising from a breach of the award - that being a breach of the classification structure as contained in that award.  The process undertaken by the applicant and the respondent in the translation review process, preceding the s29 dispute, is only relevant to this dispute in that it provides that that process was followed and failed to resolve the matter.

[15]	Further, the award, the Full Bench decision and the transcript provides only that the matter is to proceed to the TIC to be heard and determined by the Commission in the normal manner.  Accordingly, the role of the Commission is not to review the review process; it is to resolve a dispute relating to an industrial matter.  Pursuant to s29 of the Act the industrial dispute relates to a breach of the award in classifying the role of Operational Manager in accordance with the award classification descriptors.

The Statement of Duties and Award Framework

[16]	Mr Norris’ agreed SOD provides detail of the focus of his role and his primary duties.  These include:

“Focus of Duties:
•	Day to day management of human and physical resources in all food production, including implementing quality controls and ensuring and maintaining compliance with, legislative requirements, relevant accreditation or food safety standards.
•	Under the broad direction of the Manager Food Services, develop and implement food safety programs, policies, guidelines.  Provide recommendations to the Manager of Food Services regarding required organisational or policy changes.
•	Provide speciality input to the development of strategic and operational business plans, taking account of food regulations, food services policies and protocols, and relevant legislation as part of the Food Services Management team.

Duties:
1.	Provide effective supervision, coaching and leadership for staff working within Food Services.  Coordinate and conduct a range of performance improvement and education / training activities, to assist in achieving agreed standards and benchmarks.
2.	Provide support and assistance to the Manager, Food Services in the development and implementation of operational plans, oversighting operational activity in food production and its distribution.  This includes daily liaison with all areas of food services regarding operational activity, including the identification of risk management strategies, to assist in delivering a safe, effective and efficient service.
3.	Actively participate in the development of menus in consultation with the Nutrition and Dietetics Department ensuring all menus meet the nutritional standards focused on ensuring the nutritional needs of patients are appropriate with a clear emphasis on preventing the nutritional deterioration while in hospital.
4.	Develop and maintain continual quality review programs, liaise with all relevant stakeholders, facilitate effective training programs for relevant food service staff, and ensure the maintenance of staff training records.
5.	Provide monthly written activity reports to the Food Services Manager detailing outputs and any identified risks with recommended mitigation strategies.
6.	Maintain and monitor repair and maintenance schedules for food services equipment ensuring compliance with OH&S legislation, ensuring the safe use of equipment and a hygienic environment is maintained at all times throughout the food services department.  Adhere to Agency procurement protocols and procedures.
7.	The incumbent can expect to be allocated duties, not specifically mentioned in this document, that are within the capacity, qualifications and experience normally expected from persons occupying jobs at this classification level.”  

[17]	The scope of the work performed is described as:

•	“The Operational Manager is responsible for the production and distribution of food and providing sound, high quality advice to the Food Services Manager and employees of the Food Service Department in a timely manner.
•	This role will be expected to exercise initiative on a day to day basis, adopt innovative methods and approaches to achieve agreed out-comes, under the overall direction and supervision of the Food Service [sic] Manager.
•	Work as an effective member of the team by participating in departmental projects that will enhance business growth and quality assurance.”

[18]	The relevant classification descriptors in this matter are contained in Part III Clause 1(c)(iv)(2) of the award which groups Bands 4, 5 and 6 together and states:

	“Bands 4, 5 and 6

	Work involves the maintenance and modification of guidelines, systems and processes according to a defined policy and regulatory operating environment.  The operative environment is Agency-specific in terms of organisational design, planning, structures and interpretations of government objectives.” (my emphasis)

[19]	Part III Clause 3 of the award provides a summary of the differences between the classification bands for ‘general stream’ and this reads:

	“(f)	Difference Between Band 5 and Band 6

	Band 6 work applies the decision-making framework (policies, rules and regulations) in support of program or service delivery of a defined field of activity, which may involve more than one discipline.  Considerable autonomy of approach in delivering outcomes and the advice and recommendations provided are regarded as definitive for that activity.” (my emphasis)

[20]	Part III Clause 4 of the award sets out detailed classification descriptors for general stream employees.

[21]	The principle of “best fit” for the classification descriptors is contained in Part III Clause 1(a)(ii) and states:

“”Best Fit”:

The job components have equal weight or effect and no description within a component has more importance than another.  Some descriptors, however, are more relevant in describing different types of work than others, and therefore will have more influence in classifying that work.  Naturally, not each and every descriptor applies to any individual job.  These descriptors are appropriately used when particular descriptors of job components and the overall theme or “feel” of a particular band provides the “best fit” to an employee’s duties.

In using the descriptors it is important to consider particular organisational arrangements, such as the reporting relationships above and below specifically assigned duties.”

Witness Evidence

For the Applicant

[22]	Witness testimony for the applicant was taken from Mr Ian Norris, who is the employee the subject of this dispute.

[23]	Mr Norris gave evidence that he has been employed by the Department of Health and Human Services, Southern Tasmania Health Organisation, in the Food Services area as the Operational Manager since October 2007.  Immediately prior to that he was acting in the role.  The Food Services area runs the largest production kitchen in Tasmania.  It produces 1.2 million meals a year for four forms of diets, whilst also providing food for external clients (some aged care facilities, child care facilities, the Prison and also Mental Health).  The kitchen also services retail commercial clients such as Legs and Breasts.

[24]	Mr Norris advises he is responsible for the activities undertaken across four distinct operational areas, those being:

•	Food preparation;
•	Food production;
•	Distribution; and
•	Royal Hobart Hospital Cafeteria.

[25]	At the production kitchen at Cambridge Mr Norris says the day to day work involves ordering and preparation of food and traying it up.  Specialist cooks prepare and cook the food in batches from recipes developed by the Executive Chef and himself.  Those recipes are put through to the Dieticians to ensure they meet the guidelines for the Banding Structure, which is a structure put in place largely because of his work.

[26]	Mr Norris and the dieticians worked on a document to create a Banding Structure for the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) because there was no such process or system in Tasmania.  An example of the Banding Structure requirements is each meal serving must contain 120gms of protein.  The Banding Structure introduced to the Food Services Unit was largely based on the Victorian Banding Structure Guidelines for Inpatients whilst incorporating some of the best parts of the Western Australia system.  It was designed specifically for Tasmania and to ensure patients get the nutritious meal they require.  The system works on a structure of levels 1 to 3 and was endorsed by the Dietetics Supervisor.  It was not endorsed by the Food Services Manager.

[27]	Mr Norris says he will soon be reviewing the Banding Structure due to recent changes in other States.  He works closely with the Executive Chef and the dieticians to make sure they have the right nutrition in all of the menu items and the spread of products.

[28]	Mr Norris advises he did not seek authorisation to put the Banding Structure in place.  He simply recognised that it needed to be done and so he did it.  He believes it is assumed that that is part of his role.
[29]	Mr Norris states the production kitchen at Cambridge runs seven days a week.  As Operational Manager Mr Norris is also responsible for the RHH cafeteria, which is run on a commercial basis and also for the distribution section of the Food Services unit.  The distribution section involves a seven day a week operation and two trucks.  Distribution also involves the RHH as they plate the meals up for the patients, depending on dietary requirements.  The production kitchen also produces bagged products that have a 45 day shelf life which requires micro-testing to be performed on a weekly basis.  There is a schedule of products on which micro-testing is carried out.

[30]	Mr Norris said the Food Services Unit serves food to a vulnerable population including patients and children in child care.  After 2006 they were required by legislation to have a food safety program governing how the kitchen runs and audits must take place at critical control points of the production.  Prior to the program being made mandatory in 2006 they had a food safety program but it was very loosely written, and in the opinion of Mr Norris, was not of much value.

[31]	Mr Norris and the Food Service Manager, Mr De Salis, have worked together for more than 20 years.  Both men started as cooks and worked their way up through the structure.  They have worked in their current hierarchy since approximately 2005.  There were no structured meetings between the Operational Manager and the Food Services Manager back in 2009 at the time of translation.  Mr Norris said:

“…if I need to talk to Robert I bang on the door and we talk…”
[32]	Directions normally come from the Food Services Manager to the Operational Manager either by email or telephone or if something really needs doing then Mr De Salis would come and see Mr Norris.  The system is informal in nature.

[33]	Mr Norris states he developed the RHH food safety program under broad supervision of the Food Services Manager.  He was tasked by the Food Services Manager in 2006 to write the food safety program for the RHH.  Of that work he says:

“That has now developed into two food safety programs, one for the RHH and one for the Production Centre.  It is not a generic document.  You have to actually write it for your area and what you actually do and how your process works”.
[34]	Mr Norris believes the Operational Manager position requires him to make strategic and policy decisions in relation to the operational area of the Food Services Unit and that a level of autonomy exists to allow this to happen.

[35]	At the time of writing the food safety program Mr Norris was acting in the role of Operational Manager (although the name of the role was something different at that time).  He had been acting in the role for 2 years before he was promoted permanently to the Operational Manager role in 2007.

