In my Interim Decision dated 11 November 1986 I decided to stand several matters over to be addressed more fully by the parties in a subsequent hearing.

The matters so stood over, separate from those referred by the President to a Full Bench1, related to -

Clause 2 - Scope
Clause 7 - Definitions
Clause 8 - Salaries

The parties are aware that as a consequence of the subsequent hearing before the Full Bench the President was directed by that Bench2, of which he is a member, to convene a working party and to subsequently present a report to the Bench on all matters not to be concluded in the Bench's Interim Decision3.

On receipt of that report, allowing time for discussion between the members of the Bench on the issues contained in the report, the Full Bench will reconvene to continue proceedings in the matters before it.

Scope

Having briefly traversed the background to the proceedings before me as a Commissioner sitting alone, as well as those before the Full Bench, I can now indicate that as a result of the latter proceedings it has been agreed that the issues relating to scope would be more appropriately addressed in the working party forum.

I consider it prudent, however, to briefly state what it was that I requested the parties to consider in respect of scope.

In my Interim Decision I said at page 3 -

"2. Scope

In relation to this clause Mr. McCabe, appearing for the Minister, undertook to consider the implications of the public sector scope and parties and persons bound Test Case decision of the Commission dated 6 October 19864. He said that he would advise me of his deliberations in writing."

It is to be noted that extensive coverage was given to the question of scope in that Test Case decision; pages 7 to 24 refer.

Particularly, in this matter, an important consideration is whether or not the scope clause should contain a limitation as discussed and decided upon at p.24 in the Test Case decision.

That limitation is as follows -

"PROVIDED THAT this award shall not be binding in respect of, or applicable to, employees for whom coverage by this award is specifically excluded by another award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission."

As far as these proceedings are concerned that matter is still unresolved.

In that regard and in respect of all other issues subject to proceedings before me I indicated to the parties -

"...it's my intention to await the decision of the Full Bench in respect of all of those matters (i.e. matters stood over by me for finalization as a Commissioner sitting alone) before issuing a final decision in this drafting officers' matter..."

In brackets mine
Transcript p.180

On reflection however I have decided to finalize the issues currently before me at this time, with an operative date coinciding with that of the forthcoming Full Bench decision.

In that way all unconcluded matters can be finalized simultaneously.

I now turn to deal with the other issues raised in my Interim Decision which the parties were requested to consider further.

Additional Definitions

At page 12 of my Interim decision I stated, inter alia -

"Accordingly in standing this matter over I would indicate that my prima facie view is that definitions for those classifications (drafting assistants and trainee drafting officers) should be included in the award."

In brackets mine

I am now pleased to endorse the following definitions proposed by Mr. McCabe in his exhibit, M.4. They are as follows -

DEFINITIONS

"TRAINEE DRAFTING OFFICER" means an employee who;

(a) in accordance with Clause 13 "Qualifications" is eligible for appointment to such a position and is in the process of completing an approved course of study in drafting; and

(b) under immediate supervision produces maps, charts, plans and drawings and performs various associated drafting duties in accordance with drafting principles.

"DRAFTING ASSISTANT" means an employee who, under supervision, is required and competent to undertake drawing office procedures of a routine nature involving the preparation of basic maps, charts, plans and drawings and associated indexes and documentation.

There was a further matter raised in my Interim Decision relating to award definitions which provoked a great deal of discussion in these proceedings. In my Interim Decision I said -

"Where salary levels in the award have application to positions other than those defined, I am of the view that definitions for those positions should be included."

Interim Decision p.12

As indicated above my prima facie view was that it would be desirable to include a definition for each of the different categories of drafting officer covered by the award.

I am now satisfied, having regard to the very detailed submissions subsequently put before me that, in respect of the Drafting Officers Award at least, that this would not be practical.

Mr Colgrave said -

"...the DPA have thought about this and if it's intended that definitions go in for each individual work value level in the award, or to describe the various work value levels, we believe that those definitions would need to be as comprehensive as classification standards - and they, in effect, would become the classification standards."

Transcript p.233

As the parties are aware, the question of classification standards being included in public sector awards was referred to the Full Bench for consideration in the following terms -

"6. The need for use, acceptance and inclusion in the award, of classification standards."

Salaries

Again, a number of outstanding matters are currently before the Full Bench and will be incorporated in the Drafting Officers Award when that matter has been concluded and a decision issued.

However, there are a number of specific issues which I requested the parties to further address me on. These are -

1. Renumbering Class I/II as "Class I" (and consequential renumbering of other classification levels.)

In endorsing the amalgamation of Class I and Class II for the reasons contained in my Interim Decision, I made the following comments -

"In deciding in favour of that claim I indicate to the parties that I am not at ease in providing for a "Class I/II" classification in the award.

In my view the retention of Class I/II, albeit that there may be some administrative problems to overcome (e.g. computer files and related documentation) if it was made Class I only, the proposed classification title should only be continued for a limited period and until such time as the "problems" can be properly identified and sorted out.

