On 11 February 1985, I issued a decision in part settlement of application T. No. 16 of 1985. The decision determined a work value claim prosecuted by the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association (T.P.O.A.). Page 2 of that decision records the following:

"In addition to the work value proceedings, a number of other claims were made by the T.P.O.A. In broad terms they were:

- a restructuring of some of the salary scales;

- the introduction of new classifications;

- the insertion of new definitions;

- the inclusion of certain allowances in the salary scales.

Following off record discussions on 20^th December 1984, the T.P.O.A. agreed to my suggestion that all matters, other than the work value claim, should be the subject of further negotiations between the parties."

At reconvened proceedings on 10 April 1985, Mrs. Herbert for the T.P.O.A. indicated that in spite of a number of conferences in the intervening months, no progress on the outstanding matters had been achieved.

The 10 April hearing was adjourned to allow further discussion between the parties and if necessary preparation of submissions going to any matters not agreed. Final argument was heard on 23 April and a decision reserved.

Mrs. Herbert referred to Exhibit H.7 to summarise the T.P.O.A. position Exhibit H.7 reads as follows:

In dealing with those matters that are still live, Mrs. Herbert submitted that as the Prison Officer is allowed to sit for an approved Senior Prison Officer's examination during the fourth year of service, (excluding the probation period) that should logically coincide with them reaching the top of the career scale. The effect of the proposal is set out in Exhibit H.2. The bottom and top figure in the scale remain the same with two steps between rather than three as at present. The Prison Officer consequently reaching the top of the career scale in five years (including the probationary period) instead of the current six years.

Mrs. Herbert then dealt with the second part of the claim (1) a reduction from three to two incremental steps for the Chief Prison Officer. It was her submission that:

- there did not seem to be any real reason for having a three year scale;

- that other senior officers enjoyed a two year scale: and

- once an officer had earned the rank of Chief Prison Officer there should not be a three year wait to reach the top of the scale.

Claim (2) seeks a new classification, Prison Officer - 1^st Class. It was submitted that the new classification should be inserted in the award structure, between the Prison Officer and Senior Prison Officer grades. The salary for the new position should be $18,264 (pre 2.6%) the mean of the difference between the top of the Prison Officer and the bottom of the Senior Prison Officer scales. The T.P.O.A. asserted that:

- an incentive was needed for the Prison Officer who had reached the top of the scale;

- there are only seventeen senior positions within the prison limiting promotion to Senior Prison Officer;

- a comparison with the Police Officer's salary structure supported the claim;

- it was not the minimal money increase that was important but the recognition of rank.

In dealing with the claim to combine the male and female scales, the T.P.O.A.'s main points in support were:

- the Prison Officers' Award was one of the very few which still distinguished between male and female;

- if the claim to reduce the Chief Prison Officers' scale from three to two steps succeeded, it would allow a combining of the two classifications - Chief Prison Officer and Superintendent - Women's Division.

Claim (9) seeks a change in qualification for Senior Prison Officer and the inclusion of a definition for Prison Officer - 1^st Class. The latter, of course, is dependent on the success of the claim for the insertion of that classification in the award.

The new provision sought to be included in Clause 11 - "Qualification" reads as follows: -

"Senior Prison Officer and above -

The requirements for Prison Officer and in addition -

(i) five years satisfactory service in the Tasmanian Prison Service as a prison officer: and

(ii) successful completion of an approved Senior Prison Officers' examination;

or qualifications and practical experience as a Prison Officer in the Tasmanian Prison Service which in the opinion of the controlling authority is at least equivalent thereto."

The above provision is the same as is currently contained in the award with the addition of the underlined words. The impact of those words is obvious.

It was said in support of the changes that:

- there is little scope for promotion within the Prison system and any promotional prospect should be given to Tasmanian Prison Officers;

- eighty per cent of the current staff have ten years of loyal service which should be rewarded when senior vacancies are filled:

- it has been said that Tasmanian prison officers are the best in Australia, certainly their industrial record is better;

- many senior vacancies are filled by external applicants.

In concluding her submission, Mrs, Herbert acknowledged the restrictions of the National Wage Principles. In recognition of those restrictions, a number of claims made against the controlling authority had been withdrawn. However, those that were still live could, in her opinion, be processed in accordance with the Principles.

Mr. Huxtable for the Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.P.S.A.) succinctly described his Association's position as follows: -

"The position of my organisation is that I neither oppose nor support the submissions of the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association. I merely wish to disassociate myself from them but I do feel that it is proper to make a number of remarks in doing so."

