Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T295 - 28 May

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.295 of 1985 IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Branch No. 2 to vary the WELFARE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES AWARD
   
  Re: insertion of new classification structures, incorporating wage increases, into Sections IV and VI; and insertion of a "Special Licences" provision into Section IV, V and VI.
   
COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI HOBART, 28 May 1986  
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

 
 
     
APPEARANCES -  
 

For the Hospital Employees' Federation
of Australia, Tasmanian Branch No. 2.

- Mr. D. Rees
 
For the Federated Miscellaneous
Workers' Union of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch
- Mr. L. Brown
 
For the Hospital Employees' Federation
of Australia, Tasmanian No. 1
- Mr. P. Imlach
 
For the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries - Mr. M.C. Sertori
   
DATES AND PLACES OF HEARING:  
   
19 December 1985 Hobart  
4 March 1986 Hobart  
6 March 1986 Hobart  
8 April 1986 Devonport  
12 April 1986 Huonville  
   
   

Introduction

This application sought to vary Sections IV, V & VI of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award (the Award), as follows -

(i) Section IV: By deleting the classifications of Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor and inserting a new Supervisory structure.

(ii) Section VI: By deleting the classification structure for Functional Programmers and Programme Assistants and inserting a new structure.

(iii) Sections IV, V and VI: By including a "Special Licences" provision to facilitate the reimbursement of licence fees required to be met by employees to permit them to drive vehicles necessitating a licence other than a Standard Motor Car Licence. The quantum of reimbursement claimed was the difference in cost between a Standard and Special Licence, and such reimbursement was to be made only to those employees required by the employer to hold such a licence.

The claims were advanced before the Commission in accordance with the Principles of Wage Determination, specifically Principle 4 - Work Value in respect of items (i) and (ii) above; and Principle 9(b)(ii) - New Allowances in respect of item (iii) above.

Background

This matter has some history to it and therefore, for the purposes of clarity and completeness, I have decided to summarise in my decision some of the more important background giving rise to this current application.

The subject matters contained in this application first came before the Commission on 4 April 1985 when two applications, T.75 of 1985 and T.83 of 1985, were joined.

Application T.75 of 1985 was made by the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (FMWU). That application sought to vary Part I - Wage Rates, Sections IV and VI of the Award by increasing wage rates by reason of "work value assessment, inequity assessment, and any other reason the Commission may deem appropriate".

Application T.83 of 1985 was made by the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Branch No. 1 (HEF No. 1), in identical terms to T.75 of 1985.

In the course of proceedings in matters T.75 of 1985 and T.83 of 1985, Mr. Brown, appearing for the FMWU, indicated that when the matters were previously before the Industrial Board considerable written and oral evidence was presented, but in the final analysis the matters were not concluded by the Board.

Mr. Sertori, who appeared for the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries (TCI) in those earlier proceedings, acknowledged that the applications related to long standing claims, to which formal submissions were never made.

Mr. Sertori said -

    "Therefore the issues that the claim relies upon, namely work value assessment and equity assessment have not been specifically addressed."

(T75 and T83 of 1985) Transcript p.2

Mr Sertori's argument was that if the claim by the unions involved was to proceed on the basis of Principle 6 - Anomalies and Inequities, then it should be processed by referral to an Anomalies Conference in accordance with Principle 6(c).

Following further submissions from Mr. Sertori, Applications T.75 and 1985 and T.83 of 1985, were adjourned to allow them to be dealt with in accordance with the Commission's anomalies procedures.

Current Application

The current application numbered T.295 of 1985 was made by the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Branch No. 2 (HEF No. 2) and was lodged with the Commission on 10 December 1985. This application sought to increase existing wages and add new classifications in respect of duties and responsibilities of employees covered by Section IV, V and VI of the Award.

