Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T2822 - 18 April

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.23 application for award or variation of award

Emu Bay Railway
(T.2822 of 1990)

EMU BAY RAILWAY AWARD

 

COMMISSIONER R K GOZZI

HOBART 18 April 1991

Structural Efficiency - Monitoring

REASONS FOR FURTHER DECISION

In my Reasons for Decision in this matter dated 27 February 1991 I endorsed a number of structural efficiency measures and proposals in support of the variation of the Emu Bay Railway Award to reflect the second instalment structural efficiency adjustment.

In that decision I also indicated that it was my intention to conduct a further hearing in order to review and monitor progress in respect of initiatives for change in the workplace and award structures which were indentified and accepted by the Commission in the original proceedings.

Accordingly these current proceedings were to receive reports from the parties on structural efficiency progress to date.

Mr Evetts appearing for the Emu Bay Railway Company Limited (EBR) submitted that substantial progress had been made in the cross skilling of employees in the workshops. The practical application of multi-skilling was highlighted to the Commission in the subsequent inspections of the machine fabrication and locomotive/rolling stock trades shops. I was impressed with the obvious improvement in the functional flexibility of employees.

With regard to providing training for employees, a full-time training co-ordinator has been appointed. In that context fork lift truck training has been provided for employees with all trades and stores persons having been accredited by the Division of Labour and Industry.

As well as the foregoing, several other initiatives are also well in hand. These include the development of rules and regulations in conjunction with the appropriate unions and employees for various parts of the EBR operation. An award modernisation draft is being prepared by Mr Evetts for circulation to the parties for comment.

These positive aspects of the restructuring programme are pleasing. However I am concerned that in the area of career path and classification structure development, the parties have a disparate view of how this should be progressed.

I regard the classification structure and career path progression to go hand in hand with achieving better structural efficiency in the work place.

When I endorsed the second instalment structural efficiency adjustment I noted the intention of the parties to reduce the existing number of classifications to a five level structure. Whilst at this point negotiations have not progressed any further I stress the importance of the parties reaching common ground as soon as possible. Clearly the award structure and job specifications dictate, subsequent to the conduct of a skills audit, ongoing training requirements and the nature of skills acquisition programme.

At this stage I do not propose to intervene beyond setting down a further report back/monitoring hearing. Notwithstanding the parties are of course able to approach the Commission at any time.

It is appropriate to acknowledge that EBR have taken a number of positive steps in this restructuring exercise. As well as those identified earlier in this decision a full-time Training Co-Ordinator has been appointed. Also it is proposed to employ a consultant jointly funded by the National Industry Extension Service and EBR.

For this initiative to realise its full potential in respect of the development of training modules and the conduct of a skills audit, the observations made by union officials at the hearing for consultation to take place should be headed by EBR.

In my reasons for Decision in this matter dated 27 February 1991 I indicated that I would inspect the unloading and subsequent reloading of steel railway sleepers with regard to manning arrangements. This was accordingly undertaken. I now confirm that the arrangements involving one fork lift truck driver are to be maintained.

In the proceedings the parties indicated their intention to hold a number of meetings to discuss all outstanding issue. In the circumstances I anticipate that significant further progress will have been made in this matter by the next hearing in the Commission on 16 July 1991.

 

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr R Evetts with Mr A White for Emu Bay Railway Company Ltd
Mr M Hill with Mr P Anderson for The Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union
Mr R Neil with Mr Bates and Mr Anderson for the Australian Railways Union (Tasmanian Branch)
Mr M Grey for The Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia, Tasmanian Branch

Date and Place of Hearing:
1991
Burnie
March 26