[36]	Mr Norris advises the food safety program is a living document which changes constantly due to the nature of the business.  Explaining what the food safety program is, Mr Norris said:

		“The policy’s there as a guide to what we need to do, it is the – how we run our department and how we run our areas.  There’s compliance in all of those areas, like for your cleaning sign off, your temperature recording, all those compliance issues come back to me as the operational manager and I store the data on those…
		…that policy ensures that our food is safe if we use the guidelines all the way through and we do our checking at the critical control points, that’s what ensures that our food’s safe for our patients and clients.”
[37]	It is Mr Norris’ responsibility to provide this evidence to the external auditor when she is conducting the annual audit of the facilities.  The Food Services Manager’s role in the annual audit process is to set up the dates for the audit to take place and to arrange required meetings.  The external auditor may make recommendations for changes if the Unit does not meet the requirement of the legislation.

[38]	In his role as Operational Manager Mr Norris receives alerts from Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) which may require changes to the food safety program to ensure they meet the requirements of the Food Standards Code.  This Code is linked to the Food Act 2003 (Tas).

[39]	In relation to how Mr Norris spends the majority of his time he stated:

	“The majority of my time is spent dealing with human resource issues, making sure that they’ve got the physical resources to do their jobs…  Doing the policies around it, making sure that we’re up to the standards, the OH&S issues we have with the – it’s a commercial kitchen, there’s some very nasty pieces of machinery there if you – if you’re not aware of what’s going on…  I made sure there was CCTV put in because there are some remote areas and there are some nasty pieces of equipment about.” (my emphasis)
[40]	Mr Norris also stated he was required to be strategic in his role:

	“But the other one is the strategic part of it, is making sure that we’ve got enough food if something goes wrong.  I mean I still have patients and clients to feed if I have a major breakdown, I need to make sure that I can actually feed the patients.”  
[41]	To this end Mr Norris is required to make provision for a food bank which is designed to keep supplying the kitchen with food for 10 days if there is a major breakdown or issue.  Day to day this involves making sure that food is available and all staffing issues, rosters and compliance issues are under control.

[42]	The respondent put it to Mr Norris under cross examination that the food safety program was not a policy, that it was a less formal document as it does not have a review date on it or version control.  Mr Norris responded:

	“No, I don’t accept that at all, it’s a formal document that is actually audited by a third party class one food safety auditor”.
[43]	When asked how often the document is updated Mr Norris advised it was reviewed every twelve months by the auditor and updated by him when necessary.  He stated:

“And there’s a form at the back that gives updates.  Any changes or deletions are recorded on that.”

[44]	Mr Norris believes the Agency assessment of the role is flawed as it does not properly recognise the ‘Focus of Duties’ and ‘Duties’ of his SOD and it fails to recognise the work he has previously been required to do.

[45]	At dot point 3 of the SOD under ‘Focus of Duties’ it states Mr Norris is required to:

“provide specialist input to the development of strategic and operational business plans, taking account of food regulations, food services policies and protocols and relevant legislation as part of the Food Services Management Team”.

[46]	Further under ‘Focus of Duties’ Mr Norris is required to:

		“...Develop and implement food safety programs, policies and guidelines.  Provide recommendations to the Manager of Food Services regarding required organizational or policy changes”. (my emphasis)

[47]	Mr Norris states that whilst the above activity is performed under broad direction from the Food Services Manager, the duties and responsibilities he is required to perform under ‘Focus of Duties’ better fit under Band 6 of the classification descriptors.  Mr Norris believes this is because the distinction made between Band 5 and Band 6 in relation to the application of the decision making framework best indicates Band 6.  Particularly Mr Norris states that he is required to provide advice on the decision making framework and this includes policy, rules and regulations, as it relates to organisational or policy changes.

[48]	As part of his duties Mr Norris performs food safety audits and is required to have a practical working knowledge of a number of statutory requirements which include legislation, accredited Standards, Hospital Accreditation and internal Agency policies and guidelines.

[49]	Given the nature of these activities Mr Norris believes the work he performs is highly technical and complex and requires him to have a highly developed understanding of operational frameworks which includes legislation, regulations, policies and procedures and is best described by Band 6 descriptors.  Mr Norris states a Band 5 role is simply required to coordinate and integrate operational procedures and that the work he is required to undertake is significantly greater than this.

[50]	Further, Mr Norris believes the scope of his work extends beyond the area of a “discipline” or “field” and that in addition his work is undertaken at a level beyond that of a “Supervisor” or “Specialist”.

[51]	Mr Norris states that he directly supervises some 90 employees and ensures their adherence to the food safety program.  He is also responsible for broad human resource management of these employees and is required to undertake activities in the following key areas:

•	Business planning and development;
•	Process improvement and quality assurance
•	Develop tender specifications
•	Tender non-compliance and secondary compliance audits
•	Develop Memorandums of Understanding
•	Risk management activities
•	Asset management/maintenance.

[52]	Mr Norris says Band 6 best describes the ‘Scope of Work Performed’ in the SOD as he is required to work with considerable independence by providing:

	“..sound, high quality advice to the Food Service Manager and employees of the Food Services Department in a timely manner”.

[53]	Mr Norris contends the work he undertakes influences policy requiring knowledge gained through extensive experience.  He believes the facility he works in is unique as it encompasses provision of nutrition to patients and also the provision of food to external customers in a commercial environment.  It is a requirement of Mr Norris’ role that he provide recommendations to the Food Services Manager on any changes that might be required on these key activities.  He states this refers to dot points 2 and 3 of his SOD under ‘Focus of Duties’.  Mr Norris states his advice on operational plans is considered authoritative by his management.

[54]	Mr Norris advises the attributes detailed at dot point 1 of the heading ‘Scope of Work Performed’ in the SOD, describe the skills and knowledge he is required to have when dealing with 90 employees and ensuring they apply all relevant programs, guidelines and policies.

[55]	Under ‘Responsibility for Outcomes’ of the SOD, Mr Norris believes his day to day responsibilities are well beyond those described as Band 5.  As an example, in his witness statement, he says the Band 5 descriptors outline a requirement that the incumbent is “responsible for ensuring specialised expertise is effectively applied to provide program and service delivery outcomes consistent with the operational framework”, whilst it is his responsibility to develop and implement a range of operational and business plans and policies, duties far beyond those required of a Band 5 classification.  

[56]	Further Mr Norris says the Band 5 descriptors outline “Responsibility for providing leadership, instruction and guidance to less qualified or experienced employees in the specific discipline or area of expertise” and that in his role as Operational Manager, he manages a broad range of activities and must ensure that others provide leadership in the various operational areas under his direction.  Because of this broad range of activities, he contends this part of his SOD best fits Band 6 descriptors.

For the Respondent

[57]	Witness testimony was taken in evidence from the Food Services Manager, Mr Robert De Salis, for the respondent.

[58]	Mr De Salis advised his role as Food Services Manager involves the overall management of Food Services at the RHH and other sites that aren’t serviced from the production centre.  That involves the central production kitchen, the cafeteria, the meal distribution site and all other sites that are serviced by the RHH.  He is also the manager who sits above the Operational Manager.

[59]	It was confirmed under testimony by Mr De Salis that the Operational Manager position was previously known as the Food Production Manager and Mr Norris was permanently appointed to that position in 2007.  He said the role did not change significantly with the name.

[60]	In general terms Mr De Salis says the Operational Manager is responsible predominantly for the day to day management of the production area, the Team Leader is in charge of the distribution of meals and functions and the Executive Chef and Food Production Supervisor are more hands on day to day activities within the production centre.  The Business Support Officer is responsible for the administration of ordering of stores, negotiations with clients and financial reporting.

[61]	Mr De Salis advised a positions matrix was created for the Food Service Unit because throughout the translation process they needed to identify what positions were responsible for what tasks. The Matrix breaks each of the tasks down and allocates them to the relevant role.

[62]	In terms of human resource tasks Mr De Salis said this of the Operational Manager’s role:

“Designs shift structures, approves the hours, can be involved in chairing selection panels, determines training, designs rosters, implements Workers Compensation plans, training plans which is then approved by the manager of food services.”

[63]	As at the time of translation (March 2009), Mr De Salis confirmed the Operational Manager was able to arrange and sign off on overtime.  Subsequent to this, there has been a change in the process which now requires the Group Manager to approve all overtime.

[64]	Mr De Salis testified that ultimately the Food Services Manager is responsible for ensuring the food production service meets the quality standards, but that the Operational Manager is responsible to ensure that compliance is reached and maintained and to report any matters which don’t comply.  The only exception to this is if any non-compliance involves a major breakdown in the facilities.  These matters need to be put through to the next level of management, which is the Group Manager, for action.  

[65]	Dealing with the food safety program, Mr De Salis said:

	”The food safety program is a documented process that systematically examines all of the food handling operations of the food business and it identifies and rectifies any potential hazards and once identified the control – there’s monitoring controls along the way.  There’s the food standards it needs to comply with the Tasmanian Food Act and the Food Standards Code and Local Government requirements”.

