IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This is an application by the Minister for Public Administration for inclusion of an additional level of Scientific Officer in the professional section of the Inland Fisheries Commission Staff Award1.

At present the award provides for a Class I or base grade scientist with a 7-increment scale; and for a Class II there is a dichotomous arrangement comprising two grades - each having two increments.

Mr. Stevens requested provision now be made for a Class III officer. The application sought only one 2-increment grade, identical in money terms to Scientific Officer Class III Grade 1, contained in the Scientific Officers Award2.

The Tasmanian Public Service Association submitted that the Commission should also provide for a Class III Grade 2 (two increments) to facilitate future reclassification should that need arise.

In prosecution of the claim before the Commission Mr. Stevens gave scrupulous attention to the Commission's wage-fixing Principles3, as well as the statutory requirement to address the matter of public interest.

Oral evidence was led through a Mr. Fulton, on whose behalf it would be fair to suggest the claim was unquestionably drawn. At the same time some 18 exhibits were tendered. And it was toward those exhibits that the greater part of Mr. Fulton's evidence was directed.

Although evidentiary in form, for the most part documentary material presented during proceedings could be described as being more indicative of the nature of the work performed by Mr. Fulton than a chronicled corroboration of claimed changes in the work itself.

There were however two exceptions. Exhibit A. catalogued the duties performed by Mr. Fulton as at September 1983, and upon which he had been promoted from Scientific Officer Class II, Grade 1, to Scientific Officer Class II, Grade 2. The exhibit also contained a certificate from the Head of Agency verifying the accuracy of the duties stated.

Exhibit B. took the form of a duty statement and carried the same certificate of authenticity. However its main purpose was to demonstrate the changes in the work performed and the level of responsibility now assumed by Mr. Fulton.

In this regard it would be fair to say Mr. Stevens relied heavily, but not exclusively, upon item 2 of the duty statement which read:

In truth a significant part of Mr. Fulton's evidence went to this aspect of his duties. In this regard a number of illustrative examples of successful and unsuccessful funding submissions relating to research developmental programmes already prepared or in prospect were explained by Mr. Fulton. These were referred to by Mr. Stevens in his submissions in justification of the application.

As there was a large measure of agreement between the applicant and the T.P.S.A., the latter organisation called no evidence in support, or in rebuttal of the controlling authority's general claim.

Nevertheless it was the Association's strongly-held view that as a matter of practicality it would be desirable to include a Class III Grade 2 (two increments) in the award now. This, it was submitted, would obviate the need to present further argument and call fresh evidence in the event the duties of the position were to again change to such a degree as to warrant further monetary compensation.

The great difficulty confronting any tribunal member required to rule upon applications of this kind is the need to make an assessment of the net worth of a demonstrable change in the nature of work. Principle 4 of the Commission's guidelines4 provides valuable assistance in this regard and suggests, among other things, that the measurement of change in money terms might best be carried out having regard for the rate previously fixed for the work in the same award. But there remains, none the less, the more arduous task of determining exactly how much in money terms is either to be added to an existing classification; to be paid by way of an allowance; or by the inclusion of a new classification altogether.

This task becomes even more complex where professional classifications are concerned. It poses such obvious questions as how much more responsibility should an experienced professional assume without the need for extra monetary reward? Or should a professional officer classified and paid as such, but not practising his profession all of the time, attract higher rates for administrative responsibilities not requiring direct application of professional scientific expertise?

It has been said that a true professional is one who spends part of his time in research and the remainder in the application of his chosen discipline. That may well be the counsel of perfection. But it has also been argued that a professional who does not practise his profession in that way, and performs instead repetitive administrative or maintenance work, is neither contributing to nor practising his chosen profession. Instead, his function tends to become more that of a technical than professional officer.

However that may be in the instant case there was ample evidence to suggest that Mr. Fulton was engaged for a significant period of his time in professional research and developmental work. There was also some evidence to the effect that he has an emerging administrative work load. This, it seems, is partially attributable to the hiving off to him of some of the Commissioner's own responsibilities.

Mr. Fulton expressed an opinion that most of the work delegated to him by Dr. Sloane was of a scientific nature. But when asked by me to quantify the measure of scientific work and that having administrative characteristics, his response is evidenced from the following transcript exerpts:

And:

And further:

Mr. Fulton then summarized the changes in his work in this way:

To which observation I posed the following question:

And my response:

On balance I believe a case has been made out for a review of Mr. Fulton's present salary. But my concern is three-fold: First I must decide whether this might best be done by prescribing an allowance; whether I should simply include as requested a new Class III Grade 1 (or Grade 2) in the award and allow the administrative processes established by the Tasmanian State Service Act to take their course; or whether, because of an impending appeal in Matter No. T.541 of 19865 I should stand over the whole matter until the appeal decision is known. [The matter under appeal may very well touch upon the appropriateness or otherwise of providing general scales in an award. It may also deal with adjustment of salaries on work value grounds, without evidence in support going to all occupational groups classified in accordance with those scales.]

Other scientific officers are employed under the terms of this award but at a lower level than Mr. Fulton. However, to include a third class in the award as requested would, prima facie, provide scope for further reclassification of other persons by administrative act without the Commission first being satisfied that there was justification for action of that kind. In the absence of information that proper work value criteria (as distinct from comparative wage justice) are employed by administrative act, the Commission must necessarily proceed with caution in exercises of this kind.

Principle 4 of the Guidelines6 states in part:

Moreover, the preamble to the Principles7 includes the following:

The foregoing I believe points up an area of potential difference between Commission policy and management philosphy.

Taking all these factors into consideration, I have decided that on this occasion, because evidence was led through Mr. Fulton relating to his work and his work alone, the Commission should, in fairness to Mr. Fulton, determine that his work should be revalued. This I feel is to be contrasted with the situation where a new position has been created and the Commission is asked to determine a rate for the job. In those circumstances it might be more appropriate for the procedures laid down under the auspices of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 to be applied.

In my opinion it would be a fiction to simply vary the award in the manner requested. There would need to be some certainty that the person whose increased work responsibilities had resulted in the award change would not need to apply for or perhaps be nominated for his own position. There was no question that the evidence before the Commission related exclusively to Mr. Fulton's work. His professional post-graduate experience with the Commission has led to a partial devolution by the Head of Agency of certain of his functions to Mr. Fulton. Those particular duties have been assumed by Mr. Fulton because of his professional competence and experience with the agency.

In all the circumstances therefore I propose making an interim order granting Mr. Fulton, or the position he now occupies, an all-purpose allowance to compensate for his additional responsibilities. The amount to be awarded will be $1227 per annum and may be increased to $2447 in twelve months' time provided he continues to perform duties carrying no lesser responsibility than those at present.

The proposed order is intended to serve two purposes: Firstly to ensure that Mr. Fulton is appropriately compensated for the work he now performs; and secondly to act as a mechanism so that pro tem no decision is taken that would impinge upon appeal matter T.541 (ibid.) or other like matters to be considered in the Draftsmen's8 case .

In the event decisions taken in either or both matters clear the way for variation of this award in the form requested by the controlling authority, the matter may be reopened by fresh application. If not the order now made will become absolute, subject to variation or subsequent revocation.

Entitlement to the allowance will commence from the first full pay period after 15 December 1986.

L.A. Koerbin
PRESIDENT

1 S095
2 S120
3 T.432, T.435, T.440 of 1986
4 Ibid.
5 Education Media Services Staff Award
6 T.432, T.435, T.440 of 1986
7 Ibid.
8 T.426 of 1986