TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for hearing of industrial dispute

Health Services Union of Australia,
Tasmania No 1 Branch
(T6076 of 1996)

and

Euphrasia Inc.

Industrial dispute - alleged breaches of the Disability Service Providers Award

REASONS FOR DECISION

These proceedings concern a February 1996 application (subsequently twice amended by consent) by the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch (HSUA) for a hearing pursuant to s.29(1) of the Act in connection with a likely dispute the details of which are:

"... union members employed as Disability Service Workers with Euphrasia Inc. are not receiving remuneration to which they are entitled under the relevant award, i.e. the Disability Service Providers Award.

The HSUA requests the Commission to make a finding based on the evidence which will be presented in hearing and requests that the Commission give consideration to the making of an order.

The HSUA seeks to have any order which may be made by the Commission retrospective to 1 January 1995 which is when the employer first failed to meet its obligations."

The dispute, as to its substance, deals with alleged breaches by the employer, Euphrasia Inc., of the Disability Service Providers Award. There is no issue between the parties that the scope of the Disability Service Providers Award (previously known as the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award) covers the industry of the employer, or that the Persons and Parties Bound clause binds both employer and employees to the award.

On the 12 March 1996 Robinson DP, in an interim decision, adjourned the hearing sine die. At the same time, the Deputy President requested the Workplace Standards Authority to investigate and report on the complaint of alleged breach of award by Euphrasia Inc.

When proceedings resumed before the Deputy President on 12 June 1996 the investigating officer concerned, Mr M Shirley, summarised his report for purposes of the record and responded to questions put to him by the parties and from the Bench. Robinson DP did not admit the Inspector's report into evidence. To the extent, therefore, that the document has any relevance in these proceedings, that relevance may be found in Mr Shirley's conclusion that:

"It is not possible to determine the correct entitlement due to any employee until their correct Award Classification has been determined."

At the same hearing the Deputy President also took evidence from two employees of Euphrasia, Ms K L Woolnough (whom the employer classifies as a Level 5 Disability Service Worker) and Ms D L Thomas (Manager).

Following Deputy President Robinson's retirement on 30 June 1996 the President re-assigned the file to me. On Monday 22 July I held a directions conference with the parties, following which the proceedings resumed before me on Monday 19 August.

Concerning the earlier proceedings before Robinson DP, the parties by consent authorised me to take into account and to incorporate as necessary into my reasons for decision, the evidence of witnesses Woolnough and Thomas.

The employer, Euphrasia Inc., is a residential disability service that provides accommodation services to intellectually disabled persons. The organisation operates two group homes, St Canice and Hillborough, and one Independent Living Skills House.

Four intellectually and physically disabled clients occupy St Canice. One, both hearing impaired and visually impaired, is a high support classification; two are medium-high support and one is medium support. At Hillborough all four intellectually and physically disabled clients are medium support classifications.

At St Canice the employee complement comprises one Level 5 and four Level 4 Disability Service Workers; at Hillborough there is one Level 5 and three Level 4 Disability Service Workers; and at the Independent Living Skills House there is one Level 5 Disability Service Worker. From time to time Euphrasia Inc. employs casual Level 3 Disability Service Workers to relieve staff on sick or recreation leave.

The employee classifications mentioned above reflect the outcome of a translation process that arose from an order of Robinson DP in mid-1994 that restructured the then Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award. The Commission's Order No 1 of 1995 provided that the restructured award would become effective on and from 1 January 1995. In relation to the current application, no issue arises between the parties concerning the translation process, which Euphrasia Inc., its employees and HSUA endorse.

In the proceedings as a whole, including those before Robinson DP, HSUA's application concerns eight employees, among whom there is said to be three Level 5 and five Level 4 Disability Service Workers. Mr C Brown, for HSUA, led evidence on 19 August 1996 from six of those employees and the Manager of Euphrasia Inc. He also sought leave, which I granted, to bring evidence at a later hearing on behalf of two other employees, then absent from Tasmania. I took evidence from those employees on Monday 21 October including, also on that occasion, additional evidence from witnesses Quinteros and Fitzgerald.

