T875 and T938
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
The two applications now falling for decision seek to vary the Inland Fisheries Award in the following way: MATTER T.875 OF 1987 1. By extending the present Scientific Officer salary scales to include new classes, namely Class III comprising Grade 1 (two increments), and Grade 2 (two increments), and new Class IV comprising Grade 1 (two increments) plus Grade 2 (two increments); 2. By amending the definition of Scientific Officer to include provision for persons holding qualifications in aquaculture. MATTER T.938 of 1987 (a) This application sought what was intended to be no more than a consequential amendment to a derivative award for the purpose of reflecting general application decisions already taken by the Commission in other "parent awards" or resulting from so-called "test case" matters. (b) The variations requested included the following: . alteration to definitions by deletion of the definition of "adult" and "junior" officers; . inclusion of a definition of "casual employee"; . inclusion of a definition of "controlling authority"; . inclusion of a definition of "employee"; . inclusion of a definition of "part-time employee"; . inclusion of a definition of "temporary employee"; . variation to the preamble to the Salary clause; . variation to terminology and salary configuration for administrative and clerical employees to, inter alia, incorporate in Class I persons under 21 years of age, together with the percentage ratio each under-21-year rate bears to the 21-year salary; . inclusion of the classification of "Word Processor Operator" in the keyboard group, together with any other amendments of a machinery nature considered necessary to reflect parent award prescriptions including allowances; . incorporating in Class I Technical Officer scales, salary rates and appropriate percentage ratios for junior officers, plus a savings provision; . deletion of junior rates entirely, together with such other consequential changes to the award flowing from the proposed variation; . inclusion of a new provision for casual employees; . deletion of the current conditions of service provision and in substitution therefor insertion of an appropriate cross reference to the General Conditions of Service Award; . making such machinery alterations to the "Progression" provision in the award sufficient to make it clear that that provision applies only to Scientific Officers. (c) In addition to the foregoing, and in accordance with the authority vested in the President pursuant to Section 24(3) of the Act, I directed that the Commission be informed of the present conditions of employment applicable to Inland Fisheries Inspectors. That information was to include details of any compensatory payments made in recognition of the discrete nature of their employment. Having been associated with this award since its inception, I am mindful of the fact that the conditions under which Inspectors perform their duties have never been examined or, indeed, inspected by the Commission. Moreover there is no evidence to suggest this exercise was carried out by the now defunct Public Service Board. To the extent that I am able to do so, I will deal with and rule upon each claim seriatim. T.875 OF 1977 - EXTENSION OF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER SCALES In some respects this was a virtual re-run of T.532 of 1986,1 save that on this occasion the Commission was not required to assess the value the work of an individual Senior Scientific Officer. This exercise involved determination of the work value of a position, the incumbent of which, according to the evidence of Dr. Sloane, should be regarded as a technical expert in his particular field. The job to be work-valued will be filled either by direct nomination, or in accordance with the standard State Service practice and procedure of interview and selection. To further review this position would be wearyingly repetitive. It is the job currently performed by a Scientific Officer-Biologist for whom a special allowance equating exactly with Scientific Officer Class III Grade 1 was struck in December2. Appendix A*3 sets out the certified (by Head of Agency) position description. No changes have been made to the work requirements of the job since the work of the incumbent (Mr. Fulton) was reviewed last year.4 Indeed Exhibits A, B, C, 0 and P of the earlier case dealing with the duties and responsibilities of the job were again tendered during proceedings. Essential qualifications for the position, which embraces both research and investigative work, along with supervisory and administrative responsibilities, are that the successful applicant has a degree or diploma in Science from an approved university, college or school. Moreover, it is desirable that the eventual appointee have a higher qualification such as a Master's Degree or Doctorate in Freshwater Ecology or a related field. It is also desirable that the incumbent be a proven performer in freshwater research whose background includes publication of relevant scientific papers. DECISION: I have decided to allow the claim for inclusion of Class III Grades 1 and 2. The claim for Class IV is rejected at this stage. I accept Dr. Sloane's evidence that the job description, compiled by himself, satisfies the requirements for a Class III officer but not that of Class IV. Moreover, recent classification standards issued by the Department of Public Administration (but not necessarily accepted by this Commission) suggest that Class III would