IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

In this matter the original application by the Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.P.S.A.) sought to delete from the Prison Officers Award (the Award) the salary scales for Superintendent - Women's Prison and Deputy Superintendent - Women's Prison.

The effect of that application, if successful, would have been the deletion of those classifications and salary scales from the Award. Occupants of the positions would then be paid in accordance with the Administrative and Clerical Employees salary scales contained in the Clerical Employees Award.

Mr Huxtable appearing for the T.P.S.A. sought to amend the application in accordance with an exhibit (Ex. H.1.) presented by him at the outset of proceedings on 9 May 1986. The relevant parts of the exhibit read:

Mrs Herbert appearing for the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association (T.P.O.A.) also sought to amend the application of that organisation (T.401 of 1986) to bring it into line with the revised T.P.S.A. claim.

There being no objection to the applications to amend they were accepted by the Commission.

The processing of the claims was facilitated by the joining of the two matters, thus enabling a single hearing and transcript of proceedings.

Mr Huxtable in supporting his claim submitted:

• that agreement had been reached between the T.P.S.A. and representatives of the Minister for Public Administration on appropriate new salary levels for the Superintendent - Women's Prison;

• the new salary levels were warranted because of significant changes in the nature of the work and the increased skill and responsibility required to undertake the current duties;

• the changes in work value have been considered and measured in the context of Principle 4 of the Wage Fixing Principles and the proposed new salaries are entirely justified within that Principle;

• that the exhibits presented during the proceedings supported the agreement reached;

• that the evidence of Mrs. MacGregor the current occupant of the Superintendent - Women's Prison position and of Dr. Lopez the Senior Forensic Psychiatrist of the prison backed up the submissions of the T.P.S.A. going to the merit.

The T.P.O.A. supported the T.P.S.A. submissions and claim.

Mr Quillam appearing for the Law Department on delegation from the Minister for Public Administration indicated agreement with the T.P.S.A. claim going to the new salary levels. However, he submitted it was the Law Department's view that the classification and current salary scale should be deleted from the Prison Officers Award.

He further explained that the salary scale agreed between the parties is in fact the current range for Administrative and Clerical Employees Class VII, contained in the Clerical Employees Award. It was not only the Law Department's view that the agreed salary range is warranted but that it is more appropriate that the Superintendent - Women's Prison should be covered by the Clerical Employees Award. Her function being primarily an administrative one similar to other more senior officers at the prison who currently enjoy salaries prescribed by the Administrative and Clerical Employees Award.

Mr Stevens appearing for the Minister for Public Administration supported the views expressed by Mr Quillam. He also endorsed the submission of the T.P.S.A. when dealing with Principle 4 Work Value Changes, concluding that the principle had been complied with and not violated in any way.

All parties made reference to the fact that the Commission as currently constituted had refused an across the board work value claim by the T.P.O.A. in January 1985 and the work of the Superintendent - Women's Prison had been considered at that time.

Mr Huxtable in dealing with this point and after reference to the appropriate requirement of Principle 4 submitted:

In responding to the Law Department request that the classification Superintendent - Women's Prison be deleted from the Prison Officers Award Mrs Herbert summarised the T.P.O.A. position as follows:

In considering this matter it has been of considerable assistance to me having had the benefit of inspections at the Prison in December 1984 and again in May 1985.

Both occasions gave me ample opportunity to see the Women's Prison in detail, ask questions, observe its operation and on the latter visit, the changes that had taken place.

The obvious physical changes had been at the instigation or with the approval of the Superintendent. The changes being designed by her to introduce a more humane approach to the treatment of prisoners and move from a totally penal system to one incorporating general rehabilitation.

The major changes or additional responsibilities of the Superintendent are as follows:

• the introduction of the holistic approach to the care and treatment of prisoners;

• the responsibility for all medicines and the administration of them;

• the counselling of staff on attitude therapy of inmates;

• the introduction of social skills education;

• assessment of inmates' educational and recreational needs, and provision of education as required;

• implementation of new physical activities for inmates;

• the introduction and conduct of staff training as required.

Many of the above and other changes would not have occurred without the educational and experience qualifications brought to the position by the current appointee. In fact I was advised by Mr. Quillam that management set out to recruit an officer with appropriate skills and qualifications to enable necessary changes to be made.

This raises the only real concern I have in endorsing the new salary levels agreed between the parties, i.e. future appointees must possess similar qualifications and skills to the current incumbent to attract the new salary levels.

I am sure the Law Department will note these comments and in any case ensure that suitably qualified and experienced persons are appointed into the future.

It naturally follows that I generally accept the submissions and evidence presented by the parties and that the requirements of Principle 4 - Work Value Changes have been satisfied. However I am not prepared to accede to the submission of the Law Department that the classification Superintendent - Women's Prison should be deleted from the Prison Officers Award. Nothing put by Mr. Quillam convinces me that there is any good reason for doing so. Even the applicant, for reasons best known to that organisation, did not pursue that course even though it was part of the original claim. One can only assume it accepts there can be no disadvantage to its member by leaving the classification in the Award.

I in fact favour the view of the T.P.O.A. on this question; that employees generally should be bound by the appropriate award. I would need to be convinced that the Prison Officers Award was not the appropriate award for an officer classified as Superintendent - Women's Prison.

The inclusion in the award and date of operation of the new salary scale will be from the first pay period commencing on or after 19 June 1986. An order reflecting this decision is attached.

In view of the significant increases in the level of salaries I believe the current encumbent of the position should be paid the bottom step of the new incremental scale until the normal date for incremental increases, when she would move to the second step.

JG King
COMMISSIONER