[66]	Mr De Salis said it was the Operational Manager’s responsibility to collect evidence and update the food safety program as required, to reflect the current standards:

	“…so if there’s standards that need to be met, the policies, the protocols around that are written into the food safety plan.”

[67]	Mr De Salis stated that audits are a requirement of hospital accreditation and involve the use of a template proforma.  This template records details in accordance with the food safety program.

[68]	In relation to the food safety program Mr De Salis testified only the Operational Manager or the Food Services Manager can change the document.  Further Mr De Salis advised his role is to give endorsement to the final food safety program document and that it needs to comply with the external auditor requirements and local government body (the Environmental Health Unit of the local council).  Mr De Salis confirmed the food safety program document is a working document that can change readily with such things as a change in dress policy or a change to supplier lists of contractors.

[69]	When questioned about the supply list, Mr De Salis said the Operational Manager is responsible to source the best quality products with involvement from the Business Support Officer to establish accounts with the suppliers.  He confirmed the Operational Manager is involved in the specifications of the products (with some 600 items on the grocery contract).  Recommendations are put by the Operational Manager to the State wide evaluation panel for products.  Estimates are then put out and the preferred supplier is chosen.  Mr De Salis said the supply list is created through the State wide evaluation panel.  At the time of translation the Operational Manager was a member of the statewide evaluation panel of food contracts.

[70]	Under questioning from the Commission Mr De Salis confirmed that Mr Norris is the only person who actually makes changes to the food safety program.  In effect Mr Norris makes changes throughout the year and implements those new processes.  It is not until later that those changes are endorsed by the Food Services Manager prior to the external auditor undertaking the annual audit.  

[71]	In relation to the Banding System Mr De Salis advised he did not direct Mr Norris to undertake that work.  It was a recommendation from Mr Norris that a Banding System was required and Mr Norris then undertook that work.

[72]	When questioned on suppliers non-compliance issues, Mr De Salis said the Operational Manager could make recommendations to the statewide evaluation panel that they no longer purchase from a particular supplier.  This was also the case in 2009 when Mr Norris was on the panel.

[73]	In relation to external client work:

	“Back in 2009, there was a number of new clients including nursing homes, child care centres, meals on wheels and that was set up by – they would be negotiations through the operational manager - could source new clients.  It has been an outlet for being able to service other areas as well as just the hospital.  So there was negotiations needed there by both manager food services, operational manager and also the business support, to set up new clients”.

[74]	Mr De Salis confirmed - under questioning by the Commission - that both he and Mr Norris could make the initial contact with a prospective external client.  He said:

“Operational manager can make direct contact with clients and source new clients”.

[75]	When questioned by the respondent about Mr Norris working outside of his SOD, Mr De Salis said:

	“…I think we all do over and above what’s in the statement of duties.  The day to day items on there are fully covered, yet the nature of the business does call for additional work to be done over and above what’s in the statement of duties and because of the nature of the business it is difficult to determine in words what is required on a daily basis.”

[76]	In relation to occupational health and safety, Mr De Salis said the Operational Manager works with the Food Services Manager to identify any required changes to work practices.  For example Mr De Salis said the Operational Manager led the occupational health and safety project in the plating up area, an area that is considered high risk.

[77]	When questioned about the status of the food safety program being a policy, Mr De Salis said:

	“An example of that is the hospital has an overall dress policy, the food services department has a dress agreement policy which abides by the over-arching policy but then has our own specific requirements for within the food services department, draws down more on the specifics of what is allowable within food services.”  

	“A policy is a protocol on how the rules, if you like, I see that as being the rules of the department so to clarify from the agency policies which are the over-arching policies and there’s internal guidelines or internal policies still using the same terminology but that is seen as our house rules, if you like, or what’s needed within our, specific to our department”.

	“Yes, just in terms of the way that you express what a policy was, what would be a policy?....Well, yes, it’s an internal, again it’s an internal department policy.

	I knew this would come up and I actually, I looked in the dictionary and I can explain to you, tell me if you think this is wrong but a policy and this is in the Collins Dictionary, a policy is a plan of action adopted for or pursued by an individual government party or business.  Is that a plan of action?....Yes.”  

[78]	Mr De Salis said Mr Norris didn’t write the food service department dress policy by himself but rather it was written in consultation with a working group and that is part of the food safety plan.

[79]	Mr De Salis testified that the Operational Manager is responsible for the provision of information or recommendations on the purchase of new equipment.  He is also responsible for providing reports and advice on life span and condition of equipment.  When questioned by the Commission Mr De Salis said he could not recall a time when a recommendation from the Operational Manager for purchase of new equipment had not been accepted.  He advised that as Food Service Manager he had authority to sign off asset purchases up to $5,000 but the Operational Manager cannot approve asset purchases.

[80]	In respect of tenders and contracts Mr De Salis advised the unit needs to meet with suppliers and ensure they understand the type of product that is required to comply with standards.  He said two people do the external site audits.  Usually they would be the Food Services Manager and the Operational Manager with both of them signing off on the audit.

[81]	Dealing with the issue of business planning and development, Mr De Salis says an example of this type of work would be a contingency plan for the facility.  He advised this work is done through the safety and quality areas of the department and input comes through the Operational Manager.

[82]	Mr De Salis advises Mr Norris was involved in business planning with the design and development of the new production facility at Cambridge for which he received a higher duties allowance.  He said:

“…planning for a new production facility so there was a significant amount of work that went into building that…”

	“So certainly Mr Norris has capacity for that but does his – does his operational manager [sic] require that of him?....No, no this was a project over and above the normal runnings of the operational manager.”

[83]	Mr De Salis confirmed the work of Mr Norris in designing a work area in 2009.  He used the plating area as an example of a work area that needed to be physically rebuilt and redesigned.

[84]	Speaking of the proportion of the Operational Manager’s role that involves food safety (in an exercise of carving up his time) – Mr De Salis said:

“As a percentage – it’s difficult to put a number to it.  It’s a significant part of the role to ensure compliance because the whole program is about systems that are in place to work – to make sure that it all complies so that’s from goods coming in right through the whole department to goods going out to be produced into something else so it does cover a significant portion of the role.  So as a percentage of the role – trying to put a number to it because a lot of the other time is spent with general staffing issues so time allocated to that is difficult to determine – in a number.  (my emphasis)

[85]	When questioned about the Operational Manager’s involvement in operational plans Mr De Salis testified:

		“Is it the case that there are operational plans that he doesn’t have input into?....I think all operation plans within out department would need to have input from the operational manager”.

[86]	Further Mr De Salis testified that Mr Norris has been involved in –

	“The operating procedures of the department, that goes right through to the tasks on what staff need to be doing on a daily basis and any cleaning schedules, for example, temperature audits, those type of documents that come out of, they are all weekly guidelines.

	And they have been a solo effort on the part of the operations [sic] manager?....Predominantly, a lot of those yes”.

[87]	Under cross-examination Mr De Salis confirmed that the process of non-compliance of contractors can be dealt with directly between the Operational Manager and the contracts unit.  He said:

		“So it doesn’t necessarily have to go through you, it can go - ….No, it can go direct –

		And that happens? ….It does.”

[88]	When questioned about his work involving 128 subordinate staff, Mr De Salis indicated he has significant involvement with the Business Support Officer, Operational Manager, Team Leader, Cafeteria Co-ordinator and Executive Chef, down to that operational level.

[89]	Mr De Salis says it is possible for the Operational Manager to take human resource issues straight to the Human Resource department for advice, depending on the severity of the issue, or he may escalate it to the Food Services Manager.  However, he says a lot of the issues are sorted by the Operational Manager:

		“…when in 2009 when he was in the  hospital and say for instance there’s a major conflict in the distribution area amongst the distribution staff, is that escalated to you or at the particular time did Mr Norris deal with that?....Most of the issues should have been sorted out by operational manager [sic].

		Should have been?....Should have been and were…”

[90]	Mr De Salis confirmed in his witness statement:

	“…The operational manager is a key stakeholder in the implementation of major projects and designs and implements projects in conjunction with the manager of food services.”

Submissions

For the Applicant

[91]	The work attributed to Mr Norris by the applicant in these submissions is work he carried out at the time of translation (ie as at March 2009).

[92]	The increase in classification sought by the applicant would have the Operational Manager position classified at the same Band as the manager position that sits over it, that being Band 6.  The applicant submits that this situation was contemplated in T13411 of 2009 at point 6 sub point (8) as it states:

“The outcome of a dispute may have implications for other employees.  The effect on other employees are to be examined for job design consequences”.

[93]	The applicant states this means a reclassification may have an effect on the structure of the workplace; however it is possible that two positions in the structure (one above the other) may still be classified at the same level.

[94]	The Operational Manager is responsible for food production, food distribution and the cafeteria which form the major functional areas within the Food Services Unit.  This includes a food production facility that is not like any other food facility in that he is responsible for providing specific nutrition to clients as well as operating as a large-scale commercial kitchen.

