IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

T.659 of 1987 seeks to include in the Quarrymens Award a new classification as follows:

"1. that clause 1. - Wages - be amended by inserting a new classification 7.(b) Self Propelled Drill Operator (Boral Hobart Quarry) - $320.00;

and

existing classification 7 be renumbered 7(a)"

The application was subsequently amended by deleting the words "(Boral Hobart Quarry)" and by changing the reference to "Bridgewater operations of Readymix Group (Tas)" in classification 15, Control Monitor Operator to read "Bridgewater Quarry".

Mr. Hanlon appearing for the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) submitted that the application for a new classification could clearly be processed under Principle 4 - Work Value Changes.

The background and evidence submitted in this matter by Mr. Hanlon and the operator of a new drilling rig, which was claimed by the AWU to warrant the new classification is as follows:

· drill rig machines previously operating at the Bridgewater Quarry have been replaced with a larger more sophisticated model;

· the Employee (Mr. Seeliger) has been operating the new machine for approximately 13 months;

· prior to that time the Employee had worked in the mining industry for about 5 years as a drill rig operator;

· the Employee was paid in accordance with classification 7 Drill Rig Operator, $281.10 per week, the same rate that had been paid to the operator of the previous machine;

· the Employee understood the older drill rigs to drill 4 holes per day whereas the new machine was averaging 12 per day;

· daily checks and routine maintenance of the new machine were more extensive and complex than those required on the older one;

· greater skill and responsibility is required to operate the new machine;

· it took six to eight months of operation before the Employee felt totally competent in running the new machine;

· the dimensions of the new machine are considerably greater than the older machine with a consequent substantial difference in weight;

· the replaced machine was an airpowered bench drilling rig, Atlas Copco ROC 601, with a separate compressor, whereas the new machine, a Tamrock Trackdrill D.H.A.800 is a self-contained hydraulic rig.

In summarizing the purpose of the application Mr. Hanlon submitted:

In dealing with the question of how a rate should be set for this piece of equipment Mr. Hanlon submitted:

"Mr. Hanlon:

So that there are two things that stand out : We have an increase for Plant Operators which varies according to their horsepower. We have an acceptance that there is some variation due to skill between each of those classifications based on a greater skill required to be exercised on a larger machine."

(transcript page 41)

Mr. Abey appearing for the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries (TCI) called a Mr. P. Sidney, Quarry Manager, to give evidence in rebuttal of that called by the AWU. A summary of that evidence is as follows:

· on the older machine the drilling rods were manhandled whereas the rods on the new machine are changed by hydraulic controls from the cabin;

· the older rig did not have a cabin thus leaving the operator exposed to weather, dust and noise;

· there was little difference in the attention level required of the operator between the two machines;

· the old machines were averaging seven and five holes per day respectively, approximately the same total output as the new machine;

· the new machine was purchased for economic reasons coupled with better operator safety and comfort factors;

· the operator training period for both machines would be approximately the same;

· the check list sheet for both machines is similar;

· hydraulic drill rig technology for quarries has been available in Australia for approximately 10 years.

Mr. Abey went on to submit that for this application to succeed it must clearly satisfy the requirements of Principle 4(a). it is not sufficient that something is new or different, it must constitute a significant net addition to work requirements.

While he did not contest that the machine is more powerful, more efficient and has a different operating technique, he did however, submit that from an operating point of view there was no net addition to the work value.

Mr. Abey submitted that, based on the rebuttal evidence of Mr. Sidney, the advantages of the new machine over the old outweighed other factors of change and negated any claim for a work value increase.

Mr. Abey produced exhibits (A .1 and A.2) which in his submission confirmed that the award and the classifications in it are not outmoded. The exhibits in fact demonstrated that the classification scale and the wage levels had been substantially reviewed in recent years.

Mr. Abey drew some comfort from a decision of Commissioner Lear of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Print F7629) in circumstances where a similar rate was paid to operators of a comparable machine in the Hydro Electric Commission. The Commissioner refrained from increasing that rate following an application by the AWU and similar proceedings to this case. Other wage rate comparisons were made by him in support of his view that the current award rate was not outdated and in need of review.

I have little difficulty in accepting many of the points made by Mr. Abey and supported by the evidence and inspections going to improved operator comfort and better methods of operation,. associated with the new machine. These factors are obviously important in the context of a work value case. However, I believe in this case the history of wage fixation goes against him. Larger vehicles or items of plant have traditionally attracted higher rates of pay than similar smaller units. Those higher rates have been determined on work value grounds.

In referring to the new machine Mr. Abey at page 48 of transcript is quoted as saying:

"Mr. Abey:

We don't contest for a moment that this machine is not more powerful, more efficient and has a different operating technique than the previous configuration."

(Evidence from Mr. Sidney indicated that the new machine has twice the capacity of one of the older machines).

Mr. Hanlon cross-examined Mr. Sidney on the relevance to this case of three rates for "Loader Operator" in the Quarrymens Award. The exchange is recorded as follows:

"Mr. Hanlon:

Both have an engine on them, both are controlled in some form by a cab, and a person is paid in their loading operation according to the capacity of the engine as a means of determining the scale. Mr. Sidney: For the loaders, yes. Mr. Hanlon:

So that the skill of operating a loader between grades (i) to (iii) may not differ that much. Mr. Sidney: Yes, they can do. Mr. Hanlon:

So you'd expect an operator of a grade (iii) machine to be more skilled than an operator of a grade (i). Mr. Sidney: I certainly would." (transcript pages 38/39)

I accept that the machine when compared with the older one is larger, more sophisticated, substantially more productive and is self-contained; all significant changes in the context of a work value case. I believe these factors have the effect of constituting a significant net addition to the operators work requirements such as to warrant the inclusion in the Quarrymens Award of a new classification.

It is my assessment that an appropriate rate for the new classification would be $299.00 per week. The award will be varied to reflect this decision and as appropriate to accommodate the amendments to the application, from the first pay period commencing or or after 10 April 1987.

I am conscious of the fact that a National Wage decision is reserved and that any resultant change in wage rates may predate this decision. However, because of the likely basis of that increase I do not see any difficultly in the implementation of this matter.

An appropriate order is attached.

J.G. King
COMMISSIONER