The matter then came before the Commission on 19 December, 1985 when Mr Rees, appearing for the HEF No. 2, outlined the parameters of the claim which was advanced on the basis of Principle 4 - Work Value of the Principles of Wage Determination.

Mr. Rees said -

    "We would hope that our application is in accordance with 4; Work Value changes, of the Principles. And to determine those changes, sir, we would of course request on site inspections and the taking of evidence at the respective welfare centres."

Transcript p.1

Mr. Rees also indicted in his introductory remarks that when this matter was previously before Assistant Deputy Chairman, Mr. Holden, as he then was, leave reserved was granted to the parties in respect of senior classifications contained in Sections IV, V and VI of the Award.

Mr. Rees said that the principal interest of HEF No. 2 is in respect of the Devonfield Complex and the homes attached thereto.

Mr. Brown generally supposed the comments made by Mr. Rees, and he too supported the need for me to appraise myself first-hand of the changes that have occurred.

Mr. Imlach, appearing for HEF No. 1, said that his organisation supported the application as detailed by Mr. Rees.

Mr Sertori's submission drew together all aspects of the various applications previously made and he, in very compelling terms, proposed that discussions take place between employers and unions before the matter proceeded any further before the Commission.

Mr. Sertori said: -

    "I think it is appropriate that before the claim is pursued, this hearing be adjourned to enable the discussion that would normally take place to occur between employers and employee representatives to address an explanation to the claim, to address the problems that are there, to establish whether there is any common ground and, indeed, to establish where we differ on certain aspects."

Transcript p.11

and later

    "So what I am asking for, sir, is an adjournment from today's proceedings so that process can take place. Then obviously we would come back before you on outstanding matters to then pursue them. All parties would be fully conversant and aware of just what is going to be dealt with.

Transcript pp 11-12

The trust of Mr. Sertori's submission, which I endorsed, was accepted by the other parties at the hearing and accordingly the matter was adjourned for a report back to the Commission on 4 March 1986.

Report Back

In a brief hearing on 4 March 1986 Mr. Rees submitted a copy of the detailed claim served on employers (Exhibit R1) and the Commission was advised as follows:-

    The union and employers had met on 24 February 1986 and an offer was made by the employers.

    The employers' offer had still to be fully considered by the union rank and file.

The hearing was then adjourned to allow the parties to confer and to again report back to the Commission on 6 March 1986.

On that date, the parties indicated that further extensive negotiations had taken place between them, and that they were ready to embark on a work value case.

Accordingly a detailed programme of inspections and further hearings was then scheduled.

Work Value Proceedings

In this matter I am required to determine the extent of the work value changes that have taken place in the classifications of Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor (Section IV of the Award) and Functional Programmer and Programme Assistant (Section VI of the Award).

In that context my considerations have focused on the strict requirements of Principle 4 - Work Value of the Principles of Wage Determination.

Comprehensive inspections were undertaken at the Devonfield Complex, Oakdale Walkabout, Yallambee and Tahune Fields, at which establishments approximately 955 of the employees occupying the classifications under review are located.

The Devonfield Complex, it was submitted, is indicative of the majority of facilities throughout the State regarding the change in emphasis from strictly care only, to care and training. It was outlined in evidence that the entire programme at Devonfield now focuses on training of clients and that this has become the primary function of employees subject to this work value review.

Turning now to the actual proceedings

At the outset of proceedings At Devonfield on 8 April 1986, Mr. Rees, also appearing for HEF No.1, sought leave to withdraw applications T75 of 1985 and T83 of 1985.

There was no objection to the withdrawal of those applications, and accordingly, as to all intents and purposes the subject matter of those particular applications was before the Commission in T.295 of 1985, leave to withdraw was granted.

Approval was also given by the Commission for Mr. Rees to withdraw his exhibit R.1, being the HEF No. 2 claim submitted to the Commission during the proceedings on 4 March, 1986.