[95]	The Operational Manager is responsible for ensuring that food quality, diversity and nutritional values are maintained.  In addition he is responsible for ensuring food safety and the broader management of the facility.  This position supports the operational activities of a defined field of activity (Food Services) through management and provision of specialist advice.  The activities are complex and significant for functional unit outcomes.  The applicant contends these activities are described in the first paragraph of the Band 6 descriptors under “Focus”.

[96]	The Operational Manager’s duties involve broadly and importantly the application of policy in relation to food safety including providing direction and facilitating training and compliance, business support, strategic development, risk management, tender support and human and physical resource management.  The applicant contends the position fits within Band 6 because the role:

		“…supports … the operational activities of a defined field of activity and that’s food production, managing and providing specialist advice, particularly in relation to, … policy, food safety standards, the involvement in accreditation”.

[97]	The applicant states interpretation of policies, regulations and guidelines is a part of the focus of duties of the role and that it is contemplated within the descriptors for Band 6:

“…investigation, review, research and analysis, integration of very diverse policies, rules, systems and processes for effective operational outcomes”

and that accordingly the Operational Manager SOD best fits Band 6 when evaluating it against the primary focus outlined in the classification descriptors.

[98]	The applicant submits the primary material that should be considered in determining the classification of a position should be the SOD.  However they believe the assessment undertaken by Angela Powell dated 9th August 2012 is merely a commentary of the activities undertaken by Mr Norris, rather than an objective assessment of the meaning of the words contained within the SOD.

[99]	The applicant states the assessment is contradictory in that the assessment says under justification:

	“…Under the broad direction of the manager food services the operational manager develops and implements food safety programs, policies and guidelines, and is responsible for the provision of recommendations to the manager”

which the applicant says is correct.  However, in the next paragraph of the assessment it states the focus of the role does not have regard for the autonomous interpretation of policies, regulations and guidelines.  This is the contradiction because the SOD contemplates the incumbent reviewing and making recommendations in relation to the development of policy or policy changes without assistance.

[100]	The applicant says the Operational Manager role is responsible for modifications that are consistent with policy, regulation and technological requirements and development.  The assessment says under the heading of “Justification”:

“The role is expected to exercise initiative on a day-to-day basis and adopt innovative methods and approaches to achieve agreed outcomes.…The expertise component of this role exceeds the knowledge expectations of band 5 and best fits band 6.”

[101]	The applicant agrees with the Agency’s assessment that the “expertise” component of the Operational Manager role best fits Band 6 and submits that the expertise required for the role should be considered in the context of the broader classification regime.

[102]	Due to the human (90 subordinate staff which includes managerial positions) and physical resource management and the broader policy and organisational elements required of the Operational Manager role, the applicant believes the SOD fits within the ‘Focus’ and ‘Interpersonal Skills’ descriptors of Band 6.

[103]	The facility operates 7 days a week, 365 days a year and involves day workers, business support administration and clerical, managerial and supervisory positions as well as operational staff for food production.  This creates organisational complexity.

[104]	Dealing with the ‘Interpersonal’ and ‘Judgement’ components of the descriptors, the applicant submits the activities of the Operational Manager, particularly relating to the development of policy, regulation and guidelines are higher in weight than those described at Band 5 and that the Band 5 descriptors do not envisage an employee undertaking development of policy as is described in the SOD.

[105]	When evaluating the SOD and actual duties performed as a requirement of the role, the applicant contends the Context and Framework as outlined in the descriptors best fits Band 6.

[106]	The applicant submits the Operational Manager role has autonomy of approach in management of staff to ensure compliance and also for application of those policies that apply to the workplace.  The role investigates, reviews, researches and analyses varied and diverse policy systems, roles and processes to ensure an effective operational outcome.  The assessment, on a number of occasions, mentioned the Operational Manager “assists” in his role.  However, the only time the SOD mentions “assist” is in the area of development and implementation of operational plans.  Again the applicant submits the assessment provides a commentary of the elements of the role, rather than assesses the role against descriptors.

[107]	The applicant says the assessor never interviewed Mr Norris when compiling the assessment, inferring the assessment was not as robust as it could have been, had such an interview taken place.

[108]	The applicant submits the evidence shows that it is Mr Norris’ responsibility to apply the food safety plan in the food services area as part of the decision making framework.  It contains policies, rules and regulations.  It supports a service delivery in a defined field of activity, namely Food Services.  The Operational Manager has considerable authority of approach and the evidence shows that the incumbent makes decisions that are definitive and also he sometimes makes decisions that are referred to the Food Services Manager, but often are not.

[109]	The Operational Manager clarifies and interprets the decision making framework.  The applicant believes the application of the food safety program to guide the activities in that work area is applying the decision making framework and that the role also requires the incumbent to research, investigate, analyse, evaluate and integrate relevant solutions for diverse disciplines or fields of activity.

[110]	The applicant says the food safety program is a policy - and the application of that policy is a significant component of the Operational Manager’s role.  Accordingly the evidence points to the position being a best fit at Band 6.

[111]	The applicant submits the respondent was desperate in its submissions to disguise the food safety program as anything but a policy.  The applicant contends the food safety program is a document that exists due to a legislative requirement.  The operational facilities involved in this matter cannot operate without it:

	“It’s a legislative requirement that a document such as this exists.  The organisation can’t operate – it can’t operate without there being a policy whether it’s called a program, whether it’s called a policy or whether it’s called something else.  In our view it’s a policy.  It provides the framework and interestingly Mr Sales said in his closing submissions that – words to the effect that really the incumbent has day to day authority to undertake work within a framework.  We’ve already heard evidence that the framework is a significant component of the work that is undertaken by the incumbent and that is reviewing it, amending it and in fact, historically having written it in addition to other documents that form the broad policy and framework within which the position – within which the position exists”.

[112]	The applicant recalled Mr De Salis’ testimony that generally speaking human resource issues don’t come to him - that the Operational Manager would make those decisions and provide authoritative advice:

		“So that in our view is authoritative advice, he provides, he represents the organisation with authority to negotiate and conclude outcomes…”

[113]	The applicant pointed to the testimony of Mr De Salis who confirmed the work on the Banding Structure was undertaken with a significant degree of autonomy on the part of the Operational Manager.  Mr De Salis also stated that the advice he took from the incumbent was - in his view - sound, authoritative and that he would act on that advice.

[114]	The applicant submits that it is obvious the service delivery outcomes of the Food Services Unit can be altered by the decisions of the Operational Manager.  The Operational Manager’s advice is regarded as authoritative, specialised, consultative and/or management advice.

[115]	The structure, the applicant says, should not be the guide for the classification of a role and that a SOD should be classified in accordance with the award classification descriptors and it should be the structure that changes as a result of an incorrect classification.

For the Respondent

[116]	The respondent submits the Full Bench majority decision in T13644 of 2010 of this Commission provides the principles of best fit under the award and deals with the issue of the SOD being the primary source document for assessing classification.

[117]	The respondent advised a lot of resources and time have gone into a thorough investigation of the Operational Manager role.  They relied on the SOD, the organisational chart and the Form 5 provision of information by the incumbent to undertake the reclassification assessment.

[118]	As provided in the testimony of Mr De Salis, the respondent submits the management of the Food Services Unit created a “food service positions matrix” to assist in the large number of reclassification reviews that needed to be undertaken in this work unit.

[119]	The respondent says the Food Services Manager reports to the Group Manager of Hotel Services and Logistics and is one of four Band 6 managers to do so.  There is a similar structure in the north and a different structure in the north-west area of the State.

[120]	The respondent referred to the Form 5 information provided by the incumbent, and more particularly the information contained under the table headed “What is Challenging/Why is it Challenging”.  However, the respondent gave no detail of examples as to why they sought to rely on this information, only that it gives some detail of what was required of the Operational Manager’s role.

[121]	The respondent compared the SODs of the Food Services Manager and the Operational Manager at a number of levels including, the duties and the information contained in the positions matrix document.  The respondent submits this positions matrix shows that one of the roles is the “doer” and one is the person who is responsible for ensuring that the legislation and standards are actually applied accordingly.  However the respondent did not make submissions on how any of these matters aligned with the classification descriptors.

[122]	The respondent submits that it is not just the Operational Manager who is responsible for performance development and performance management of allocated subordinate staff, but so too are the Food Production Supervisor, the Executive Chef, the Food Distribution Supervisor and the Team Leader of Distribution.

[123]	The respondent submits it is explicit what level of control and autonomy these two roles have.  One has day-to-day initiative and one has the authority for all the Food Services, all practices, adherence to safety plans and that role is the Food Service Manager.

[124]	The respondent states they have undertaken 723 different translation review applications since 2009, with only a handful left to complete.  They submit it is important to maintain the principles employed in these reviews to ensure equity for all of the parties who have participated in the process.  To this end the respondent says a classification is based on a position and not the person undertaking it.

