IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

Originally two claims were made for variation of the Cement Makers Award. Both related to increased wage rates for existing classifications, i.e. that of "Cement Burner No. 4 Kiln" and "Shift Tester".

Inspections were carried out at the site and preliminary submissions and evidence given.

Then followed an adjournment sine die at the request of the parties to allow further negotiations.

When the hearing resumed on 20 March 1987, leave was granted to withdraw the claim relating to the classification of "Shift Tester".

The remaining claim sought an increase of $15.00 per week to the classification of "Cement Burner No. 4 Kiln". Currently the ordinary rate of pay is $300.60 per week.

The claim was based upon Principle 4 - Work Value Claims.

Concurrent with the claim of the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) was a dispute concerning the employer's requirement that additional duties be performed by the same classification.

It was uncontested that new equipment has been installed on the Railton kiln of Goliath Cement Company. The new mechanism is known as the "PIROJET" burner system. This directs an air stream into the furnace in two stages - "the swirl and the jet air" - and the mixing of this with the coal ensures a more efficient burning of coal within the kiln.

The capital cost exceeded $400,000.

Mr. Hanlon argued that operation of the new equipment created a significant net addition upon work requirements of the "Cement Burner".

Mr. Abey conceded that the duties were now different since installation of the PIROJET system, but opposed the claim for increased wage rates on the basis that responsibility for exercising judgement over the performance of the system and the making of decisions as to if and when adjustments were needed to maximise efficient burning, was a function of management alone.

Mr. Hanlon did not argue that ultimately management exercised such responsibility, but was adamant that his members also played an important part in the day-to-day monitoring and adjustment and recording of "pirojet" performance. This was particularly so since it was a 24-hour, shift work, situation and Supervisors were not normally physically present at the place of work concerned. Mr. Hanlon put it in the following terms at page 26 of transcript:

"It is clear that the operator of the kiln is in charge of that process as much as any individual employee can be in charge. The operator is under the control of senior staff who do set the guidelines under which the operation is to be carried out. But the operator then exercises his discretion, within those guidelines, and the additional equipment that has been installed means that there are additional procedures to be followed, both in terms of start up and in terms of the day-to-day running while the kiln is under fire."

Turning to the question of additional duties, these were described by the employer as operators being required to accept responsibility for "housekeeping in the immediate environs".

It became obvious to me that employees felt some apprehension at accepting "housekeeping" duties additional to normal duties on the basis that this may be "the thin edge of the wedge", and accordingly could grow out of reasonable proportion.

Decision

Following physical inspection of the new PIROJET burner system and the old, discarded equipment which it replaced, there is no doubt that whilst the work of Cement Burner classification is now less physical, it is certainly more sophisticated. The evidence and submissions support the AWU"s contention that changes in work value have occurred through the introduction of new technology. However, there are pluses and minuses which have to be carefully weighed in terms of change sufficient to meet the stringent tests of Principle 4 - Work Value.

As already mentioned the new duties are now less physical, and significantly so in my view. on the other hand the new, very expensive, equipment can only achieve its objective of being more cost efficient if it is operated at optimum efficiency through proper supervision, monitoring and adjustment from time to time.

It is inconceivable to me that the AWU operator does not play an important role in such monitoring and adjustment, and accordingly his added responsibilities and application to duty are worthy of recognition.

However, on the other hand the controls are set for much of the time and the need for adjustments in a manner only finally determined by others. Chemical analysis tests are carried out regularly at the plant laboratory and the engineer or other management personnel decide what if any altered setting is necessary.

In my view all concerned need to play their respective roles well and to act as part of a team.

Principle 4(a) needs to be understood by those who seek to rely upon it, and in particular the first paragraphs which provide, inter alia:

"4. WORK VALUE CHANGES

(a)  Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of anew classification.

These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the grounds of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed in accordance with this Principle.

However rather than to create a new classification it may be more convenient in the circumstances of a particular case to fix a new rate for an existing classification or to provide for an allowance which is payable in addition to the existing rate for the classification. In such cases the same strict test must be applied."

Underlining mine.

Applying those tests to the new situation as it relates to the new PIROJET burner alone, does not totally convince me that sufficient case has been made out to justify an increased wage rate. I acknowledge that change has occurred requiring the exercise of additional skill and responsibility factors. However the additions in this regard do not sit comfortably as "significant", as expressed within Principle 4.

Notwithstanding that situation, the employer requires changes in the nature of the work in the form of "housekeeping in the immediate environs".

Thus, not only are there added skills and responsibilities (albeit of a moderate degree) being imposed, but they are to be accompanied by new and separate additional duties which go to changes in the nature of the work.

Whilst each factor alone may not meet the strict requirements of the Principles, I have no doubt that in combination they add up to a significant addition to work value.

Provided there is an acceptance of the new duties proposed I am prepared to grant an increase in the wage rate under review for "Cement Burner No. 4 Kiln", but not to the full extent claimed.

This is particularly so because of the assurances I received at the hearing that to grant an increase will not create the environment for a flow-on to other classifications.

Within the criteria laid down in the Principles it is my assessment that such amount of increase should be $7.60 and I decide accordingly.

I am satisfied that such amount as I have granted is not inconsistent with public interest.

Date of effect

The variation shall come into effect as from the commencement of the first pay period to commence on or after 24 April 1987.

The parties are invited to prepare a draft Order reflecting the terms of the decision and defining the parameters of the additional duties required in the area of housekeeping.

In the event the parties are unable to agree, recourse may be made to the Commission.

A. Robinson
DEPUTY PRESIDENT