In lieu thereof Mr. Rees submitted a new exhibit, HEF1, this being a consent document which detailed the variations sought to be made to the Award by the parties. I was informed that exhibit HEF 1 was the product of extensive discussions between union and employer representatives.

Mr. Rees then very succinctly detailed the Award variations sought, which are as follows -

Section IV (Supervisor; Assistant Supervisor; Managerial Duties Allowance)

The intention is to -

1. Delete Managerial Duties Allowance in Part I and the relevant definition in Part II of the Award;

2. Delete Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor classifications in Part I and the definitions in Part II of the Award;

3. Insert in Part I the following new classifications:-

Supervisor Per Week
$
Grade 1 300.50
Grade 2 285.50
Grade 3 268.00
Grade 4 263.00

The following new definitions were also requested to be inserted in the Award:

    SUPERVISOR

    Grade 4:-

    is an employee whose principal duties include assisting with the day to day care of residents.

    Grade 3:-

    is an employee whose principal duties include assisting with the day to day care of residents and who also assists with the implementation of residents developmental living skills under the supervision of senior staff.

    Grade 2:-

    is an employee employed within a single residential establishment who is responsible directly to management or senior staff for the day to day care and attention of residents, who implements residents living skills programmes and who performs some minor administrative duties which may include communication with parents and may be responsible for subordinate staff and maintenance of records as required.

    Grade 1:-

    is an employee employed within a single residential establishment or appointed by management to supervise multiple residential establishments who is accountable to management for the day to day care and attention of residents who implements residents living skills programmes and who performs administration duties which may include communication with parents, collection and banking of fees, assists in rostering of staff, responsibility of subordinate staff, assists in the maintenance of medical records and the up-keep of building and equipment.

(refer Transcript pp 22-24

Section VI (Functional Programmer; Programme Assistant)

In respect of the relevant classifications in this Section, Mr. Rees submitted as follows:-

    "Now in respect to Section VI the parties request, sir, that we delete the classifications and definitions of Functional Programmer and Programme Assistant in Part I and II of the award and insert in Part I of the award the following new classifications:

    Amount per week
                $
    Functional Programmer
         Grade I 345.00
         Grade II 320.00
    Programme Assistant
         Grade I 288.00
         Grade II 278.00

    In order that those new grades be defined, sir, we request that you insert into Part II of the award the following new definitions:

      FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMER

      Grade II:-

      Means a person employed in a centre who is responsible directly to the Functional Programmer Grade I or to Management for the implementation of programme components, care and training of clients and supervises subordinate staff.

      Grade I:-

      Means a person employed in a centre who is responsible directly to the Management and under the direction of Management initiates and implements programme components, is involved in the assessment and care and training of clients and is responsible for the supervision of subordinate staff which may include the Functional Programmer Grade II.

      PROGRAMME ASSISTANT

      Grade II:-

      Means a person employed as such who assists in carrying out the programme established for the centre and who assists in the care and training of clients.

      Grade I:-

      Means a person employed as such who in addition to the work prescribed for a Programme Assistant Grade II, under the supervision of senior staff is required to be involved in the assessment, on-going evaluation and post evaluation of clients."

Transcript pp 24-25

The effect of the proposed variations to the Award is illustrated as follows:-

Section IV - Residential Hostels (as defined) for Intellectually, Physically and/or Sensory Handicapped Persons

Existing

Amount Per Week

Proposed

Amount Per Week
  $   $
(a) Supervisor 280.30 (a) Supervisor  
 
         Grade 1 300.50
         Grade 2 285.50
         Grade 3 268.00
         Grade 4 263.00
 
(b) Assistant Supervisor 261.20 (b) Delete  

(c) and (d): existing classifications to remain

As indicated, it was proposed by Mr. Rees that the existing Managerial Duties Allowance of $18.90 per week, be deleted.