I therefore request that the parties address this matter and advise me of the outcome of the examination. It is my intention to ultimately have five salary classes in the award for drafting officers instead of what currently amounts to six."

Interim Decision p.20

As it transpired the two most compelling reasons advanced for not renumbering the existing classification levels were -

(1) "...a considerable amount of work involved in altering the titles of all positions from Class II to Class VI"

(transcript p.180); and

(2) "...there are matters being dealt with which are nearly completed in another jurisdiction where the change of award numbering, just at this point in time, may lead to some other confusion. This is before the Commission for Review."

(transcript p.183)

I have no wish to complicate matters unnecessarily. In the circumstances I will not, at this stage, renumber the classification levels in the award.

I note with interest that Mr. Colgrave gave me an indication that a more appropriate time to undertake this exercise would be in conjunction with "some movement in the near future in looking at the award structure".

I have taken cognisance of this and accordingly I will not vary the award, at this time, in the manner considered desirable by me.

However I would urge the partiers to not "file" this matter away. After a reasonable time has expired and failing advice from the parties, I intend to institute the appropriate processes in order to commence proceedings on the motion of the Commission.

2. Drafting Officer Class V

It is to this issue that much attention was devoted at the resumption of proceedings following my Interim Decision.

To put the matter into perspective I have decided to include, in toto, pages 21 to 22 of my Interim Decision in this matter.

"Drafting Officer Class V

The existing salary scale is as follows:

	Salary per Annum
Class V
Grade 1
First year of service	29789
Second year of service and thereafter	30596
Grade 2
First year of service	29789
Second year of service and thereafter	30596
Third year of service and thereafter	31397

Mr. McCabe proposed, because Grade 1 and Grade 2, first and second year of salary rates are identical; that the Grade 2 third year of service and thereafter rate became the first year of service and thereafter rate. The claim is expressed as follows:

Class V
Grade 1	(as above)
Grade 2
First year of service and thereafter	31397

From close scrutiny of the transcript it would appear that the salary rate of $31397 is paid to those drafting officers designated as senior level chief drafting officer.

Apart from being informed that there are currently three employees on that salary level, I have no information on the work and responsibility differentiation between work performed by employees on that particular salary level and those on Grade 1, 1^st and 2^nd year of service of that class.

This aspect, together with the possibility that the existing Class V, Grade 2 salary levels may have reflected the salary level for photogrammeterists only, has influenced me to hold this matter over for consideration in my final decision.

In the interim I request the parties to research this matter in more detail and put further submissions to me. Failing this, and on the material before me, I am inclined to the view that the Grade 2 salary levels contained in the existing award should be deleted.

Obviously, in those circumstances, I would include a savings provision for those employees currently on the third year of that grade."

I am pleased to indicate that the representatives for the Minister provided the Commission with extensive background material detailing the history leading to the current award salary prescription for Drafting Officer Class V, Grade 2, Third year of service and thereafter.

It is clear that the Class V, Grade 2, Third Year salary level became incorporated into the award as a "general" salary progression level for Drafting Officers on the making of the ^*Draftsmen's Principal Award No. 5.

Prior to that time the particular salary level was available only to photogrammeterists, as evidenced by reference to the *Draftsmen's Principal Award No. 4.

One can only assume that in incorporating the salary level in question into a common scale, that the allocation of that rate of remuneration to certain positions took into account the following comments made by Commissioner Koerbin, as he then was -

"Nevertheless given proper classification, all officers sharing a common scale will find their appropriate level.

It is therefore of the utmost importance if anomalies are to be avoided, that common classification criteria be observed. Vital to that criteria must be the elements of work value namely qualifications required and held, training needed to do the job, responsibility assumed (including responsibility for the work of others) and the physical conditions under which the work is carried out."5

The reservations I had regarding the retention of this salary level have been satisfactorily dispelled.

Accordingly I endorse the salary structure as proposed for Class V. That is, Class V, Grade 2, First and Second Year of Service levels will be deleted and the Third Year of Service will become "First year of service and thereafter".

Conclusion

This decision concludes all matters relating to T.426 of 1986 before me to decide as a Commissioner sitting alone.

By issuing this decision now the parties may be assisted in their working party deliberations, if only to the extent that the only outstanding matters are now those before the Full Bench for determination.

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

1 T.426 of 1986, reference to a Full Bench dated 14 November 1986
2 T.426, T.574, T.580, T.614 of 1986, Direction to the President dated 23 February 1987
3 T.426, T.574, T.580, T.614 of 1986, Interim Decision dated 22 May 1987
4 T.270 and T.271 of 1985 etc. Scope and Parties and Persons Bound Test Case
5 Report Pursuant To Section 47(16) of the Public Service Act 1973 in matters P.Nos 44, 45 and 46 of 1975; at page 5.