[125]	The respondent says no one is denying Mr Norris’ ability to work as a Band 6 as he has acted in the Food Services Manager position on a number of occasions and received higher duties allowance for that and other long term project work.  The respondent relies on the Full Bench majority decision in T13644 of 2010 as it says:

	“To have regard to qualifications or duties not required by the SOD is tantamount to declaring the SOD irrelevant.  It is our view that the SOD is the pivotal document on which a classification is determined.  It is the Head of Agency who decides the skills and qualifications required for performance of the work, not the incumbent…”

[126]	The respondent disagreed with submission’s made by the applicant that a classification should include duties that might be contemplated to be undertaken into the future, rather only taking into account what was required of the role in March 2009.  The respondent submits this is the principle and what is contained in the abovementioned decision.

[127]	The respondent says it has applied, throughout the translation process, the principle of ‘best fit’ as contained in the award.  Further, Mr Sales submits more clarity is provided to that clause from the majority decision of T13644 of 2010 which said:

	“We agree with the basic premise of Ms Fitton’s submission and consider that “best fit” has a similar meaning to “major and substantial” when it refers to the determination of a classification level.  Both mean that the classification level should reflect what work the employee is required to perform for the major part of his/her time at work and takes into account skills and qualifications necessary to do so.  It does not intend an exercise of cherry picking certain requirements and selecting the “best” to allow a favourable reclassification.  It does not take into account “one off” events such as special projects and short term events or matters already considered in the initial classification determination.  We are of the view that the major and substantial expression satisfies the overall theme or “feel” of a particular band.”

[128]	The respondent says that the second para of Part III, cl 1(a)(ii) of the award is relevant in this matter:

	“In using the descriptors it is important to consider particular organisational arrangements such as the reporting relationships above and below specifically assigned duties”

and that is why it is important to consider the SOD of the manager above a role, the positions matrix of the entire unit and the Form 5 information provided by the incumbent.  This gives context to a position.

[129]	In relation to the human resource role of the Operational Manager, the respondent states that whilst Mr Norris has 90-odd subordinate staff under his control, others also have responsibility for performance managing those staff and Mr Norris is never supervising all 90 at the one time.  The respondent agrees that issues of performance are escalated to the Operational Manager and submits the most complex human resource issues are escalated to the Food Services Manager.  This shows there is context in the organisation.  The respondent contends the classification descriptors don’t accommodate a numerical based argument, so the number of subordinate staff under the control of the Operational Manager is irrelevant.  There are other managers and supervisors who have a role to play in managing those subordinates as a manager is never managing all of the staff at the same time.

[130]	Mr Sales for the respondent said:

“…I would say, that the presence of the Band 6 manager above the operational manager does not by itself preclude the operations [sic] manager from also being band 6.  In fact when HAHSA was introduced we had the amalgamation of three different streams and that resulted in the occasional provision”.

[131]	Further the respondent contends:

	“So I would agree in principle that the presence of the band 6 food service manager is not an impediment to this claim.  Where this claim comes unstuck however is that there is a very clear articulation of the differences in level of responsibilities, expectations, level of expertise and so on between the two roles which for the most part are mirrored by classification standards.”

[132]	The respondent says the Operational Manager role is about day-to-day management, ensuring standards and addressing issues as they arise.  The Food Services Manager role is about autonomy, setting the standards, setting the goals and there is a clear delineation between the two roles.

[133]	The respondent submits that the award handles the classification descriptors over three different parts.  The first part groups bands together.  The grouping that is relevant in this matter is the grouping of Bands 4, 5 and 6 in the award and referred to previously in this decision.  It is submitted by the respondent that all positions in Bands 4, 5 and 6 could be involved in the maintenance and modification of guidelines, systems and processes.

[134]	Mr Sales for the respondent says the fact that the Operational Manager modifies guidelines, systems and processes does not necessarily make his role a Band 6.  He believes you need to look elsewhere for assistance, that being the “Differences between Band 4 and Band 5” as contained in the award.  The respondent submits this clause encapsulates the day to day work of the Operational Manager.

[135]	Dealing with the “Differences between Band 5 and Band 6” the respondent believes it is the Food Services Manager’s responsibility to ‘apply’ the decision-making framework to Food Services and that the recommendations he provides are regarded as definitive for that activity.  The respondent submits there is no role above the Food Services Manager in the structure who knows more about the Food Services area than that manager himself.  Therefore he is the definitive authority for the Food Services Unit.

[136]	However, the respondent acknowledges that when you get down to the next level within the award classification descriptors and looking at specific component descriptors, there are similarities in the two roles.  The respondent says because the descriptors group Bands 4, 5 and 6 together the applicant’s argument is flawed in relation to the Operational Manager role being a Band 6 due to the work that applies with policies, rules and regulations in support of service delivery within a defined field or activity.  The respondent believes the only thing that needs to be worked out is what level the Operational Manager is operating at within this grouping of bands.  

[137]	The respondent states that whilst both Band 5 and Band 6 can provide authoritative advice (see ‘focus’ and ‘interpersonal skills’ components) the distinguishing part of the role is the level of advice given by the Operational Manager and the Food Services Manager.  In the broad band description the Band 6 advice is not only authoritative, it is also definitive.  The advice provided by the Operational Manager is typically within the food services department.  The advice given by the Food Services Manager is often at the executive level and is considered definitive.  

[138]	The respondent advised authoritative advice is contained within the descriptors at Band 5, however definitive advice is contained within the descriptors at Band 6.

[139]	The ‘Judgement’ and ‘Influence of Outcomes’ components of the classification descriptors in the award for Band 5 states:

	“Judgement
	…Identifies, assesses and responds to changes to guidelines, systems, methods and processes in applying appropriate solutions.
	Influence of Outcomes
	The work provides significant specialised support in meeting the work area’s objectives.
	Influences the skill development and performance of less experienced employees.
	Influences the effective use of infrastructure, systems and processes and their modification in response to changes to operational procedures and the decision-making framework”.

[140]	The respondent says that modification work undertaken by the Operational Manager is characterised in the Band 5 descriptors.

[141]	Dealing with the issue of considerable autonomy the respondent submits that the words “considerable autonomy” appear in the scope of the Food Service Manager’s SOD but they do not appear in the Operational Manager’s SOD.  The respondent says the Operational Manager does not operate with considerable autonomy in determining priorities, procedures and approaches in implementing policies; he does so under the general direction of the Food Services Manager.  The respondent believes the Form 5 information provided by the incumbent as part of the translation process, reveals the real level of autonomy of the Operational Manager’s role, although Mr Sales provided no further submission on this point.  

[142]	Whilst the applicant submitted that the ‘Judgement’ component of the SOD fits into Band 6, the respondent says the SOD very clearly states that the scope of work is “exercising initiative on a day to day basis”.  Decisions which go beyond the day to day are escalated and handled by the Food Services Manager, for example, making changes to menus, permanent changes to rosters, seeking additional resources.

[143]	It was confirmed by the respondent that the assessor saw fit to place the ‘Expertise’ component of the SOD into Band 6.  Mr Sales says it is quite common in job design to have some variance in where the components sit and that one component in Band 6 doesn’t make the position a Band 6.  He said:

“There is a position, there is a person, then there’s a big space in between, which I will call a grey space, and I think that’s probably been [sic] where the decision will rest…”. 

[144]	The respondent submits the SOD is an accurate reflection of what the organisation requires of the role, rather than what the incumbent is capable of.

[145]	When questioned by the Commission about Mr De Salis’ evidence where he said he thought there was a requirement for employees to do more than what their SOD allowed for, Mr Sales said he was not sure that he agreed with Mr De Salis’ testimony.  Mr Sales also submits that it is not surprising that the strong performers would work beyond their statements of duty.

[146]	The respondent states a “policy” is as described in the award by definition.  Mr Sales says he does not care what Food Services call their document (food safety program), but he does not believe it is a policy.  It is not a controlled document nor has it been endorsed by the CEO or the Executive.  It is a document that affects the Food Service Department at the RHH.  From a job classification point of view Mr Sales says you have to look at influence of outcome and responsibility of outcome and you can find that by looking at the descriptors in the award which groups Bands 4, 5 and 6.  

[147]	Mr Sales submits the food safety program is not a policy but is merely a collection of policies, protocols or guidelines.  The respondent believes a policy is a document of a much higher level than that which Mr De Salis and Mr Norris are dealing with.

[148]	The classification descriptors dealing with Band 7 and Band 8 talks of policy which is not uncontrolled.  Mr Sales said:

“…we’re talking about policy with a capital P”.

[149]	The respondent does not subscribe to the fact that the Operational Manager’s role has autonomy or even reasonable autonomy.  The respondent says the role has day to day initiative and judgment within a framework.

Findings

[150]	This dispute relates to the classification band most relevant to the Operational Manager’s role.