Section VI - Day Training and Activity Therapy Centres for Intellectually, Physically and/or Sensory Handicapped Persons Only

Existing

Amount Per Week

Proposed

Amount Per Week
  $   $
(a) Functional
     Programmer
318.90

(a) Functional
     Programmer

 
 
         Grade 1 345.00
         Grade 2 320.00
 
(b) Programme
     Assistant
275.30 (b) Programme
     Assistant
 
 
         Grade 1 288.00
         Grade 2 278.00

(c) and (d): existing classifications to remain.

Principles to Wage Determination

In evidence it was said that the work value changes in question have developed since about 1980 and that they have taken place "over the past 4 years or so". From the evidence presented I am satisfied that the work value changes in question do not extend back beyond that allowed by Principle 4(c); and for the purpose of this exercise I have taken as the datum point 1 January 1980.

This review therefore extends from that date until the conclusion of these proceedings at Tahune Fields 24 April 1986.

It is also appropriate for me to indicate that the parties, as would be expected, were totally committed to the fact that this work value review and the proposed restructuring of the relevant sections of the Award has to meet the tests enunciated in Principle 4; and that significant net additions to work requirements warranting the creation of a new classification, in each instance, must be demonstrated to the Commission.

In this regard Mr. Rees indicated that the strict tests of the Principles would be satisfied through the evidence presented by Mr. Daley, who is the General Manger of the Devonfield Complex.

Evidence

The main trust of the evidence presented, principally through Mr. Daley, (and supported by inspections at that location as well as at Oakdale Walkabout, Yallambee and Tahune Fields) was that a very significant and real change has taken place in Residential Hostels and Activity Therapy Centres. This has been a clear move away from the traditional model of care to the provision of a client-centre service which has as its principal objective, the maximisation of each individual's capacities. This is facilitated by one to one training and the implementation of individually tailored learning programmes.

The nature of the change is referred to in the 1984 Devonfield Complex Annual Report (Exhibit HEF 4), where at page 2 the following comments are made in respect of Sections IV and VI of the Award:-

    "The Activity Therapy Centre* embarked on specific client orientated programs. This programming imposed additional responsibilities on Staff. Greater emphasis is being placed on integration of people into the Workshop and living areas of the Complex. Wherever possible clients have been integrated within existing community programmes and involved in community activities which have resulted in their assuming the mantle of community responsibility, i.e meals on meals and tape recording services.

    The Hostel** as in accord with the other two major areas of the Complex has adopted needs based programming. Thus individual programmes catering for personal hygiene, domestic skills, social skills, recreational leisure skills etc., have been implemented to ensure that realistic and real life experiences are in operation. Residents have responded to development of their individuality and through informative choices have shown their ability to handle situations previously considered to be outside their scope and capabilities. During the year it was agreed to operate the Hostel residential on a 365 day year service, resulting in a greater demand being placed on the service.

    The change from the traditional institutional model of care to that of a client centred service has necessitated change in attitudes of Staff. Such change has been a radical but necessary one and credit must be afforded Staff who have adapted to this non institutional model of care. However wherever such a large group of people congregate and live together the dangers are always present to revert to the institution model of control and rule rather than positive facilitation of skills development."

    * Section VI - Activity Therapy Centres
    ** Section IV - Residential Hostels

The depth and detail of this change was illustrated by the evidence and inspections

Mr. Daley, who was the principal witness in this matter, gave precise and impressive evidence. I was informed that prior to his appointment as General Manger in August 1985 he was a member of the Board of Management of Devonfield for five year, during which time he was also Chairman of the Activity Therapy Centre, Hostels and Community Living Programme Committee.

The substantial changes outlined by Mr. Daley can be summarised as follows:-

    The old residential system based on providing care for clients, centred around live in house fathers and house mothers, no longer exists in the sense that Supervisors now provide training and care.

    The entire programme at Devonfield now focuses on training. For instance, four to five years ago clients were not permitted to assist in meal preparation, ironing, washing or the making of their beds.

