IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This application by the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia seeks ratification by the Commission of certain agreed work value salary adjustments to the classifications of Programmer and Senior Programmer. It also seeks inclusion of three new classifications namely "Graduate Programmer", "Telephone Betting Manager" and "On Course Manager (South)".

In addition, the Union has requested retitling of the classification of Regional Manager to Marketing Manager and that of Computer Testing Officer to Development Manager (Operations). No alteration in salary rates is sought for these positions.

The claim also sought adjustment of existing allowances for meal and tea money as well as travelling time rates to take account of the September '84 and April '85 National Wage variations.

Finally, a number of alleged errors that were said to have occurred in calculating the April 1985 National Wage flow on were asked to be put right.

Two witnesses were called to provide support for the claim in respect of new classifications and retitling of redundant positions.

The first witness, (Mr Bickford), was able to demonstrate a wide general experience in electronic and computer technology. He explained that between 1980 and 1983 Totalizator Agency Board programmers were concerned mainly with maintenance of computer software such as changing programmes. Programme or system development was carried out by external contract.

However, with the introduction of fixed odds betting systems such as Triwin, new programmes of an innovative nature needed to be developed, monitored and analysed. Other such programmes are envisaged for the future. That work is now being carried out by employed programmers.

This has resulted in programmers assuming considerably more responsibility than before. According to Mr Bickford around two to three years experience on computer programming would be necessary for non-graduates to be able to carry out system analysis work. But more recent university graduates in Computer Sciences may require a little less time to develop skills and expertise in the same field.

It was therefore considered desirable to make award provision for Graduate Programmers to be employed but at remuneration levels somewhat lower than experienced Programmers.

Mr Fry later called the Deputy General Manager, Mr Morse, to give supportive evidence about the position of On-Course Manager (South).

In that regard it was said that although the incumbent of the position is presently paid the same salary rate as a branch Manager in fact the duties of the two positions do not equate in terms of responsibility. Examples of the difference between the two were said to be:-

• On-Course Manager's capacity to maintain on-course computer terminals;

• his responsibility for rostering up to five times the number of staff;

• his responsibility for around five times the number of computer terminals;

• on-course terminals and cash handling for floats is around three times that of a Branch Manager's responsibility;

• the On-Course Manager operates from three different venues whereas Branch Managers operate from only one.

No prior work value exercises have been carried out in relation to these positions.

Notwithstanding agreement by the parties, this application insofar as it relates to salary rates for programming and managerial positions must be tested against Principle 4 (Work Value Changes) of the extended principles of wage fixation established by the Australian Commission in 19831 and subsequently adopted by this Commission.

The parties were agreed as to the extent of change in relation to both positions. They assessed the value of Graduate Programmer at within the range $18,500 - $19,500 per annum. The revised assessment of the position of On-Course Manager (South) was within the range $17,670 - $19,437 per annum.

It should be noted that the award does not provide incremental ranges for positions. It authorises instead appointment, progression or pegging at any point within a range calculated at 5% or thereabouts to 10% or thereabouts of the minimum salary rate for the classification concerned. This means that apart from initial appointment subsequent movement within those salary parameters is dependent upon performance.

While I am satisfied that the parties have properly applied their minds to sub-clauses (a) and (d) of Principle 4, I am none the less of the opinion that in making their own assessment of the net worth of change no attempt appears to have been made to incorporate into the award a logical salary progression scale together with progression criteria for Graduate Programmer to Programmer.

Looked at as a whole the award appears to me to have been made without any real regard for the relative worth of different disciplines set out in the award. On the face of it, it would seem that programmers' rates were originally established more on market rate considerations than on actual work value. But as this application deals only with the measurement of demonstrable change the Commission's task is to first of all decide for itself whether or not the change in work value is genuine and in need of monetary adjustment; and if so, the measure of that adjustment.

In the circumstances I am prepared to accept the parties' assessment of the net worth of change albeit somewhat reluctantly, as I am of the opinion the entire award hierarchy may not have been established in accordance with what might be regarded as standard award making criteria. Among other things, this usually involves some care and attention being given to the relative value of the class of work covered by the award as a whole.

Nevertheless I am satisfied that the rates agreed upon, if ratified, would do no violence to the wage fixing principles.

Accordingly I have decided to accept -

The remaining matters to be disposed of are those allowances for meal and tea money together with travelling time allowances which, due to inadvertence, were not adjusted for the September 1984 and April 1985 National Wage variations.

The parties have agreed to revise current rates to accommodate the two omitted CPI variations referred to.

As to rates for meal and tea money there can be no question that these rates ought to be adjusted in the manner agreed upon.

These constitute minor cost increases only and are approved.

So far as travelling allowances are concerned, as discussed during the hearing, it would be more appropriate to vary the award to reflect the amounts currently prescribed for Public Service personnel. Those amounts are to be ascertained by reference to the General Conditions of Service Award No S085. However, as that award has more recently been further varied by decision of a Full Bench2, the parties may decide to include the new standards established by that variation in the order to be issued as a consequence of this decision.

The operative date for revised salary rates and allowances shall be the first pay period commencing on or after 6 April 1985. But a later operative date may be established in relation to travelling allowances in order to reflect current Public Service standards.

A further matter of importance which arose during the hearing needs to be now addressed.

On application of the definition of "State Authority" set out in Section 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, there is little doubt that employees of the Totalizator Agency Board are by definition "State" employees. That being the case, it may now be necessary to make a new award in the appropriate format for State employees.

Employees of Agents it would seem are by definition private employees and may continue to be paid in accordance with an industry award if an appropriate award exists.

It should also be pointed out that Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 states that "the Commission shall make awards under this Section so that provision is made in some award for the classification of every State employee and every office or position in a Government department or of a State Authority". It would appear therefore that in bringing down a new award for those employees of the Totalizator Agency Board who are, by definition, State employees, it will be necessary to make provision in that award for all State employees, whether or not there already exists in this or some other State award a provision covering those persons.

The parties are therefore requested to confer on this important issue with a view to drawing up in terms, mutually agreed, and acceptable to the Commission, awards covering both State and private employees in the area of Totalizator Agency Board activities.

There remains for decision only the matter of rectification of alleged calculation errors resulting from the April 1985 National Wage Case. As the union's claimed figures do not reconcile with the revised amounts produced by applying the appropriate calculation to the rates existing immediately prior to application of the April 1985 2.6% adjustment, this part of the claim is refused.

L A Koerbin
PRESIDENT

12 November 1985

1 Print F2900
2 T33 of 1985 (Decision 15/10/85)