[151]	The Full Bench decision of T13644 which is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania subscribed that the SOD was the “pivotal document” in that matter.  Whilst the relevance of this decision is questionable at this time, this issue needs addressing.  The majority decision stated:

“To have regard to qualifications or duties not required by the SOD is tantamount to declaring the SOD irrelevant.  It is our view that the SOD is the pivotal document on which a classification is determined.  It is the Head of Agency who decides the skills and qualifications required for performance of the work, not the incumbent…”

[152]	It is fundamental that an employee must be paid according to the correct classification in the award for the work that is required to be carried out for that occupation.  Furthermore it was clear from evidence led by the respondent’s own witness that the requirements of the role were in excess of those contained in the SOD.

[153]	Whilst both parties submitted that the SOD was the primary document for such a dispute I cannot agree with this.  The pivotal document must, in fact, be the award and more particularly the classification descriptors contained within it.  The award has legal standing and is the document that underpins workplace entitlements and the classification and remuneration framework of employees.  Nowhere in the decision of T13411 does it say that the SOD has primacy over the award.

[154]	I agree that a high performing employee who acts outside of the requirements of a role, for reasons of their own, should not rely on those additional duties for the purposes of a re-classification.  However, where the requirements of a role are not appropriately reflected in a SOD, those duties should form part of any assessment for classification purposes.  The translation process entered into by the parties to this dispute failed to resolve the matter.  This dispute now requires determination on the evidence before this Commission.

[155]	After considering the role of the Commission in this matter, the evidence, submissions and exhibits, the substantive question to be answered is “pursuant to the classification descriptors, what is the ‘best fit’ for the role that is required to be done?”

[156]	Unfortunately the period of time it has taken to exhaust the award processes and to lodge this dispute with the Commission has made the job very difficult.  On numerous occasions the applicant, the respondent and their witnesses were required to check their submissions and testimony to reflect what the case was in 2009, rather than what is current practice.  That made for confused testimony and effectively two lots of evidence about the role.

[157]	Some tasks and/or responsibilities of the Operational Manager role from 2009 are no longer carried out or required, however I conclude on the evidence that the overall “feel” of the role has not changed in that time.

[158]	The respondent advanced an argument at hearing that the principles of the assessment process as undertaken by DHHS should be upheld.  It is not for this Commission to review the process of translation assessment conducted by DHHS or any other agency.  Again the Commission’s role is to assess the role required of the Operational Manager in accordance with the classification descriptors and framework contained within the award.

[159]	During the hearing the applicant submitted the assessor of the SOD (Angela Powell) did not interview the incumbent.  This evidence was not refuted by the respondent.  This is a fundamental flaw in any argument advanced by the respondent.  Without interviewing the incumbent the assessor was not able to ascertain what Mr Norris saw as the true requirements of the role and was unable to test that information against information from other sources.

[160]	Whilst I am not seeking to review the translation process the fact that the assessment was less robust than it could have been, adds to my opinion that SODs are rarely definitive or fool proof as anomalies of this kind can often occur in the creation and evaluation of a SOD. A SOD is a document that reduces an occupation to words (role, responsibility and duties) and whilst they are important in the employer / employee relationship, they may not capture the entirety of the requirements of a role.

[161]	The respondent made a number of submissions relating to the high level performance of Mr Norris in his role as Operational Manager, inferring that Mr Norris was operating outside of his SOD and undertaking duties which were not a requirement of the role.  Certainly there was evidence led that Mr Norris undertook major project work which was not seen as part of his role and for which he received additional remuneration by way of a higher duties allowance.

[162]	However, when the respondent questioned its own witness, Mr De Salis, about whether Mr Norris operated outside what was required of him in his role.  Mr De Salis said:

	“…I think we all do over and above what’s in the statement of duties.  The day to day items on there are fully covered, yet the nature of the business does call for additional work to be done over and above that’s in the statement of duties and because of the nature of the business it is difficult to determine in words what is required on a daily basis.” (my emphasis)

[163]	Whilst Mr Sales contended that he didn’t agree with Mr De Salis’ testimony, I believe Mr De Salis would be more knowledgeable on these issues and I accept his evidence on this matter.

[164]	Clearly the Food Service Manager is of the opinion that the Operational Manager is required “on a daily basis” to carry out additional work over and above that that is contained in the SOD.  This is not suggesting that Mr Norris occasionally has to work outside his SOD but that it is a daily occurrence.  Evidence from both Mr Norris and Mr De Salis showed Mr Norris acts with autonomy in his role as Operational Manager writing and modifying the food safety program, the Banding Structure and any other policy type document (dress policy) required to be modified as part of the food safety program.  In this regard it could be argued that he carries out work that is in excess of that even envisaged by Band 6.  He develops tender specifications, acts autonomously when dealing with external clients, even identifying and pursuing new clients to increase business for the Food Services Unit.

[165]	Further Mr De Salis’ evidence shows that the SOD is a guiding document but, because of the nature of the business, it simply cannot reduce into words all the requirements of the role.

Is the food safety program a “policy”?

[166]	Under testimony Mr Norris stated that during 2006 it became mandatory for the Food Services Unit to have a food safety program as they prepare and serve food to a vulnerable population (i.e. medical patients, aged and child care facilities).  Further he confirmed that the food safety program was integral to everything they do in the unit:

		“The policy’s there as a guide to what we need to do …
		…that policy ensure that our food is safe if we use the guidelines all the way through and we do our checking at the critical control points, that’s what ensures that our food’s safe for our patients and clients.”

[167]	Mr De Salis testified that he requested the Operational Manager (Mr Norris) to develop a food safety program.  Mr Norris confirmed this point and further gave evidence that he completed not only one food safety program, but two, as a separate food safety program was required for the new Cambridge facility.  He stated that the document was written from scratch as it needs to be specific for each production centre/kitchen.  This evidence was uncontested by the respondent and shows this work is and was a requirement of the role.

[168]	Mr De Salis advised that it was also part of the Operational Manager’s role to make changes to the food safety program, to implement those changes and that the Food Services Manager’s role was to endorse any changes to the document.  However, Mr De Salis confirmed that the accepted course of action was that he would endorse the food safety program prior to the annual audit.  As a consequence, changes were made and implemented by the Operational Manager regularly without his endorsement at that point in time.

[169]	The award definition of “Policy” reads:

		“2.	Reference Framework
		The following definitions have been adopted to complement the classification descriptors.  They reflect the hierarchical nature of the work undertaken in complex State Service organisations.  The work performed by individuals in these organisations may range across one or more aspects of this reference framework.  Invariably, however, the principal objective of the work of an individual employee aligns more closely with one aspect than another.
(a)	…
(g)	Policy
	Create, design, develop, model, trial, test, modify, adopt or implement a course of action.”

[170]	The importance of the food safety program was apparent throughout the evidence and submissions led by the parties.  The document is a legislative requirement for the accreditation and operation of the RHH kitchen and production centre facility.  The applicant submitted that the organisation cannot operate without it and that it is a significant component of the work that is undertaken by the Operational Manager.  This was supported in evidence by both the applicant and respondent witnesses.

[171]	The respondent submitted that as the food safety program was not a controlled document it could not be considered a policy.  I cannot support this point of view.  The award provides a definition of ‘Policy’ which is clear for classification purposes.  A policy is a document that implements a course of action through the creation, design, development, trial, testing and modification of that document.

[172]	Both the witnesses for the applicant and the respondent confirmed the importance of the food safety plan to the Food Services Unit and that its existence was mandatory for the RHH kitchen and production centre.  It was developed, implemented and modified by the Operational Manager. The food safety plan is clearly covered by the ‘Policy’ definition contained within the award and cannot be classed as an operational guideline or a list of procedures.  It is an integral directive to all employees within the Food Services Unit and contains other policy information such as dress codes which are specific for purpose.  As such I find the document to be a policy for the purposes of classification definitions.

[173]	Again, both Mr Norris and Mr De Salis confirmed under testimony that Mr Norris acted autonomously and was integral in the development of the Banding Structure (relating to the provision of quality food to patients) within the department.  This evidence was also uncontested by the respondent.

[174]	Under the Focus of Duties in the Operational Manager’s SOD dot point 2 reads:

		“Under the broad direction of the Manager Food Services, develop and implement food safety programs, policies, guidelines.  Provide recommendations to the Manager of Food Services regarding required organisation or policy changes.”

[175]	Clearly the SOD provides for the development of policies by the Operational Manager, albeit under the broad direction of the Manager Food Services.  However, the evidence provides that Mr Norris wrote two food safety policies, a Banding Structure and on a daily basis is required to modify those documents and implement the operational changes required by those modifications.  He was specifically requested by his manager to write the first food safety program.  The creation and implementation of the Banding Structure was carried out with more autonomy than the food safety program.  I find that the Operational Manager role requires autonomy to fulfil the obligations of that role, particularly in relation to policy and regulatory compliance.

[176]	Further I find that the Operational Manager is not only required to apply the decision making and operational framework to achieve the required outcomes for the Food Services Unit but he is required to create, implement and modify that framework.

What is meant by ‘best fit’?