    Because of the emphasis placed on one to one training of clients, roles have totally changed to the extent that these tasks are now performed by clients.

    The service previously provided could really be termed a baby-sitting and crèche service. The emphasis now is on training and developing, as far as is possible, self reliance.

    The aim is to facilitate the return of clients to the community environment, both from a living and working point o view.

    Whilst that particular ideal is not achievable for many clients, the immediate objective is to provide a level of training which will optimise each individual's level of independence.

    The teaching of what may be termed living skills is part of what is referred to as the "normalisation programme".

Training

In bringing about the change in direction and emphasis at Devonfield (other establishments were also inspected and I will comment on those later in this decision) employees have had to modify their approach and acquire new skills to complement the necessary training objectives.

In this regard I was advised that employee training falls into the categories of:

    (i) In-House training

    (ii) Off-Complex training

    (iii) Correspondence studies through the Endeavour Foundation in Queensland (Diploma Course)

I was informed by Mr. Daley that supervisory employees are participating in each of the above training options. He said -

    "We are continuously providing training to upgrade the skills, if you like, of our staff to improve their training ability..."

Transcript p.32

Work Value Changes - Section IV, Residental Hostels

I am totally satisfied that there has been, since 1980 ( and in particular from 1982 onwards) a significant change in the nature of the work performed by Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors classified within Section IV of the Award.

The Changes are also complemented and highlighted by the significant training that is required to be performed by these employees. Quite apart from anything else the emphasis now placed on "normalisation" reflects the change in community attitudes to intellectually handicapped people. The approach is no longer to keep these people closeted; but to integrate them as far as is possible into normal community living.

To bring this about, individual training programmes are developed and implemented by Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors.

In my opinion, an excellent example of the change in emphasis and the training role now undertaken was given by Mr. Daley when he said -

    "...if somebody was handicapped or had a disability of any sort and they had behavioural problems, they were just transferred down to the Royal Derwent.

    Now that doesn't happen. We retain them here as much as possible and we conduct very extensive training programmes..."

Transcript p.39

Subsequently, I requested Mr. Daley to give me an example of a pattern of behaviour necessitating the development of an individually based training programme and what that would entail.

Numerous examples were cited by him which in my view very clearly highlighted the significant change in the role and duties of Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors. Perhaps the best illustration was the step by step programming required in order to teach the cleaning of teeth to a client who does not have the skill and/or inclination to do so.

Mr. Daley said -

    "...previously, back before the 1980's, a staff member may go and get a toothbrush and physically restrain the trainee/client and the staff member clean the ...teeth... but now we don't do that. We have very competent staff, that is part of their training. The staff member concerned would conduct very intensive training programmes to ensure that the trainee/client is able then to look after their own personal hygiene."

Transcript p.42

And later

    "It is quite amazing really if you sit down and start drawing up a list of steps you take. There are some 27 steps involved in cleaning their teeth.

    As I say, it is very intensive because the staff member has to draw up the programme and then go through the simple exercise, like walking in, taking the toothpaste out...undoing it, pulling the draw out, taking the toothpaste out of the draw, sitting it on the bench, turn the tap on, take the toothbrush out of the holder, holding it under the tap to wet the toothbrush, undoing the top of the toothpaste, squeezing some toothpaste on to the toothbrush, putting the toothbrush back under the water, looking up at the mirror, opening the mouth - it goes right through 27 steps to clean the teeth.

    Now, we think it is quite simple to walk into a bathroom, pull the toothpaste out, squeeze a bit on the toothbrush and clean your teeth; it is not so simple."

Transcript pp.42-43

Having the opportunity to also conduct inspections at several other establishments, I am satisfied that the evidence adduced from Mr. Daley at Devonfield also holds for Yallambee Hostel and Tahune Fields in respect of the functions of Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors.

The Yallambee Hostel Manager, Mrs. D. Wilson, explained to me on inspections that the training programmes, for clients in that establishment include Cooking Programmes; Laundry Programmes; Money Concepts and Road Safety Training.

