T10
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
REASONS FOR DECISION Details of proceedings in this matter, up to and including the hearing on 5 September 1986 are contained in decisions of the Commission dated 13 March and 26 September 1986. APPEARANCES:
DATES AND PLACES OF HEARING: 11 December 1986 Hobart
On 26 September 1986 a Full Bench of the Commission handed down a decision in T10 of 1985. The order emanating from the decision established new salary levels for all public sector nurses. However, certain related matters were referred by the Full Bench to the parties for further consideration and to me for finalisation. The outstanding matters were identified by Mr Grant appearing for the Royal Australian Nursing Federation (RANF) as: 1. The claim for a new classification of Clinical Nurse Specialist. 2. The claim for a new classification of Discharge Planning Coordinator. 3. The claim for a new classification of Liaison Officer - Extended Care Services. 4. The change in title and reclassification of the two most senior nursing positions at St John's Park Hospital. 5. The review of the Senior or Charge Registered Auxiliary Nurse classification. I will deal with the above matters in the order in which they are listed. 1. New classification - Clinical Nurse Specialist The inclusion in the appropriate award of this new classification was endorsed by the Full Bench in its September 1986 decision. Appropriate salary rates were also determined by that Bench with the same date of operation of subsequent award variations as determined for the general claim. The outstanding aspect of this claim is the finalisation of appropriate definitions to be included in the Nurses (Public Hospitals) Award. It was requested that the agreed definition of a Clinical Nurse Specialist, as contained in Exhibit RANF1, be included in the abovenamed award. Other exhibits containing classification criteria and a list of agreed specialty areas were submitted for the information of the Commission. Following debate between the Commission and the parties, no objection was raised by the parties to the specialty areas being included in the award. A definition for a Clinical Nurse Specialist and the agreed list of specialty areas will be included in the Nurses (Public Hospitals) Award. I will accept the parties' request not to include the classification criteria for Clinical Nurse Specialist in the award on this occasion. However, I believe consideration should be given to the establishment of appropriate classification criteria for all classifications in the award. Such criteria can then be read in conjunction with the award or included in it as appropriate. A consequential variation will be made to the Nurses (Public Hospitals) Award deleting the current allowance for the Clinical Specialist. 2. New Classification - Discharge Planning Coordinator In proceedings before the Full Bench the parties agreed that a new classification, Discharge Planning Coordinator, be included in the Nurses (Public Hospitals) Award. However, no agreement was reached on appropriate salary levels. This aspect of the claim was referred back to the parties for further negotiation. Exhibit RANF2 contains an agreed salary level for this classification. The salary of $28418 is the same as that determined for the Clinical Nurse Specialist Grade 2. The duties and responsibilities of nurses, required to do the work encompassed by this classification, were the subject of extensive inspections and evidence before the Full Bench. With the understanding gained from those proceedings I am prepared to endorse the parties' agreement. The above award will therefore be varied accordingly. 3. New classification - Liaison Officer, Extended Care Services This classification was sought to cover a position established in the Launceston General Hospital. In the light of changed circumstances the RANF indicated it no longer wished to pursue this claim. 4. Senior Nursing Positions St. Johns Park Hospital A change in title for the two most senior nursing positions at St. Johns Park Hospital is agreed by the parties. The proposed changes are from Superintendent of Nursing and Principal Nursing Officer to Director of Nursing and Deputy Director of Nursing respectively. The Nurses (Public Service) Award will be varied in accordance with the above. While new salary levels have also been agreed, both classifications have received the benefit of the Full Bench work value decision of 26 September 1986. It is therefore proposed that any further variation to the abovenamed award would be sought by way of the Commission's Anomalies Conference. 5. Senior or Charge Registered Auxiliary Nurse This classification was not reviewed in the 26 September 1986 decision as it was believed at the time, that there were no incumbents of the position. I was advised that subsequent investigation had revealed that a Senior or Charge Registered Auxiliary Nurse Grade 1 is employed at the Westbury Division, Launceston General Hospital. Ms Fawdry appearing for the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia (Tasmania No. 2 Branch) (HEF No. 2) submitted an exhibit (HEF No. 2 Ex. 3) which detailed changes in the work of this employee. It was claimed by the HEF No. 2 that the changes warranted a similar increase in salary to that granted to the Registered Auxiliary Nurse 4th year and thereafter, i.e. 7%. Mr Morley appearing for the Minister for Public Administration (the Minister) supported the HEF No. 2 claim. He also advised that a 7% increase had been applied to the salary of the occupant of the position, effective from the same date of operation as the Full Bench decision i.e. the first pay period commencing on or after 30 July 1986. I am prepared to vary the Nurses (Public Hospitals) Award by increasing the salary for the Senior or Charge Registered Auxiliary Nurse Grade 1 classification by 7%, the award variation to apply from the first pay period commencing on or after 15 December 1986. This decision still leaves for consideration the future of the classification Senior or Charge Registered Auxiliary Nurse Grade 2 in the above award and both Grade 1 and 2 in the Nurses (Public Service) Award. At the request of all advocates I will leave those classifications with their existing salaries in the awards. However, I urge the parties to reach a final position on the matter and to seek to confirm it by way of new applications as soon as practicable. Other Matters During proceedings dealing with the above matters I was advised that agreement could not be reached in relation to the reclassification date of four (4) Clinical Nurse Specialists. Following the Full Bench decision to include a Clinical Nurse Specialist classification in the awards, the parties had generally agreed on a basis of implementation. However, while the above four positions were accepted by the Minister as warranting reclassification, no agreement was reached on an appropriate date. I agreed in the circumstances to arbitrate appropriate dates based on the submissions and information placed before me. However, this was agreed to on the basis that it was a one-off situation and not the beginning of a series of similar disputes. In terms of the overall situation I agree with the view of the Minister, expressed by Mr Morley, at page 2953 of the transcript as follows:
In relation to the first employee, a Mrs Singleton employed at the North West General Hospital, I have some difficulty on the information before me in coming to any firm conclusion. In the circumstances I can only endorse the date put forward by the Minister i.e. the reclassification to apply from 5 December 1986. The other three employees whose circumstances were debated before me are:
On the information before me I determine a date of operation of the first pay period commencing on or after 30 July 1986 for the reclassification of the above three employees. I note that two of the above employees have been paid the allowance from 1 September 1986 which would have resulted in their reclassification from that date. It goes without saying that the higher rate from the 30 July will only be paid during those periods in which the employee worked in a location accepted as a specialist area. I emphasise that this determination of the date of reclassification is a "one off" and does not create a precedent for other similar situations should they exist. I also emphasise that this decision cannot and does not alter the accepted methods or criteria for reclassification within the Public Hospital system. An appropriate order reflecting the necessary award variations flowing from this decision will be available from the Registry in due course. This decision and resultant order conclude proceedings in T.10 of 1985. Any outstanding matter will need to be addressed by way of a new application to vary.
J G King |