Those remarks are summarised as under:

- the T.P.S.A. as indicated in the work value case, believes that claims subject of this application should be dealt with within the working part convened by the Minister:

- the working party has embarked on a thorough examination of all relevant matters with the aim of an improved industrial climate at the prison, this application deals with only a small part of the overall considerations;

- acknowledged there were difficulties within the working party particularly because of the differing stances of the T.P.S.A. and T.P.O.A.;

- still held hope that some of the matters pressed by the T.P.O.A. in these proceedings could be resolved by agreement within the working party;

- in any case matters which ultimately must come before the Commission for award variation whether by agreement or arbitration would do so by way of an earlier T.P.S.A. application only after the conciliation process was totally exhausted;

- pointed out that there would be extreme difficulties with the qualifications and definition proposed for the Senior Prison Officer;

- any decision in this matter does not preclude the T.P.S.A. from proceeding with their claim at an appropriate time.

Mr. Willingham for the Public Service Board dealt with the various claims in the same order as the T.P.O.A. His submissions are summarised as follows: -

- the reduction in scales for the Prison Officer and Chief Prison Officer have been the subject of considerable research and extensive assessment by the working party;

- the P.S.B. did not have a fundamental objection to that part of the T.P.O.A. claim;

- the current consensus is that the five (5) year scale for the prison officer may be excessive in terms of the time it takes to be fully versed in his/her duties;

- while interstate comparisons are dangerous, the average of other states is 3½ to 4 year scales for the prison officer and 1½ to 2 years for the chief prison officer;

- there is one (1) probationary prison officer, four prison officers within the first incremental step, none in the second, six (6) in the third and nine (9) in the fourth who would benefit marginally from the change proposed;

- the immediate cost effect of any decision to vary the award scales as claimed would be nil. Minor increased costs would occur at the next anniversary date;

- the total estimated cost of the claim over the next five years is approximately $6,000;

- the claim for the new classification Prison officer 1^st Class is opposed;

- nothing that fell from the work value case suggested that a new classification was required;

- a reward for loyal, diligent and efficient service is not an argument of merit when seeking a new rank;

- a claim for a reduction in scale for the prison officer and a new classification primarily based on service is something of a contradiction;

- the claim for the inclusion of the additional words in the Senior Prison Officer qualification is vigorously opposed;

- if successful it would virtually mean a closed shop;

- one of the management prerogatives that still remains is the right to employ the best applicant for the job;

- a decision in favour of the applicant would fly in the face of the State Services Act 1984 which is based on the preservation of the merit system or principle;

- experience gained within the Tasmanian Corrective Services system would mitigate for, not against applicants;

- the P.S.B. has no difficulty with the claim by the T.P.O.A. for a degendering of the Prison Officers Award.

Mr. Pearce intervening on behalf of the Minister endorsed the submissions of the P.S.B. going to the merit of the various claims. He then dealt at some length with the National Wage Principles particularly as they relate to the reduction of salary scales. A number of brief excerpts from the transcript of proceedings best summarise the Minister's views.

At Page 414 Mr. Pearce is reported as follows:

"As a threshold to our consideration we would concede that any variations to awards, for whatever reason of whatever purpose must not occur for reasons that may be seen as circumventing the intent of the Principles. Therefore and to this extent such variations must be limited in their capacity to generate flow-on considerations. Further that the cost associated therewith be negligible."

and at Page 415 -

"After due consideration it is our submission and belief that the matter can be accommodated within the existing Principle 11."

and at Page 416 -

"Prima facie we would submit we are not increasing a rate or rates of pay as designated by the current award. What we are in effect doing is reviewing the period of employment precedent upon obtaining a prescribed rate of pay.

In short we are hastening the period by which employees can obtain an already prescribed rate of pay. It is, we submit not the rate of pay which is the determinant factor in this part of the claim but rather the period of time which must elapse before a certain rate is achievable. A period of time we submit, goes to conditions precedent to employment. Therefore it is our submission that the particular items - namely the compression of scales for prison officer and chiefs can be processed through the agency of Principle 11."

In respect of the opposed claims it was the Minister's view that they could not succeed on merit or when tested against the Principles.

Mr. Patmore for the Law Department endorsed and adopted the submissions of the P.S.B. and the statutory intervenor.

Decision

1.     Reduction of Service Scales

"We would not want any other occupational group or service organisation to draw comfort from our stance on this particular matter.

We (in the context of the working party) have been looking at this for something like eighteen months. The most exhaustive analysis that could possibly be made I would suggest. We see this particular occupational grouping as a discreet body of people that can be isolated on merit on this occasion, but we would not want those who might view our words subsequent to this hearing, to impute in those words, what in fact is not there."

2.     New Classification - Prison Officer 1^st Class

3.     Combination of Male and Female Scales

4.     Qualifications or Definitions

J.G. King
COMMISSIONER