I was told by Mrs. Wilson that since 1983 the concept of community living has been promoted and advanced.

All training of clients are step by step programmes with the objective to fully maximising each individual's capabilities.

I was informed that as at Devonfield, Yallambee Supervisors are required to conduct regular individual assessments (Irrabeena Assessments) to monitor progress and assess new directions for the clients.

Similarly at Tahune Fields I was informed by Mr. W. Bender (the Manager) and Ms. C. Taylor that those same concepts are in place for that establishment.

I found the inspections at Yallambee Hostel and Tahune Fields extremely rewarding and I thank all of those involved.

I take this opportunity also to thank Mr. Daley for the very thorough and comprehensive inspections undertaken at Devonfield.

In my opinion, Mr. Daley presented expert evidence and very capably contrasted the work value changes that have occurred.

In all my inspections and contact with people involved in providing care and training for intellectually, physically and/or sensory handicapped persons, I was moved by their dedication and commitment to their work.

I also thank Mr. Blackwood and Mr. B. Schnierer for affording me the opportunity to inspect Oakdale Walkabout in respect of the work of Programmers in the Activity Therapy Centre at that establishments.

However, before dealing with the classifications of Functional Programmer and Programme Assistant, the question of the new structure proposed for Section IV of the Award has to be considered.

New Structure - Section IV

I accept the substance of submissions made by the parties and support their view that the requirements of Principle 4 - Work Value have been satisfied. In my opinion, the changes in the work performed by Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors, as detailed in this decision, are such that they constitute a significant net addition to work requirements.

What now is required is to decide on the appropriateness, in money terms as well as structure, of the four proposed grades of supervisors replacing the current classifications of Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor.

Whilst it is in my opinion fair to say that the extent of the progress made at Devonfield is not uniform or at the same level of sophistication in some of the other establishments where this Award applies, account is taken of the fact that approximately 95% of employees for the classifications under review are employed at Devonfield, Yallambee, Tahune Fields and Oakdale Walkabout.

In my opinion Devonfield leads the way insofar as it was apparent to me that at that establishment the concepts discussed in this decision are the most formalised and advanced.

Nevertheless there is no escaping the fact that change in accordance with the requirements of Principle 4 has taken place at all establishments.

I have reached the conclusion that there has been a demonstrable significant net addition to work requirements and that the proposed structure and rates of pay properly reflect those circumstances.

I therefore endorse the structure and the rates of pay. The appropriateness of rates of pay is further discussed later in this decision.

Approved Courses of Study

In reaching the foregoing conclusion, I recognise that the level of training skills utilised by employees, which are necessary in meeting the high aims of the establishments concerned, are attained through a combination of on the job training and experience together with formal training.

Formal training skills, acquired through participation in approved courses of study are on a basic fundamental, and in my view they complement and enhance on the job learning and training.

To take this aspect to its logical conclusion, and whilst I support the classification structure put forward by the parties, I am of the opinion that the definitions supporting the structure could be greatly enhanced if the criteria for progression from grade to grade also included suitable references to progression in and/or completion of approved courses of study.

Each subsequent grade above base grade could contain reference to progression at the lower end of the structure and actual completion, at the top end, of approved courses of study.

In my opinion this would represent a significant step forward and would be totally compatible with the thrust of the thinking of the establishments I inspected.

The 1984 Devonfield Annual Report, drawn to my attention by Mr. Rees, reads, at page 2, as follows:

    "All Staff at the Hostel are currently attending a Residential Care Course conducted by T.A.F.E. It is hoped that through the skills acquired and the exposure afforded by this course that a more professional service delivery will occur."

Whilst the above is only an example of one study option, I am aware that there are also others available.

The Endeavour Foundation Diploma Course material was submitted as an exhibit, and there are also other training courses available, e.g. the Special Needs Course and the Developmental Disabilities Course; and there may be others.