[177]	The award states ‘best fit’ as:

	“”Best Fit”:

The job components have equal weight or effect and no description within a component has more importance than another.  Some descriptors, however, are more relevant in describing different types of work than others, and therefore will have more influence in classifying that work.  Naturally, not each and every descriptor applies to any individual job.  These descriptors are appropriate used when particular descriptors of job components and the overall theme or “feel” of a particular band provides the “best fit” to an employee’s duties. (my emphasis)

		In using the descriptors it is important to consider particular organisational arrangements, such as the reporting relationships above and below specifically assigned duties.”

[178]	The respondent referenced a meaning of ‘best fit’ in the majority full bench decision T13644 of 2010:

		”We agree with the basic premise of Ms Fitton’s submission and consider that “best fit” has a similar meaning to “major and substantial” when it refers to the determination of a classification level.  Both mean that the classification level should reflect what work the employee is required to perform for the major part of his/her time at work and takes into account skills and qualifications necessary to do so.  It does not intend an exercise of cherry picking certain requirements and selecting the “best” to allow a favourable reclassification.  It does not take into account “one off” events such as special projects and short term events or matters already considered in the initial classification determination.  We are of the view that the major and substantial expression satisfies the overall theme or “feel” of a particular band.

[179]	The term ‘major and substantial’ can be traced back to 1971 in the case of Ware v O’Donnell Griffin (Television Services) Pty Ltd.  On reading the transcript of both the Full Bench appeal (T13644 of 2010) and the original decision of Shelley DP (T13435 of 2009) I am unable to find any argument advanced regarding ‘major and substantial’ in any of the submissions of Ms Fitton or any of the parties.  The appearance of the term in the majority decision of the Full Bench is a curiosity.

[180]	Research shows the term ‘major and substantial’ as referring to the determination of award coverage and not classification matters.  A Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), Carpenter v Corona Manufacturing Pty Ltd (Williams SDP, Lacy SDP and Tolley C) stated (at page 389):

		“In our view, in determining whether or not a particular award applies to identified employment, more is required than a mere quantitative assessment of the time spent in carrying out various duties.  An examination must be made of the nature of the work and the circumstances in which the employee is employed to do the work with a view to ascertaining the principal purpose for which the employee is employed. (Ware v O’Donnell Griffin (Television Services) Pty Ltd)”

and further at para 25 of Carpenter v Corona:

		“Various full bench decisions have held that the proper approach to determining whether an employee is covered by an award requires an assessment of the principal purpose for which the employee was employed…”

[181]	In a Full Bench decision of the Industrial Court of New South Wales Notaras v Knight (Walton J (VP), Haylen J and Backman J) said (at para 13):

		“..Counsel for the appellant accepted that the “major and substantial” test was appropriate to apply in the context of determining which award classification applied to the work of an employee covered by the award.  In industrial matters the test has been used to determine award coverage where there are contesting awards but has also been used in a wider context in resolving demarcation disputes, (my emphasis) for example.  The scope of the “major and substantial” test was set out by Sheldon J in Ware v O’Donnell Griffin (Television Services) Pty Ltd [1971] AR (NSW) 18 at 19 where, in relation to the principle, his Honour stated:

		It seems to me that this is clearly a case to which this principle is applicable.  This principle is almost as old as industrial arbitration and it makes a practical approach to determining the application of awards where duties are of a mixed character and contain elements of which if taken alone would be covered by more than one award…”

[182]	A Full Bench decision of the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW in Kingmill Australia Pty Ltd t/a Thrifty Car Rental v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) [2001] 106IR 217  which dealt with an issue of coverage by an award stated (at para 70):

		“It should be noted that the application of aids to construction, such as the ‘major and substantial’ or ‘principal purpose’ tests, should be approached with caution.  The automatic adoption of such an approach may, depending on the terms of the award, have the potential for awards to be interpreted inconsistently with their plain words and, therefore, unnecessarily restrictively.  This potential may be greatest when the scope of the award’s coverage clause is expressed in broad and inclusive terms.”

[183]	The term ‘major and substantial’ is an industrial test to determine the scope of award coverage.  I find that ‘best fit’ cannot have a similar meaning to ‘major and substantial’.  Clearly one deals with the application of a relevant award and the other deals with the assessment of a role within classification descriptors.

[184]	Having dealt with what ‘best fit’ is not, I now have to address the meaning of ‘best fit’.  A previous decision of Abey P (then Abey DP) accepted the argument advanced by Mr R Hitchcock representing MASSA (DHHS) as to the meaning of ‘best fit’:

		“Quantitative and temporal factors expressed as percentages or otherwise are relevant but not necessarily its sole determinant and picture.  I think it’s also worthwhile noting that the level of importance of the regularity of the task can be just as significant in terms of defining what a job is, as how often it is performed.

		I agree that this is the correct approach.”

[185]	I also agree with Abey DP in that approach.  The classification of a role cannot come down to a simplistic mathematical percentage; it must consider the importance of and regularity of a task performed by the incumbent.

[186]	An example of this would be the fit of a dress.  If a dress fits across the neck and shoulders, chest and waist but is too tight in the important hip area – it could not be described as the best fit.  Although the dress would ‘substantially’ fit the wearer, it could not be described as the best fit, as the fit in the hip area would render it unwearable due to comfort and risk of damage to the fabric.  

[187]	‘Best fit’ must consider the importance of all tasks and the regularity with which they are performed as a requirement of the role.

[188]	In the terms of the approach above, ‘best fit’ can only mean the classification band must encapsulate descriptors which take account of the importance of all tasks or duties and not merely the regularity of performance of some of them.  ‘Best fit’ cannot simply propose that as only a small proportion of the role operates at a high level (i.e. expertise) that the role cannot be classified at a high level.  It must also take account of the importance of that part of the role.

How does the best fit test apply to the classification descriptors for the Operational Manager role?

[189]	The general stream descriptors in the award provide for four broad levels according to the focus of the work and the framework in which it is performed.  Bands 4, 5 and 6 are all grouped together.  As this dispute relates to whether the Operational Manager role is a Band 5 or Band 6, I agree with the respondent’s submission that the broad level descriptors do little to assist in determining the matter.

[190]	As referred to previously in these findings ‘best fit’ in the award says “Some descriptors, however, are more relevant in describing different types of work than others, and therefore will have more influence in classifying that work.  Naturally, not each and every descriptor applies to any individual job”.  This refers to the individual descriptors which make up each component of the bands.  Therefore whilst the role of Operational Manager may not address all of the descriptors for each component at Band 6, this does not mean that that component of the role is not a Band 6.

[191]	The assessment of the SOD carried out by the respondent revealed the expertise component of the Operational Manager role was Band 6.  Looking at the descriptors for ‘expertise’ I concur with this.  The classification descriptor reads:

“Expertise
Significant expertise in the relevant discipline(s) and associated field of activity gained through in-depth experience.
Highly developed and detailed understanding of the operational framework including regulations, policies, systems and processes for effective program and service delivery.
Management roles require significant management skills and expertise to lead a complex activity or program unit to support the operations of the functional area.
Roles providing specialised advice require highly developed detailed subject-matter knowledge.
Incorporates knowledge of relevant associated activities within the functional area to improve operational effectiveness and service delivery.”

[192]	This component of the role is of vital importance.  Mr De Salis testified that the Operational Manager was required to spend a lot of time on the operational framework which in turn required a high level of expertise in the food safety area.  Whilst the respondent submitted these were “day to day” functions of the Operational Manager there can be no doubt the role requires specialised advice, highly developed knowledge, management skills and expertise.  Further, the role requires the incumbent to improve operational service delivery through food safety compliance and relationships and negotiation with external clients.  Without this expertise I believe the role would be unsustainable.  This encompasses the all important ‘hip area’ fit of the dress.

[193]	I accept the evidence and submissions of the applicant that the food production facilities associated with the RHH are unique in Tasmania and the activities associated with the Operational Manager’s role are “complex and significant for functional unit outcomes”.

[194]	The ‘Focus’ component of classification descriptors in the award for Band 6 states:

		“Focus
Roles support the operational activities of a defined field or activity by managing or providing specialised advice.  These are complex activities of significance for the delivery of outcomes for the functional or program unit.
A management role interprets policies, regulations and guidelines and designs and implements plans, systems and procedures to deliver services consistent with program objectives.
Specialists identify and define issues according to the established decision-making and operational framework to develop operational solutions, guidelines and recommendations for improved service delivery outcomes.
This involves a highly detailed focus on the activities of the field and may involve more than one discipline.
This includes investigation, review, research, analysis and integration of varied and diverse policies, rules, systems and processes for effective operational outcomes.”

[195]	Mr De Salis testified that all operational plans within the department were subject to input from the Operational Manager.  Further he confirmed that the weekly guideline documents were a “solo effort” on the part of the Operational Manager.  The respondent submitted that it is the Food Services Manager’s responsibility to apply the decision making framework to Food Services.  I accept the ultimate responsibility of the Food Services Manager is greater than the Operational Manager, however the respondent’s submission does not take account of the fact that the Operational Manager role is required to develop, implement and modify policy documents that formed part of the decision making framework.  Mr Norris is required to develop operational solutions, guidelines and recommendations for improved service delivery outcomes and he does so each and every day.  Clearly this means he interprets policies, regulations and guidelines and is acting at a higher level than contemplated in the award for a Band 5.

