Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T3909 - 8 September

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company Pty Ltd
(T.3909 of 1992)

FERRO ALLOYS AWARD

 

COMMISSIONER R K GOZZI

HOBART 8 September 1992

Award variation - Structural Efficiency Principle - new career structure for tradespersons - points allocation through Mechanical Maintenance Career Path Model.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Ferro Alloys Award was varied operative from 17 August 1992 to reflect the outcome of enterprise and structural efficiency negotiations. The details were discussed in my Reasons for Interim Decision of 1 September 1992. In the proceedings giving rise to that decision the Metals and Engineering Workers Union, (MEWU) represented by Mr Hill, submitted that the MEWU had some difficulty with the Mechanical Maintenance Career Path Model. Like all other career path models in this matter, the Mechanical Maintenance Career Path Model (the MM Model) contains skills that may be acquired for progression in the Career Structure as set out in clause 8 - Classifications and Payments of the varied Ferro Alloys Award.

The gradings in the career structure are based on the cumulative acquisition of skills all of which have a points value. Each grade has a pre determined points value rising from 20 points at Grade 1 to 405 points at Grade 9, which is the top of the career structure. Accordingly as employees gain skills they accumulate points which allow them to progress in the career structure.

The entry point classification or grading for tradespersons is grade 3 in the career structure. At that level a non trades employee will have achieved at least 45 points from the Core Skills identified in one of the career path models.

The specific concern of the MEWU is that tradespersons at that grade are not credited with any points. That is for a tradesperson to advance to grade 4, 60 Core Skill points have to be acquired. On the other hand a non trades classified employee who has progressed to Grade 3 has already gained 45 Core Skill points (cumulative from grade 1 through to grade 3), and therefore only requires a further 15 Core Skill points.

Prima facie this represents an anomaly in that a tradesperson at grade 3 has to achieve 60 Core Skill points whereas any other grade 3 classified employee only has to achieve a further 15 Core Skill points.

The issue is further complicated in that the original documentation, Exhibit Temco 2, identifies a number of Core Skills able to be achieved by employees in the MM Model career path, which have already been acquired by tradespersons in either their Boilermaking or Fittings apprenticeship. I refer to Industrial Welding 1, 2 and 3 and Industrial Fitting 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Each of these skills were valued at 15 points each making a total of 45 Core Skill points. As the entry point for tradespersons is grade 3 there is an arguable case that the 45 points specified in the MM Model should be allocated to them, which would put them on the same footing as other grade 3 employees who are non tradespersons.

To overcome the problem of points allocated to the aforementioned skills, Temco submitted a new exhibit, Exhibit Temco II, in which it is stipulated that points will not be awarded for Industrial Fitting and Industrial Welding "unless those skills are additional to the TAFE trade training skills applicable to the employee."

There are two principal issues which are of concern to me. The first is that whilst there appears to be an anomaly between the treatment of trades and non trades classified employees, the career structure and points allocated to each grade is the product of extensive working party analysis and review involving all parties but not the MEWU. It is my understanding that the MEWU whilst declining the offer of involvement in the formative part of the carer structure and allocation of points to the respective grades, was given assurances that it would be involved in separate negotiations when the structure and points had been clarified. Apparently those negotiations did not take place in any substantial way. Certainly the period between the hearing of this matter in the first instance and the resumption of these proceedings to consider the specific issue of the allocation of points, did little to advance a solution.

Mr Abey appearing for Temco submitted that the career path models, including the MM Model, represented Temco's "best effort" to achieve equitable career path models. He said that as each of the models were developed separately by working parties, points assigned do not equate equally between each of the career streams. However he submitted that the level of effort was the same. The dilemma I have is that to fiddle with one part of the career path model may well result in other imbalances, having regard to how the entire structure was evolved.

However even more fundamental, and this is the other principal issue as far as I am concerned, is that progression in any career path should be predicated on the acquisition of additional relevant skills. I do not see how it would be appropriate to count as additional skills, those which form part of the apprenticeship training. The acquisition of those skills, leading to the completion of the apprenticeship results in the person being classified at the tradespersons' rate. In this case 100 per cent of the tradespersons' rate of pay equates to grade 3. It would be a nonsense, in my opinion, to again count skills already acquired and which are essential to achieve the tradespersons' rate of pay at the point of entry to the career structure for that classification. As the parties are aware "conventional" progression in a career path is through the acquisition of extra skills. I do not see that skills acquired in the course of an apprenticeship resulting in a trades qualification fall into the category of extra skills for the purpose of career path advancement.

For all of the foregoing reasons I am not prepared to interfere with the points required to be achieved by tradespersons for progression from grade 3 to grade 4.

Finally, whilst this does not impinge on the merits of this case one way or another, it is interesting to note that at this time the lowest classified tradesperson at Temco is on grade 6. The majority are on grade 7. Of further interest is that grade 7 has been able to be achieved by a tradesperson out of his apprenticeships for only 20 months. That person has acquired 227 points in that time. This gives carriage to the submission of Mr Abey that career path progression is "easier" in the formative years and becomes more difficult in the later stages of the career path.

 

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr G Jones with Mr T Abey for Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company Pty Ltd.
Mr M Hill for Metals and Engineering Workers' Union.
Mr B Best for The Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia, Tasmanian Branch.
Mr K Becker for Electrical Trades Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch.
Mr J Long for Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1992
Georgetown
September 1.