Accordingly, whilst deciding in favour of the proposed restructuring of the Supervisor Classifications, I intend for the parties to make further submissions going to the question of inclusion of references to approved courses of study in the definitions.

However the operative date for the order, when issues, will be the date of this decision, provided that this particular matter is speedily resolved. I will not impose a definite time limit by when discussions and further submissions should be finalised, but I would expect that only a little time should be required by the parties.

New Rates of Pay and Deletion of the Managerial Duties Allowance

A table detailing the current award wage rates and the wage rates now claimed is contained on page 12 of this decision.

The proposed rates of pay have been agreed to by the parties and in the overall sense the quantum increase is not great when regard is had for the fact that the Managerial Duties Allowance of $18.90 per week will be deleted.

Further, in assessing the rates of pay now requested to be included in Sections IV and VI of the Award, I am of the opinion that the parties have correctly assessed the increases.

The work value change, and the significance of it, can best be expressed in a structure which recognises differing levels of skill.

This is particular so in Section IV of the Award, when it is recognised that some employees are in fact intellectually and/or physically disabled.

Their contribution is recognised by a level only slightly ahead of the existing rate for an Assistant Supervisor, which is $261.20. This compares to the new Grade 4 supervisor rate which is $263.20 per week.

I am more than satisfied that the pay levels contemplated are a fair assessment, having regard to all of the factors and particularly the base (existing rates) used to build upon.

For instance, the weekly rate for a Supervisor increases from $289.30 to a top level of $300.50. However, taking into account the $18.90 Managerial Duties Allowance, which I was told was paid more often than not, this new rate of pay is the equivalent of $281.60 (an increase of $1.60).

I am strongly of the view that allowances such as Managerial Allowances become meaningless after a period of time. Often such allowances are simply used to prop up the overall wage on the basis that management wishes to recognise, understandably in some cases, increased responsibilities borne by certain employees.

It is by far preferable to clearly define the parameters of the work required to be undertaken and attach a rate of pay commensurate with those duties and responsibilities. I therefore have no hesitation in deleting the allowance which allows a disparity in wage rates for employees of the same classification.

Functional Programmers and Programme Assistants - Activity Therapy Centres - Section VI

The correlation between the exiting and proposed structures has been detailed earlier in this decision (see Page 8). In essence the claim is to insert in the Award grades for Functional Programmer and Programme Assistant.

It is not my intention to detail all the material that was put before me in respect of Activity Therapy Centres because the work value circumstances going to the duties and responsibilities of Functional Programmers and Programme Assistants are very similar to those relating to Supervisors.

Giving evidence, Mr. Daley summarised the situation neatly when he said -

    "Mr Commissioner, I guess I find myself repeating what I said earlier about the residential section, because similar comments can be made in the Activity Therapy Centre, not only here at Devonfield but throughout Tasmania.

    Where previously we were virtually just providing a minding service - it was just like a crèche, and here again I say this with the greatest respect to our trainee/clients - now we are conducting training programmes down here for them.

    Sure we have people down there who are quite severely disabled, as you will recall, Commissioner, after your inspection yesterday. But that does not stop us from conducting really extensive comprehensive training programmes in all aspects - be it in their personal hygiene, preparation of meals or assisting them dong some contract work down there, which would not have been achieved in the past. And also as a result of those programmes we're conducting, Mr. Commissioner, here again is further evidence that they have been successful, as now we're into a situation where our trainees/clients travel out into the community visiting various establishments right throughout the northern part of the State.

    And we respectfully suggest that that would not have been the case some four or five years ago."

    (underlining mine) Transcript pp. 58-59

Mr. Daley saw a need for two grades of Functional Programmer; the Functional Programmer Grade 1 being responsible for the initiation of individual programmes for each of the clients, and the Functional Programmer Grade 2 being responsible for the implementation of those programmes.