[196]	I find the ‘Focus’ requirements of the Operational Manager’s role best fits the Band 6 descriptors.

[197]	The ‘Context and Framework’ component of classification descriptors in the award for Band 6 states:

		“Context and Framework
The work area unit or program activities have a direct and significant effect on outcomes of the functional unit or program activity.
The role operates with considerable independence in determining priorities, procedures and approach in implementing policies, plans, systems and procedures in a complex specialised environment.
Guidance and instruction may on occasion be received on the implementation of modifications consistent with policy, regulatory and/or technological requirements and developments.
Work of a highly technically complex nature or with a varied range of activities may receive instruction and/or provide innovative solutions to meet program or service delivery outcomes.”

[198]	Both the Band 5 and Band 6 descriptors of this component describe considerable independence.  However Band 5 allows for work to be “undertaken within established guidelines, systems and processes”…  As stated previous the Operational Manager is required to develop, implement and modify a number of documents which are policy and operational guidelines as well as carry out a varied range of activities.  These ranges of activities include food safety compliance, which Mr De Salis confirmed was a large requirement of the Operational Manager’s role.  As at March 2009 the Operational Manager was also a member of the State wide evaluation panel of food contracts and made recommendations at that level.

[199]	Mr De Salis’ evidence also provided:

“…The operational manager is a key stakeholder in the implementation of major projects and designs and implements projects in conjunction with the manager of food services.” (my emphasis)

[200]	I find that the Operational Manager not only works within, but creates part of, the guidelines, systems and processes and accordingly the ‘Context and Framework’ component of the Operational Manager’s role best fits Band 6.

[201]	The ‘Interpersonal Skills’ component of classification descriptors in the award for Band 6 states:

		“Interpersonal Skills
Informs and negotiated to gain the acceptance of others regarding the application of policies, plans and processes in providing defined services and program delivery outcomes.
Provides authoritative advice, recommendations and solutions in implementing complex rules, regulations, guidelines, systems and processes within the field of activity.
May represent the organisation with the authority to negotiate and conclude outcomes that meet the specified requirements and objectives of the program or service delivery unit.

[202]	Evidence from both Mr Norris and Mr De Salis stated that the Operational Manager identified and sourced external clients for the department.  The Operational Manager was required to meet with clients, negotiate contracts and provide advice to the Food Services Manager and the contracts compliance section of the department.

[203]	The Operational Manager manages 90 subordinates over the areas of the production centre, the distribution centre and the cafeteria.  The respondent submitted that the manager above Mr Norris (Mr De Salis) had control of 128 subordinates.  This is an irrelevant argument when comparing the descriptors to the requirements of the role.  The Operational Manager handles most human resource issues directly which involve rostering, training and, as at March 2009, included the approval of overtime.  He ensures the employees under his control are compliant with the food safety program and other operational guidelines.  He not only provides authoritative advice and solutions about regulations and guidelines, he modifies and implements changes required by regulations.  The Band 5 descriptors do not encompass “advice or recommendations, solutions in implementing complex rules, regulations, guidelines”.  The role is operating in excess of the Band 5 descriptors.  Accordingly, I find the requirements of the Operational Manager role ‘Interpersonal Skills’ best fits the Band 6 descriptors.  

[204]	The ‘Judgement’ component of classification descriptors in the award for Band 6 states:

		“Judgement
Clarifies and interprets the decision-making framework and operational systems and procedures to provide outcomes consistent with program objectives.
Initiative, flexibility and creativity in developing options and recommendations to resolve problems and improve service delivery outcomes.
Highly developed conceptual and reasoning skills to research, investigate, analyse, evaluate and integrate relevant solutions from diverse disciplines or fields into area of activity.”

[205]	The respondent submits that the modification work undertaken by the Operational Manager is characterised in the Band 5 descriptors.  This is correct.  However, this submission ignores the fact the Operational Manager was requested and is required to develop and implement the food safety program, together with the Banding Structure and other operational documents pursuant to legislative obligations.  This work has a higher value than that envisaged by the Band 5 descriptors.  However I cannot find that the requirements of the role fit the descriptors of Band 6 under the ‘Judgement’ component.  It would appear the role of Operational Manager is somewhere in between the band descriptors for this component.

[206]	The ‘Influence of Outcomes’ component of classification descriptors in the award for Band 6 states:

		“Influence of Outcomes
Advice and recommendations are provided directly to the manager of the function or program area in relation to implementation of policies, plans and processes
Service delivery or program outcomes may be altered as a result.
There is a clear and direct effect on effective and efficient operation of the function or program activities
Advice provided is regarded as authoritative, specialised, consultative and/or management advice.  There may be a strong influence on associated program activities in the functional area.”

[207]	Mr De Salis testified that the Food Services Manager is responsible for ensuring the food production service meets the quality standards, but the Operational Manager is responsible to ensure that compliance is reached and maintained.  Clearly this requirement has the Operational Manager acting at a higher level than that envisaged by the ‘Influence of Outcomes’ descriptors for Band 5.  Looking at Band 6 the Operational Manager only rarely provides advice direct to the manager of the “function or program”, however the work he is required to undertake on the regulatory and decision making framework has a direct effect on the operation of the function of his department.  It is for these reasons I find the ‘Influence of Outcomes’ component of the Operational Manager’s role is a better fit in Band 6 than Band 5.

[208]	The ‘Responsibility for Outcomes’ component of classification descriptors in the award for Band 6 states:

		“Responsibility for Outcomes
Responsible for the implementation of policies, regulations and plans to provide efficient and effective program or service delivery outcomes.
This includes developing guidelines and performance options, planning future activities, negotiating for appropriate resources and determining measures for accountability.
Management and/or quality control of outcomes, processes, systems, resources, assets and infrastructure.  This includes managing the performance of sub-ordinate staff.
Provides advice on the application of policy to systems and processes in meeting specified program objectives.”

[209]	Mr Norris believes his day to day responsibilities are well beyond those described as Band 5 for ‘Responsibility for Outcomes’.  He says the Band 5 descriptors outline a requirement that the incumbent is “responsible for ensuring specialised expertise is effectively applied to provide program and service delivery outcomes consistent with the operational framework”.  However he has a responsibly to develop and implement a range of operational and business plans and policies.  These duties are not envisage by the Band 5 descriptors.  Further the applicant says the Band 5 descriptors outline “Responsibility for providing leadership, instruction and guidance to less qualified or experienced employees in the specific discipline or area of expertise”, and that the role of Operational Manager requires a broad range of activities and to ensure that others provide leadership in the various operational areas under his direction.  This was supported by Mr De Salis’ evidence.  Because of this broad range of activities, the applicant contends this part of his SOD best fits Band 6 and I agree with this submission.  I find the ‘Responsibility for Outcomes’ component best fits the Band 6 descriptors.

[210]	The respondent provided submissions relating to the Operational Manager having no power to approve asset purchases and a number of submissions dealing with the provision of definitive advice.  The Food Services Manager can sign off on asset purchases up to $5,000 in value.  The structure of the Food Services Unit, as evidence in the matrix and organisational chart, provides that the Food Services Manager is the definitive source of advice for the Executive.  I agree with this position.  The description of “definitive” relates to advice or recommendations and is contained in the summary of differences between Bands 5 and 6 in the award.  To suggest that a role would not be considered ‘best fit’ because of not achieving this level of advice or not being authorised to sign off on asset purchases would be nonsense.  As previously stated a classification dispute should not be an exercise in cherry picking.  This goes both ways.  Inevitably all parties are going to put their best case forward.  It is the role of the Commission to find the real requirements of a role from the evidence that is put forward.

[211]	The respondent’s submissions centred around the argument that the Operational Manager was only responsible for day to day management of the department (the “doer”) whilst the Food Services Manager had overall responsibility for the strategic management of the department and to ensure that the legislation and standards are applied accordingly.  Mr Sales referred to the positions matrix document, organisational chart and the Form 5 to support his argument.

[212]	However, the evidence and submissions did not prove this argument.  There are distinct differences between the two roles.  Mr Norris is responsible for the day to day management of the department, but this does not in itself mean the role is not broader than that  That would ignore the ‘best fit’ test.  It is about what the Operational Manager is required to do day to day in his role.

[213]	Accordingly I find that the overall ‘theme’ or ‘feel’ of the role of Operational Manager pursuant to the award classification descriptors is Band 6.

Order

Pursuant to s31(1) of the Act I hereby order that the position of Operational Manager, Southern Tasmanian Health Organisation, Food Services be classified at Band 6 of the Health and Human Services (Tasmanian State Service) Award and that Mr Ian Norris be translated to Band 6 of that award, effective from the date of the first full pay period on or after 5 March 2009.

N Wells
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances
Mr T Jacobson for the applicant
Mr T Sales for the respondent (MASSA)
Mr T Witt for the respondent (Department of Health and Human Services)

Date and place of hearing:
January 30
2013
Hobart