be the appropriate level for the position concerned. My own assessment of the job would be that Class III Grade 2 could be selected if the successful applicant is to regularly deputise for Dr. Sloane who is, as is well known, the head of agency. No formalised position of Deputy Commissioner has been established. This function is performed in whole or in part by the Senior Biologist during the Commissioner's absence and at other times when it is physically impossible for Dr. Sloane to apply his mind to every aspect of the Commission's activities. Should the Association wish to pursue its claim for Class IV, it will be necessary to first process any such application before an Anomalies Conference. In the event that Mr. Fulton is an aspirant for the position and is successful, the Commission will then revoke the allowances presently payable to him. If he is not successful or is not an applicant and suffers a reduction in responsibility as a consequence, those allowances will need to be subject to further review. Finally, should the head of agency later find it necessary to classify another Scientific Officer to the proposed Class III Grade 2 level, he will be again faced with the dilemma of no financial differential for his surrogate or de jure deputy. Only in those circumstances do I feel that the proposed award configuration resulting from this decision might require further consideration. RECOGNITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES HOLDING QUALIFICATIONS IN AQUACULTURE With the unprecedented growth in saltwater and freshwater fish farming in this and other States, together with other important research and developmental work being carried out by the Inland Fisheries Commission, an urgent need has apparently arisen for persons holding appropriate qualifications in aquaculture to be integrated into the State workforce. This phenomenom has generated significant demands from the many faceted fish farm industry. The need for qualified staff has resulted in strains being imposed on management's capacity to retain existing experienced and qualified personnel pending release into the workforce of college-trained persons holding discrete formalized qualifications in aquaculture. According to the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology the immediate qualification available from that body is an Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Aquaculture). This is a 2-year fulltime course. In 1988 the Institute hopes to offer in addition a Diploma in Applied Science (Aquaculture). This will be a 3-year diploma. The former testamur is rated U.G.3 and the latter will be U.G.2. Dr. Sloane expressed no major reservation regarding suitability of the existing course content and qualification for sections of the work of the Commission. This I took to mean that an accredited T.S.I.T. qualification in applied science (aquaculture) might, in certain circumstances, be more desirable than a general science diploma or degree having no significant aquaculture content. Although Mr. McCabe expressed some preliminary reservation regarding inclusions of aquaculture in the general science group of disciplines covered by the award, he did not pursue his objection. He acquiesced in the proposal on the understanding that the matter could be further considered at some later date should what is now intended be found, on later examination, to be unworkable. However, from the evidence available I consider this to be unlikely. DECISION: Accordingly I decide that an employee without post qualification experience who holds an Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Aquaculture) rated U.G.3, obtained as a consequence of full-time study at the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology or equivalent, shall be paid a commencing salary at the rate of $19000 per annum. This rate shall continue to be paid for 12 months, at which point the employee shall, subject to satisfactory service and the determination of the controlling authority, be advanced to the first year of service of Scientific Officer Class I. Thereafter he shall, subject to award and State Service criteria regarding progression, advance through the various incremental levels. An employee who holds a 3-year Diploma in Applied Science (Aquaculture) and rated U.G.2, who has no post-qualification experience, shall commence on the first increment of Scientific Officer Grade 1, and thereafter shall progress through the scale in accordance with award and State Service criteria. An employee who, on appointment, holds either of the foregoing qualifications or the equivalent thereof (to be determined by the Commissioner for Public Employment in the absence of any award provision) may be offered a higher salary commensurate with his post-qualification experience obtained elsewhere in similar work. The variation giving effect to the foregoing will operate from the first pay period commencing on or after today's date. T.938 OF 1987 - APPLICATION BY MINISTER FOB PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION This application was agreed to and with one exception and two qualifications will be granted. Shortly stated, the controlling authority's application is but one of sixteen others said to be waiting to be processed. The purpose of each is to give effect to decisions already taken by the Commission relating to major or parent awards from which a number of small agency awards have had their genesis or are substantially derived. Those major awards are the Clerical, Technical, General and Keyboard Awards. However, there remains before a Full Bench of the Commission, of which I am the presiding member, a number of unresolved issues including the question of part-time and casual rates (using that terminology in its generic sense). For that reason the variations now proposed, insofar as they bear upon non-permanent staff definitions, must be regarded as provisional and subject to further consideration if necessary. This may occur following announcement of the Commission's decision in the test case matters yet to be determined.5 The other reservation I have is in relation to the definition, or lack of definition, of Technical Officer. It seems to me that without some formal or definitive award interpretation, it is open to an agency to classify an employee as a technical officer regardless of training, qualification or responsibility. It is my opinion that if general scales, as distinct from specific classifications, are to be included in an award, there should be some definition of technical officer inserted in order that the work may be properly evaluated and individuals classified in accordance with the duties they perform. In broad terms a Technical Officer might be described as one who holds a certificate from a T.A.F.E. college in a particular trade, calling, or some specialist field: he may also be a person who has failed to complete a university degree or similar, but having passed sufficient units in a particular field is able to work as a technical officer. Of course many other examples could be given. But for award purposes there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between technical, general, clerical and professional personnel. In agreeing to flow on to this award the majority of changes requested by the controlling authority, including deletion of junior rates per se, and integration of those rates in the base grade clerical and technical scales, I note with concern perpetuation of a relic of the past. I refer to a savings provision, the effect of which affords a junior technical officer accelerated progression on the adult scale. Justification for this appears to have been buried in obscurity. It seems to me that there can be no valid reason for recognising years of service as a junior in order to gain an equivalent yearsof-service advantage as an adult. If juniors do not progress seriatim along the rate-for-age and years-of-service scale those provisions become meaningless, and are of no value in determining the proper adult base rate for a job. That is not say that a junior could not and should not in the appropriate circumstances be promoted to a higher level. My present concern is with the situation where a junior, who continues to perform at age 21 the same duties that he carried out at age 20, but for no apparent reason then gains accelerated progression over two adult increments. Prima facie there can be no justification for advancing the salary of any employee without it first being demonstrated that there has been a significant change in the nature of his duties. This is a fundamental industrial criterion. OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT Mr. McCabe quite properly requested a catch-all provision regarding application of the general conditions of service award to apply in circumstances where the award or regulations are silent on a particular employment condition. In this regard the present award appears somewhat convoluted and contains terminology now substantially redundant by reason of application of the State Service Act to Inland Fisheries Commission employees. However, as discussed during proceedings I am of the opinion that the status quo should remain pending examination of the matter of allowances and conditions of employment for Inspectors. The question of Inspectors' remuneration, having been raised firstly by the T.P.S.A. and now by me is presently being addressed by the parties. I would ask that progress be reported to me on or before 1 October, following which I wish to inspect Head Office, Liawenee and possibly two, one-man stations. Alternatively I would be prepared to simply meet with Inspectors and research staff at Liawenee for the purpose of general discussion, provided those discussions take place in the presence of, hopefully, the Head of Agency or his nominee, the Tasmanian Public Service Association and a representative of the controlling authority. Freshwater fishing, fish farming and research directly related thereto is unquestionably of major importance to this State. I am of the view that the award setting out the salaries and working conditions of those charged with the important task of development and putting into effect Commission policies in this field should be as up to date as the policies they develop and the way in which they are implemented. Both are essential to a dynamic and important industry having both commercial and tourist implications for Tasmania. Subject to any further variations considered appropriate following completion of the procedures now in train or in prospect, the award will be varied to reflect the amendments requested by the controlling authority. The residual questions of application of additional general conditions of service provisions, and inclusion in the award of allowances (if considered necessary) for inspectorial staff shall be determined at a later date. The variations now proposed will take effect from the first pay period commencing on or after today's date.
L.A. Koerbin 1 T.532 of 1986, Decision dated 15.12.86
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||