From my own observations and the evidence presented, I accept Mr. Daley's comments when he said -

    "The Functional Programmer Grade 2 will implement so one could reasonably expect that the Functional Programmer Grade 1 has greater skills and such is the situation..."

Transcript pp. 61-62

    And later

    "It's not sufficient as far as we are concerned, Mr. Commissioner, and certainly as far as the community is concerned now just to have a group of intellectually handicapped people sitting in a room doing a few arts and crafts, and somebody, a staff member, sitting in a corner supervising. That doesn't happen now.

Transcript p.62

Programme Assistant Grades 1 and 2

The evidence adduced here again emphasised the significance of the training role that I have already referred to in this decision (refer pages CHECK THE CORRECT PAGES HERE AND INSERT)

I am satisfied that the specific matters that I have already dealt with emphasis the work value changes that have taken place. These changes have significantly altered the nature of the work, and the skill and responsibility required to perform the work, and they apply equally to the Programme Assistant classification.

Mr. Daley again expressed in very precise terms that the training roles are now defined and that they have an integral relationship with the duties now performed. Mr. Daley, in respect of this particular aspect said -

    "...it's a requirement that's placed on us by Governments - and in particular the Federal Government, through the Department of Community Services. And so it's training now and it's far more comprehensive, far more complex than what was originally intended, or was originally thought."

Transcript p.67

In supporting the proposed Functional Programmer and Programme Assistant reclassification and rates I must also again, as with the Supervisory grades, express my attraction to the idea that the definitions should be amended to include reference to approved courses of study.

In doing so, I believe that clear and meaningful effect can be given to the ideals expressed to me that go to the "positive facilitation of skills development".

Special Licences

Mr. Rees also requested that a Special Licences provision be included in Sections IV, V and VI of the Award. This provision, the inclusion of which was supported by all of the parties at the hearing, reads as follows:-

    "Special Licences

    An employee appointed by the employer to regularly drive vehicles that require the person to hold either a Light Passenger Vehicle Licence or a Heavy Passenger Vehicle Licence shall be reimbursed by the employer an amount of money equivalent to the additional licence fee prescribed in excess of a Standard Motor Car Licence and the cost of any medical examination so required in obtaining and maintaining the said licences.

Mr. Rees submitted that the reimbursement of these expenses falls within the scope of Principle 9(b)(ii) - New Allowances.

I have no difficulty with this claim, as it was demonstrated to my satisfaction that management do select and approve certain employees to drive physically and/or intellectually handicapped people to and from various activities in vehicles other than those for which a Standard Motor Car Licence is required.

Such special licences are also not issued by the Tasmanian Transport Commission unless the person seeking that type of licence has a signed authorisation from his employer indicating that he actually requires such a licence for the performance of his job.

The creation of this new allowance sits neatly with Principle 9(b)(ii) and accordingly, I decide in favour of the Special Licence provisions.

Public Interest

Section 36 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984 requires that the Commission has to be satisfied that its decisions do not have a detrimental impact on the public interest.

In this regard, the Commission has a statutory responsibility to consider the economic position of any industry likely to be affected by a decision of the Commission; the likely effect on the economy of Tasmania with particular emphasis on the level of employment; and any other matters considered to be relevant to the public interest.

At the hearing in Devonport, evidence from Mr. Daley in examination-in-chief clearly demonstrated that the work value increases sought would have no real impact on the considerations outlined above.

As to funding, the Federal Government subsidises 50% of salaries and wages for positions approved by the Department of Community Services, and capital grants of up to 80% of approved project costs.

The other 50% of salaries and wages costs are met by Boards of Management, who are charged with the responsibility of operating the various establishments throughout the State.

The State Government provides some limited funding through grants but these funds are not directed to payment of wages or salaries.

To the extent that I have already indicated, further proceedings in this matter will be without prejudice to the operative date of this decision.

 

R. K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER