TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s55 application for filing an industrial agreement

Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000

and

Community and Public Sector Union (State Public Services
Federation Tasmania) Inc

and

Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch
(T11614 of 2004)

Industrial agreement - application approved - operative date ffpp 1 July 2004 - until 31 December 2006 - forwarded to Registrar for registration

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000 (the Minister), the Community and Public Sector Union (State Public Services Federation Tasmania) Inc. (the CPSU) and the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch (HSUA) have filed with the Registrar an application pursuant to section 55 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 (the Act) in respect to an industrial agreement made pursuant to section 55 (1) of the Act to be known as the (Public Sector) Wages Agreement 2004 (the Agreement).

[2] Section 55 of the Act provides, where relevant:

"(1)   An employee organisation may enter into an industrial agreement with an employer organisation or any employer or group of employers with respect to an industrial matter.

(3A)   In conducting a hearing, a Commissioner is to give the parties to the agreement an opportunity to be heard.

(4)   After conducting a hearing a Commissioner may:

(a) approve the agreement; or

(b) refuse to approve the agreement.

(5)   An industrial agreement shall be in a form approved by the Commission and operative for a term specified in it not exceeding 3 years from the making of the agreement."

[3] Section 36 provides:

"(1)   Before the Commission makes an award under this Act or before the Commission approves an industrial agreement, the Commission must be satisfied that that award or that agreement is consistent with the public interest.

(2)   In deciding whether a proposed award or a proposed industrial agreement would be consistent with the public interest, the Commission shall:

(a) consider the economic position of any industry likely to be affected by the proposed award or proposed agreement;

(b) consider the economy of Tasmania and the likely effect of the proposed award or proposed industrial agreement on the economy of Tasmania with particular reference to the level of employment; and

(c) take into account any other matter considered by the Commission to be relevant to the public interest."

[4] The radiation therapists who will be subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement are party to the Community and Health Services (Public Sector) Award, (Professional Stream), an award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission (the Commission).

[5] The parties to the agreement seek that the Commission register the agreement to give effect to the matters agreed and they rely on significant changes to work value as justification for the introduction of a new classification structure and wage scale.

[6] Comprehensive witness statements were provided by:

Marianne Hercus, Supervisor Radiation Therapist;
Lisa Cleary, Specialist Radiation Therapist; and
Anne McDevitt, Radiation Therapist.

[7] Each addressed the changes in the nature of the work for radiation therapists over a number of years. Some of those changes are significant and have required additional learning and qualification by, and for, radiation therapists. Tendered with the witness statements were copies of the radiation therapist In-Service Education Program, the Individual Development Plan and information about the Australian Institute of Radiotherapy registration and continuing professional development requirements.

[8] The parties and the Commission undertook an inspection at the WP Holman Clinic in Hobart where radiation therapists demonstrated the technology now in use and discussed in some detail the introduction and operation of new technology.

[9] Radiation therapy was described as "a science involving the controlled use of ionising radiation in treatment planned to cure, contain and relieve disease."1

[10] It was submitted that:

"Radiation therapy is a technology-based science. Technology over the past 10 years has moved at a rapid pace. In areas such as cancer treatment significant resources have been utilised both nationally and internationally in an attempt to find the best, safest and most efficient technologies for treatment. It is clearly evident that further technologies will be implemented in the radiation therapy area in the future. The need for therapists to maintain competence and skills whilst continuing to address service delivery is critical."2

[11] The basic qualification for a radiation therapist is a Bachelor of Applied Science - Medical Radiation, however, the witness statements all attest to the importance for individuals to continue their development and maintain skills learned.

[12] Ann McDevitt was absent from the profession for some seven years and said in her statement "When I physically re-entered the WP Holman Clinic on my return to work in 1999, I remember being in complete awe of the number of computers and at what I was seeing on them. Whilst I had been in a senior planning role in Launceston just 7 years before this I was not able to even be rostered to the planning area here without total new training and supervision."

[13] Each of the witnesses in their statements addressed registration requirements and their roles in supervising undergraduates and visiting students and their participation in the mandatory in-service program.

[14] It was said that:

"Specialisation in treatment methods and modalities has changed significantly in the last 10 years as evidenced by the introduction of new technologies as you have seen and as evidenced in the witness statements. Radiation therapy is now a profession in its own right and stands alone with regard to the treatment modalities that therapists perform. This practice is underpinned by a high level of quality assurance translating to improved services to patients. Not only does the quality assurance mean improved services to patients but also in the use of more highly improved skills accompanied by an increased expectation on the part of management and the therapists themselves that the services provided will be more scientifically and technologically based and constantly reviewed at a high standard.

are required to use a significant degree of independent judgment which has been accompanied by an increase in quality assurance. The Holman Clinics, as outlined in the strategic plan page 66, are currently considering in addition to the high level of quality assurance activities already undertaken the introduction of research and quality assurance positions. These positions will not replace general research and quality improvement opportunities that are available to staff, but supplement these by co-ordinating these activities by undertaking specific projects to radiation therapy for extended periods of time."3

[15] Some of the changes referred to in witness statements and during the inspection were:

• 3D Computer Planning was introduced in 1997, was the first full 3D planning system to be installed in Australia and "has been the single most significant change in radiation therapy in the last decade." [Hercus Witness statement]. "I have had to increase my skill level in diagnostic imagine manipulation and interpretation." [Cleary Witness statement].
• The VaRiS radiotherapy information system was commissioned in 1999 and upgraded in 2003 to VaRiS Vision which is a complete oncology information management system. Radiation therapists were required to complete applications training to learn each of the software applications.
• Electronic Portal Imaging was introduced in 2002 requiring an increased knowledge in image interpretation and manipulation and Marianne Hercus developed a protocol for "transferring images from the 3D computer planning system directly to VaRis Vision portal imaging" and has been involved in the education of staff in use of the equipment.
• A new dual modality linear accelerator with a multi-leaf collimation was commissioned in 2002.
• Virtual Simulation, Diagnostic Imaging and Image Co-registration have been introduced requiring additional learning for therapists and knowledge of anatomy and image acquisition.
• The ability to undertake dynamic treatments became available in 2002.
• Combined modality radiation has increased in frequency with the advent of new cytoxic drug agents. Lisa Cleary said: "The introduction of hyperbaric therapy in combination with radiation therapy has lead to the necessity to understand this treatment and its implications in treating radiation therapy patients."

[16] It was submitted

"Radiation therapy has continued to change from a setting where therapists took direction from doctors to a setting where accepting referrals from doctors and these doctors in turn rely on therapists to treat appropriately. Therapists now take responsibility to design and implement radiation therapy programs for people who are referred to them by the medical profession. As stated earlier in my submission, the radiation therapist is expected to assist in the development of new treatment techniques, evaluate and advise on new equipment and technologies and to participate in technologist education. The radiation therapist is responsible for the delivery of each treatment increment and will consult with the radiation oncologist when necessary."4

[17] The introduction of new equipment and methods has required radiation therapists to undertake continual professional development and learning. To maintain registration with the Medical Radiation Science Professional Registration Board it will become mandatory in 2005 for radiation therapists to document and submit continuing professional development activities.

[18] The classification structure proposed in the Agreement is in similar terms to that which applies in an agreement certified by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) and having application to radiation therapists in Victoria.

[19] The competency based progression criteria is based in part on a model applying in New South Wales.

[20] The agreement is in a form approved by the Commission and is not for a term exceeding 3 years. [s55(5)]

[21] The parties to the agreement submitted that the increases resulting from the new classification structure in the agreement satisfy the work value criteria of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles.

[22] Principle 9 [Work Value Changes] states:

"9.1 Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification.

These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed in accordance with this principle.

9.2 Where new or changed work justifying a higher rate is performed only from time to time by persons covered by a particular classification or where it is performed only by some of the persons covered by the classification, such new or changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new or changed work is performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.

9.3 The time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is, unless extraordinary circumstances can be demonstrated, the date of operation of the second structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the 30 October 1989 State Wage Case decision, or the date of any increase awarded in accordance with this principle since that date.

9.4 Care should be exercised to ensure that changes which were or should have been taken into account in any previous work value adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise are not included in any work evaluation under this principle.

9.5 Where a significant net alteration to work value has been established in accordance with the principle, an assessment will have to be made as to how that alteration should be measured in money terms. Such assessment should normally be based on the previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work and the nature and extent of the change in work. However the Commission will also take account of the relativities and the integrity of the internal award classification structures and the external classifications to which that structure is related.

9.6 The expression "the conditions under which work is performed" relates to the environment in which the work is done.

9.7 The Commission should guard against contrived classifications and over classification of jobs.

9.8 the conditions under which the work is performed, taken into account in assessing an increase under any other principle, shall not be taken into account in any claim under this principle."

[23] Principle 9 applies to adjustments to award rates and allowances, however the principle provides a valuable reference when considering the public interest requirements of the Act in respect to agreements.

[24] The parties have demonstrated significant changes in the nature of the work for radiation therapists and the conditions under which the work is performed. It was submitted that the workload at both clinics had increased over the last 10 years and, whilst workload and attraction and retention issues are not considerations in assessing work value, as was also noted by the Minister, the witness statements reveal that the increase in workload, plus the shortage of qualified and trained staff, has required to be innovative and creative in the development and implementation of different techniques "to ensure throughput is maximised without compromising patient treatment."5

[25] There was no evidence to suggest any adverse effects on the economic position of the health system or the economy of the State will result from registration of the agreement. In fact it is the hope of the parties that the terms of the new agreement will attract qualified radiation therapists into the public health system.

[26] The rates of pay are those agreed by the parties and have not been determined by the Commission. The Minister submitted that the rates proposed in the agreement represent in part "14 3/4% worth of those increases are in fact the flow on of the recently concluded Public Sector Wages Agreement."6 Accordingly the Commission is satisfied that the proposed classification structure and attendant wage rates can be justified and that the rates reflect a component which compensates for the changes in work value for radiation therapists. The changes in work value relied upon have not been taken into account in any other process of work evaluation.

[27] The agreement is approved operative from the beginning of the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 July, 2004 and shall remain in force until 31 December, 2006.

[28] The file will be referred to the Registrar for registration in accordance with the requirements of Section 56(1) of the Act.

P L Leary
PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr C Willingham, Mr J Milbourne and Ms J Cox for the Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000
Mr T Jacobson and Ms L Cleary for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch
Ms A Bradshaw and Mr R Miller for the Community and Public Sector Union (SPSFT) Inc.

Date and place of hearing:
2004
July 26
Hobart

1 Transcript PN14
2 Transcript PN26
3 Transcript PN94, 95
4 Transcript PN101
5 Transcript PN25
6 Transcript PN162