By way of establishing his case, Mr Brown first identified the award criteria that define the work requirements of each of the relevant classification levels of Disability Service Worker. He thereafter adduced evidence from each of the involved employees for the purpose of demonstrating the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required of them by the employer, Euphrasia Inc.

Mr W Fitzgerald of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (TCCI) for Euphrasia Inc., having had an adequate pre-hearing opportunity to peruse each employee's Statutory Declaration, did not contest the evidence of any of them. Indeed, the Manager of Euphrasia, Ms D L Thomas, gave evidence that, having read the employees' written Statutory Declarations, she could confirm their accuracy as to the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required of each individual employee by Euphrasia Inc.

As an aid to understanding the evidence put to me by HSUA, the attachments to this decision show the award prescribed definitions for, in Appendix I, Disability Service Worker - Level 5; in Appendix II, Disability Service Worker - Level 4 and, in Appendix III, Disability Service Worker - Level 3. Mr Brown dealt first with the duties of witness Kaye Woolnough who, HSUA argues, is a Level 5 Disability Service Worker. Her evidence1 discloses that, in brief and in addition to performing the tasks of employees classified at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• works under limited supervision as House Manager and from time to time acts as Manager when Ms Thomas is absent;

• provides technical guidance, expertise and advice in response to staff initiated requests and, as House Manager, initiates the provision of such advice as and when necessary;

• is responsible for supervising the day to day activities, work organisation and overall output of four Level 4 Disability Service Workers;

• is responsible for quality assurance techniques at the group home of which she is House Manager;

• makes an annual assessment, with the Manager, of client needs for the purpose of developing Individual Program Plans for all clients of the home;

• is directly involved in training clients and supervising other staff involved in such training;

• is responsible for liaising with other residential service providers, day support services, TAFE attendees, case managers and speech pathologists, etc., doctors, and community nurses;

• uses task analysis as one of the training techniques for assisting clients to develop better skill levels;

• uses informal behavioural management techniques in response to the day to day needs of clients;

• possesses a working knowledge of applicable legislative enactments;

• is responsible for training those Level 4 Disability Service Workers whom she supervises;

• is Team Leader at the St Canice home; and

• is responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of the St Canice home.

Witness Doerte Brackmann, the House Manager and Team Leader at the Independent Living Skills House, is also an employee who, HSUA submits, is a Level 5 Disability Service Worker. Her evidence,2 briefly, shows that, in addition to performing the tasks of employees classified at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• as House Manager, works under limited supervision and from time to time acts as Manager when Ms Thomas is absent;

• provides technical guidance, expertise and advice to staff employed by Euphrasia, including casual staff employed from time to time;

• is only responsible, as to supervision, for occasional relief staff, but (being the only employee in the Independent Living Skills House) is responsible for time management and organising her own work program;

• is responsible for quality assurance techniques for the training house that she manages;

• assesses clients' needs and develops Individual Program Plans for all clients at the home every six months;

• is directly involved in training clients and supervising other staff involved in such training;

• is responsible for liaising with other residential service providers, day support services, TAFE attendees, case managers, speech pathologists, doctors, nurses, etc.;

• uses task analysis as one of the training techniques for assisting clients to develop better skill levels;

• uses informal behavioural management techniques in response to the day-to-day needs of clients;

• is directly involved in training clients and supervising other staff involved in such training;

• possesses a working knowledge of legislation associated with administration of medication, disability discrimination and guardianship; and

• is responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of the Independent Living Skills House.

HSUA also submits that witness May Parkinson is a Level 5 Disability Service Worker. Her evidence,3 in brief, shows that in addition to performing the tasks of employees classified at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• works under limited supervision as House Manager at the Hillborough home and, from time to time, acts as Manager when Ms Thomas is absent;

• provides technical guidance, expertise and advice in response to staff initiated requests and, as House Manager, initiates the provision of such advice as and when necessary;

• is responsible for supervising the day-to-day activities, work organisation and overall output of three Level 4 Disability Service Workers;

• is responsible for quality assurance techniques for the training house that she manages;

• in conjunction with the Manager, assesses clients' needs and develops Individual Program Plans for all clients at the home on an annual basis;

• is directly involved in training clients and supervising other staff involved in such training;

• is responsible for liaising with other residential service providers, day support services, TAFE attendees, case managers, speech pathologists, doctors, nurses, etc., Speakout and other client advocacy groups;

• uses task analysis as one of the training techniques for assisting clients to develop better skill levels;

• uses informal behavioural management techniques in response to the day to day needs of clients;

• is responsible for training the Level 4 staff employed in the home that she manages;

• possesses a working knowledge of legislation associated with administration of medication, disability discrimination and guardianship;

• is Team Leader at the Hillborough home; and

• is responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of the Hillborough home.

In respect of those whom HSUA asserts are Level 4 Disability Service Workers, Mr Brown opened with the evidence of witness Sue Fidock. Her evidence4 discloses that, in brief and in addition to performing the tasks of employees classified at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• does not generally supervise staff and is only responsible for supervising casual staff when the Team Leader is absent for extended periods;

• works largely without supervision since, at any given time, she is the only staff member rostered to work;

• exercises discretion in the day-to-day operation of the home and must deal with contingencies and non-routine events as well as achieve pre-set objectives;

• is from time to time responsible for allocation of work to casual staff, checking the progress of their work and dealing with any queries or problems that may arise in that context;

• is always the only employee rostered on duty and, as such, is responsible for her own work and, from time to time, the work of casual staff;

• being always the only employee rostered on duty, uses initiative and judgment in planning and organising her work;

• uses and understands COMPIC sign language program, MAKATON sign language, and a range of other non-verbal communication techniques;

• is involved in the development and delivery of individual training in basic skills on a daily basis, e.g. using a TV remote control and a new washing machine;

• is constantly in the position of assessing client needs and skill levels and, when required, implements training to enhance skill levels;

• assists and supports clients during night shift in evening meal preparation, getting ready for bed, breakfast preparation and ensures clients are ready for work or TAFE;

• has regular contact with doctors, pharmacists, Speakout (advocate organisation), community nurses, church groups, case managers, etc.;

• undertakes training of clients and uses a range of training techniques, aids and methods;

• is responsible from time to time for instructing and assisting in the training of casual staff; and

• is responsible for regular completion of such documentation as record of client mood swings and temperaments, accounts, banking, housekeeping records, clients' personal papers and medication records.

The evidence of witness Nancy Stevens5, another employee whom HSUA asserts is a Level 4 Disability Service Worker, shows that, in summary form and in addition to performing the tasks of employees classified at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• does not generally supervise staff and is only responsible for supervising casual staff when the Team Leader is absent for extended periods;

• works largely without supervision since, at any given time, she is the only staff member rostered to work;

• exercises discretion in the day-to-day operation of the home and must deal with contingencies and non-routine events as well as achieve pre-set objectives;

• is from time to time responsible for allocation of work to casual staff, checking the progress of their work and dealing with any queries or problems that may arise in that context;

• is always the only employee rostered on duty and, as such, is responsible for her own work and, from time to time, the work of casual staff;

• uses initiative and judgment in planning and organising her work and uses a range of techniques to deal with client behavioural and mood swings and changes and crisis situations that arise from time to time;

• uses and understands COMPIC sign language program, MAKATON sign language, and a range of other non-verbal communication techniques;

• is involved in the development and delivery of individual training in basic skills on a daily basis, e.g. food preparation and cooking, and sorting washing and ironing, etc.;

• is constantly in the position of assessing client needs and skill levels and, when required, implements training to enhance skill levels;

• assists and supports clients during night shift in evening meal preparation, getting ready for bed, breakfast preparation and ensures clients are ready for work or TAFE;

• has regular contact with doctors, pharmacists, Speakout (advocate organisation), community nurses, church groups, case managers, etc.;

• uses a range of techniques in the development and delivery of client training programs, e.g. making up COMPIC books to assist clients with eating out, shopping, holidays etc., and using video aids to assist clients with poor memory retention;

• is responsible from time to time for instructing and assisting in the training of casual staff; and

• is responsible for regular completion of such documentation as record of client mood swings and temperaments, accounts, banking, housekeeping records, clients' personal papers and medication records.

HSUA asserts that witness Sue Fitzgerald is a Level 4 Disability Service Worker. Briefly, her evidence6 shows that, in addition to performing the tasks of employees classified at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• is a casual employee who is not required to supervise other staff;

• works always without direct supervision since, at any given time, she is the only staff member rostered to work;

• exercises discretion in the day-to-day operation of the home and must deal with contingencies and non-routine events as well as achieve pre-set objectives;

• is always the only employee rostered on duty and, as such, is accountable for her own work;

• uses initiative and judgment in planning and organising her work and uses a range of techniques to deal with client behavioural and mood swings and changes and crisis situations that arise from time to time;

• uses COMPIC sign language as well as a range of other non-verbal communication techniques;

• is involved in the day-to-day development and delivery of training;

• is constantly in the position of assessing client needs and skill levels and, when required, implements training to enhance skill levels;

• assists and supports clients during night shift in personal care, evening meal preparation, getting ready for bed, breakfast preparation and ensures clients are ready for work or TAFE;

• has regular contact with outside organisations and health professionals;

• uses a range of training techniques, aids and methods appropriate to client needs;

• is not required to instruct other staff but does provide assistance to them by way of staff meetings and at shift "hand-overs"; and

• is responsible for regular completion of such documentation as record of client mood swings and temperaments, accounts, banking, housekeeping records, clients' personal papers and medication records.

HSUA argues that witness Claudia Quinteros is a Level 4 Disability Service Worker. In summary, her evidence7 discloses that, in addition to performing the tasks of employees at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• is a casual employee who is not usually required to supervise other staff;

• works always without direct supervision since, at any given time, she is the only staff member rostered to work;

• exercises discretion in the day-to-day operation of the home and must deal with contingencies and non-routine events as well as achieve pre-set objectives;

• is always the only employee rostered on duty and, as such, is responsible for her own work;

• uses initiative and judgment in planning and organising her work and uses a range of techniques to deal with client behavioural and mood swings and changes and crisis situations that arise from time to time;

• uses and understands COMPIC sign language program, MAKATON sign language, and a range of other non-verbal communication techniques;

• is involved in the day-to-day development and delivery of training;

• is constantly in the position of assessing client needs and skill levels and, when required, implements training to enhance skill levels;

• provides encouragement, training, assistance and supervision to clients on a continuous and on-going basis;

• has only occasional contact with community resources and external service providers;

• uses a range of training techniques, aids and methods appropriate to client needs;

• is not required to instruct other staff but does provide assistance to them by way of staff meetings and at shift "hand-overs"; and

• is responsible for appropriate completion of such documentation as record of client mood swings and temperaments, accounts, banking, housekeeping records, clients' personal papers and medication records.

Witness Janette Weinz is the last of the employees involved in this decision whom HSUA asserts is a Level 4 Disability Service Worker. Her evidence8, in brief, shows that in addition to performing the tasks of employees at lower Levels, she:

• possesses an appropriate level of relevant training;

• has limited responsibility for instruction and supervision of other staff, since she is a part-time employee who works about seven hours weekly;

• works largely without supervision since, at any given time, she is the only staff member rostered to work;

• exercises discretion in the day-to-day operation of the home and must deal with contingencies and non-routine events as well as achieve pre-set objectives;

• is always the only employee rostered on duty and, as such, is responsible for her own work and, from time to time, the work of casual staff;

• uses initiative and judgment in planning and organising her work and uses a range of techniques to deal with client behavioural and mood swings and changes and crisis situations that arise from time to time;

• uses the COMPIC sign language program in addition to a range of other non-verbal communication techniques;

• is involved in the day-to-day development and delivery of training;

• is constantly in the position of assessing client needs and skill levels and, when required, implements training to enhance skill levels;

• assists clients in a range of personal care and housekeeping tasks;

• has regular contact with doctors, pharmacists, community nurses, church groups, case managers, etc.;

• uses a range of training techniques, aids and methods appropriate to client needs;

• is responsible from time to time for instructing and assisting in the training of casual staff; and

• is responsible for regular completion of such documentation as record of client mood swings and temperaments, accounts, banking, housekeeping records, clients' personal papers and medication records.

By further documentary exhibits9 that contain extracts from relevant wages records, to which Mr Fitzgerald took no objection, Mr Brown submitted that the evidence shows clearly, in terms of s.49(1) of the Act, that Euphrasia Inc. is not paying the employees concerned at the rate of remuneration fixed by the award for the work that each employee performs.

Mr Fitzgerald, for Euphrasia, supported both the evidence and submissions of HSUA.

At the end of their submissions in chief, I invited the parties to inform me of the measure that I should apply to the evidence in determining whether the work performed by each employee falls within or without a particular award classification. Mr Brown and Mr Fitzgerald agreed that I should apply the traditional test of satisfying myself that the employer requires each employee to fulfil the "General Description" award requirements and to accept the responsibilities of and perform all, or substantially all, the indicative tasks specified, in this case, in the Disability Service Providers Award for the relevant work classification.

I turn now to weigh the evidence presented by each employee.

My analysis of the evidence of witnesses Kaye Woolnough and May Parkinson satisfies me that the work required of them by Euphrasia fulfils the "General Description" award requirements and that they in fact exercise the responsibilities of, and perform substantially all, the indicative tasks prescribed in Clause 7 - Definitions of the award as being applicable to a Disability Service Worker Level 5.

The same is true, I believe, of the evidence of witness Doerte Brackmann. Although this employee does not have the same supervisory responsibilities as witnesses Woolnough and Parkinson, her range of tasks and responsibilities, in my view, otherwise comprise substantially all of the indicative tasks prescribed in Clause 7 - Definitions of the award as being applicable to a Disability Service Worker Level 5 and greatly exceed those specified in the award as being relevant to a Disability Service Worker Level 4.

Accordingly, I find that, in terms of Section 49(1) of the Act, the work required by Euphrasia Inc. of Kaye Woolnough, May Parkinson and Doerte Brackmann entitles them, in accordance with the Disability Service Providers Award, to be each classified and paid as a Disability Service Worker Level 5.

My examination of witness Sue Fidock's evidence convinces me that, even though she performs the supervisory functions required of her from time to time only, she nonetheless fulfils the "General Description" award requirements and exercises the responsibilities of, and performs substantially all, the indicative tasks prescribed in Clause 7 - Definitions of the award as being applicable to a Disability Service Worker Level 4. Accordingly, I find that, in terms of Section 49(1) of the Act, the work required by Euphrasia Inc. of Sue Fidock entitles her, in accordance with the Disability Service Providers Award, to be classified and paid as a Disability Service Worker Level 4.

The evidence of witnesses Nancy Stevens, Janette Weinz, Claudia Quinteros and Sue Fitzgerald enables me to conclude that they either exercise no supervisory functions (Quinteros and Fitzgerald) or that their supervisory functions are occasional only (Stevens and Weinz). However, the range of indicative tasks actually performed, and responsibilities accepted by each employee, in my view, significantly exceed those specified in the award as being relevant to a Disability Service Worker Level 3. In the circumstances, the evidence satisfies me that all four employees fulfil the "General Description" requirements and exercise the responsibilities of, and perform substantially all, the indicative tasks prescribed in Clause 7 - Definitions of the award as being applicable to a Disability Service Worker Level 4. Accordingly, I find that, in terms of Section 49(1) of the Act, the work required by Euphrasia Inc. of Nancy Stevens, Janette Weinz, Claudia Quinteros and Sue Fitzgerald entitles them, in accordance with the Disability Service Providers Award, to be each classified and paid as a Disability Service Worker Level 4.

Both Mr Brown and Mr Fitzgerald submitted that, at this stage, I should not proceed beyond the point of making findings based on the evidence. Any necessary proceedings concerning Orders relating to alleged award breaches, they said, should be the subject of further submissions at a later date.

In my view the parties' representations on this issue are procedurally correct and desirable. Accordingly, having made findings as to the work performed by each employee according to the evidence, I now adjourn this matter sine die with leave reserved to the parties, or either of them, to have the matter restored to the list at a future time.

B R Johnson
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr C Stringer with Ms G Diaz and Mrs K Woolnough (7.3.96); Mr C Brown (12.6.96; 19.8.96; 21.10.96) for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch.
Mr W J Fitzgerald and Ms D Thomas (7.3.96; 12.6.96; 19.8.96) for Euphrasia Inc.
Mr M Shirley for the Chief Executive, Workplace Standards Authority (12.6.96).

Date and Place of Hearing:
1996
March 7 (Robinson DP)
June 12 (Robinson DP)
August 19
October 21
Hobart

APPENDIX I

DISABILITY SERVICE WORKER - LEVEL 5

          RELATIVITY TO LEVEL 4 (a):

(a) Base Level 115%
(b) 1st increment 125%
(c) 2nd Increment 130%

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

An employee at this level is required to perform work above and beyond the skills of a Level 4 employee and to their level of training, and is competent to perform work within the scope of this level.

At this level an employee may:

- work under limited supervision subject to a clear strategy plan and budget;

- provide technical guidance, expertise and advice;

- be responsible and accountable for the organisation and output of other Disability Service Workers who have responsibility for the care, training and supervision of clients (as defined), and shall display a more advanced level of skill in managing time, setting priorities, planning and organising work than an employee classified at Level 4;

- understand and implement quality assurance techniques;

INDICATIVE TASKS

In addition to the tasks of employees at lower levels, an employee at this level performs tasks to their level of training. Indicative tasks may include:

SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

- allocation of work and responsibility for identifying, applying and achieving work outcomes including quality, quantity and safety;

- maintenance of necessary documentation and provide appropriate reports;

- co-ordinate and responsible for equipment maintenance and scheduling;

- scheduling and prioritising of orders;

- training of other Disability Service Workers at lower classification levels;

- maintenance of a recording and reporting system;

- provision of technical reports.

ACCOMMODATION/INDEPENDENT LIVING TRAINING SERVICES

- assess clients (as defined) abilities and develop long term training goals;

- train clients (as defined) in a broad range of tasks using a wide range of teaching methods and aids at a higher level of skill than Level 4;

- develop and promote networks with other service providers and community resources in accordance with workplace policy;

- undertake task analysis;

- implement behaviour modification strategies;

- undertake activities requiring knowledge of statutory and legal requirements;

- train other Disability Service Workers at lower classification levels;

- co-ordinate the operation of a single group home;

- undertake administrative tasks within workplace guidelines.

APPENDIX II

DISABILITY SERVICE WORKER - LEVEL 4

          RELATIVITY TO LEVEL 4 (a):

(a) Base Level 100%
(b) 1st Increment 105%
(c) 2nd Increment 110%

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

An employee at this level is required to perform work above and beyond the skills of a Level 3 employee and to their level of training, and is competent to perform the work within the scope of this level including an employee who holds a relevant certificate level qualification, including (a) trade certificate or (b) trades right certificate or equivalent thereto.

PROVIDED that an employee who is not required to interact with clients (as defined) shall not progress beyond increment Level 4 (a) hereof;

At this level an employee may:

- supervise employees at lower classification levels;

- work under general supervision (as defined) and will use discretion within the scope of this level working individually or in a team environment;

- undertake work that may be non-routine in nature and be subject to pre-set objectives for work assignments;

- without limiting the generality thereof, supervises Disability Service Workers classified at lower classification levels and their clients (as defined) including, checking progress and co-ordinating workflow.

- accountable for their own work and the work of others;

- use initiative, discretion and judgment in planning and organising work and techniques for own work and that of employees at lower classification levels and clients (as defined).

- understand and use a limited range of non-verbal communication;

INDICATIVE TASKS

In addition to the tasks of employees at lower levels, an employee at this level performs tasks to their level of training. Indicative tasks may include:

SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

- schedule and prioritise own work and that of Disability Service Workers at lower classification levels;

- supervise, instruct and assist with the training of Disability Service Workers in classifications at a lower level and responsible and accountable for the work of Disability Service Workers at lower classification levels and their clients (as defined);

- complete all necessary documentation and reporting;

- supervises 10 or more clients (as defined) requiring general supervision (as defined) to operate safely to standards;

- undertakes training and training assessment of clients (as defined) in specific vocational skills within the scope of this level;

ACCOMMODATION/INDEPENDENT LIVING TRAINING SERVICES

- develop and implement training programs for clients (as defined) in basic skills;

- undertake training and skill assessment of clients (as defined);

- assist and/or support clients (as defined) in attending to their care using discretion and judgment about most appropriate actions at a higher level of skill than classification Level 3;

- participate in networks with other service providers and community resource providers;

- train clients (as defined) in a broad range of tasks using a range of techniques, aids and methods;

- instruct and assist with the training of Disability Service Workers engaged at lower level classifications;

- complete necessary documentation and reports as specified at the workplace.

APPENDIX III

DISABILITY SERVICE WORKER - LEVEL 3

           RELATIVITY TO LEVEL 4 (a):

(a) Base Level 92%
(b) 1st Increment 95%
(c) 2nd Increment 98%

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

An employee at this level is required to perform work above and beyond the skills of a Level 2 employee to their level of training and is competent to perform work within the scope of this level.

At this level an employee may:

- undertake a range of activities requiring the application of skills and knowledge at a higher level than Level 2 employees;

- be subject to direct supervision (as defined) and may work individually or in a team environment;

- perform work that is performed within established routines, methods, standards and procedures;

- have limited scope to exercise initiative but uses limited discretion in applying work practices and procedures;

- be accountable for their own work within the scope of this level;

- be required to assist employees at higher classification levels with specific projects;

- understand and use a limited range of non-verbal communication;

- have an understanding of work procedures relevant to their work area and may provide assistance to employees at lower classification levels concerning established procedures to meet the objective of a minor function;

- be required to resolve minor work procedural issues in the relevant work area within established workplace constraints, and to the employee's level of skill and training;

- have access to staff at a higher level.

INDICATIVE TASKS

In addition to the tasks of employees at lower levels, an employee at this level performs tasks to their level of training. Indicative tasks may include:

GENERAL

- undertakes simple training assignments of clients (as defined) under supervision;

- driving a public passenger vehicle licensed to carry more than 12 passengers;

- driving a forklift or similar mobile equipment;

- driving a truck or vehicle requiring a driving licence of more than 4.5 GVM but does not include a licence to drive an articulated vehicle or higher standard licence category;

- maintain daily records as a result of activities at this level.

SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

- wide range of routine production tasks, including, but without limiting the generality thereof; repetition work on automatic, semi-automatic or single purpose machines, welding, use of relevant tools, boiler attendance, lubrication, machine setting, loading and operation;

- assist other Disability Service Workers in the production process;

- operate of a computer terminal;

- adhere to quality assurance procedures and practices;

- provide general or close supervision for up to nine clients (as defined) who are undertaking work tasks;

- undertake training and assessment of clients (as defined) in specific vocational skills within the scope of this level.

ACCOMMODATION/INDEPENDENT LIVING TRAINING SERVICES

- participate with employees at higher levels, in the development and implementation of training programs for clients (as defined) within a team environment.

- assist and support clients (as defined) in daily care;

- assist and support clients (as defined) to undertake and manage household routines and tasks;

- assist in the maintenance of records if required;

- undertake client (as defined)-training assignments, within the scope of this level;

- assist in the development and implementation of training programs within a team environment.

1 Exhibit HSUA 10.
2 Exhibit HSUA 22.
3 Exhibit HSUA 24.
4 Exhibit HSUA 12.
5 Exhibit HSUA 13.
6 Exhibit HSUA 15 and Transcript 21 October 1996.
7 Exhibit HSUA 17 and transcript 21 October 1996.
8 Exhibit HSUA 19.
9 HSUA 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23 and 25.