T9925 - 21 January 2004
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union COMMUNITY SERVICES AWARD
Award variation - application amended - wage rates - work value changes - classifications of Community Services Employee - Level 4 through to and including the classifications of Community Services Employee - Level 7 - review period 1 July 1995 to 1 July 2003 - significant net addition to the work value - parties directed to have discussions on the quantum of increase - adjourned sine die REASONS FOR PRELIMINARY DECISION [1] This amended application was made pursuant to s.23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the applicant) and lodged on 26 November 2001. [2] The applicant claimed there had been significant change in the value of the work being undertaken by employees engaged at the level of the "specialist/professional" and "managerial grades" contained in the Community Services Award. [3] In particular, Mr Paterson for the applicant, sought to conduct a work value case for the classifications of Community Services Employee - Level 4 through to and including the classifications of Community Services Employee - Level 7. [4] He identified the review period for assessing the work value changes as:
[5] It was submitted by the applicant that this period had seen significant increases in the skill, responsibility and the nature of work for employees subject to the application, which amounted to a significant net addition to the work value. [6] In terms of process, the parties requested the Commission, as an initial step, make a finding as to whether or not there exists a significant net addition to the work value of the classifications under review. They also agreed that, if the Commission found in the applicant's favor, the parties should be directed to have further discussions about the quantum of the increase (if any) that should be attributed to classifications under review and at a later time, hear further submissions on that issue. WAGE FIXING PRINCIPLES "When determining this matter, the Commission is required to have regard for the Wage Fixing Principles and in particular Principle 9 - Work Value Changes. That principle 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 overclassification 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." EVIDENCE [7] The Commission took direct witness evidence; evidence in the form of Statutory Declarations, made under the Oaths Act 2001; un-sworn written evidence; and submissions from the parties to the award. [8] Mr David Wynne Owen, Policy Officer for the Tasmanian Council of Social Service, being the peak welfare organisation in Tasmania and part of the Council of Social Service structure and network across Australia, gave evidence, under oath, in respect to work value changes for employees engaged in (1) service delivery; and (2) governance and management positions. [9] A summary of his evidence is as follows: [10] Employees engaged in service delivery are required to exercise higher responsibility for the provision of integrated responses to complex client needs, including:
[11] Higher skills are required in the context of formal relations with other services and organisations in concerning:
[12] New skills are required to participate in the development of the capacity of communities and to work collaboratively with communities of interest in development programmes, strategies, etc. [13] Employees require new skills to participate in the development of partnership arrangements and protocols. [14] Higher level skills are required to implement case management processes in respect of complex and multiple needs. [15] New skills are necessary to negotiate with external service providers, including the private sector, in relation to the delivery and/or purchase of services in a case management context. [16] All employees need to have the skills necessary for the management of relationships with involuntary clients. [17] All employees require skills necessary to participate (at various levels) in the governmental policy development and work collaboratively with government departments and other agencies in the evaluation, development and implementation of models of service delivery, and refocussed funded programmes etc. [18] All employees need to exercise high level communication skills in representing the views, positions and interests of an organisation, an industry sector or network of services, including the communication skills required to report back to relevant constituencies. [19] All employees need to have the skills appropriate for participation in the development and implementation of consultative processes with other organisations in relation to departmental or interagency programmes and protocols. [20] At all levels employees require the skills to participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of continuous improvement and quality assurance systems. [21] In addition to the above, employees engaged in governance and management positions have responsibility for and requisite skills to carry out the following (within the constraints of organisational and position requirements):
[22] High level of knowledge and skills in respect to the development, implementation and evaluation of continuous improvement and quality assurance systems. [23] Managerial employees exercise high level responsibility for management systems, including:
[24] Ms Eleanor Taylor, support worker with Karinya Young Womyn's Refuge Inc. gave evidence in the form of a signed Statutory Declaration, which addressed work value changes in the following areas:
[25] Ms Joanne Campbell, co-ordinator/counselor with Laurel House, being a community organisation providing counselling, support and advocacy to survivors of sexual assault, gave evidence in the form of a signed Statutory Declaration. This addressed work value changes in the following areas:
[26] Ms Emma Bridge, who was employed by the NILS Network of Tasmania Inc. as a coordinator, having previously been employed by the Hobart Women's Health Centre Inc. as health worker and acting coordinator, from 1991 until 2002, gave evidence in the form of a signed Statutory Declaration, which addressed work value changes in the following areas:
[27] Ms Sandra Anne Kent, coordinator, Tenant's Union of Tasmania Inc., gave evidence in the form of a signed Statutory Declaration, which she submitted, was prepared by her in consultation with other managers of Tasmanian Community Legal Centres of which the Tenant's Union is one. She addressed work value changes in the following areas:
[28] Ms Glynis Flower, executive officer, Tasmanian Association of Community Houses Inc. gave evidence in the form of a signed Statutory Declaration, which addressed work value changes in the following areas:
[29] Mr Mark Redmond, Human Resource and Quality Manager, employed by Colony 47, gave evidence in the form of a signed Statutory Declaration. This, he stated, was prepared in consultation with other employees of the organisation. Mr Redmond's extensive evidence addressed the increased skills and responsibilities of managers in Colony 47 along with such issues as:
[30] Ms Wendy Scott, employed by the Family Support Services Association Inc., in un-sworn written evidence, addressed the issues giving rise to increases in the value of the work in the following areas:
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION [31] Mr Paterson, for the applicant, opened his submissions by stating, in part:
[32] Whilst noting the extensive changes in skill related to the application of information and computer technologies, the applicant placed no reliance on it for the purpose of this work value case. [33] It was Mr Paterson's submission that the major areas of change, for convenience, fell under the following headings:
[34] He described in great depth (Exhibit A11) the increased work value indicators for employees classified at Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the award and identified the effect of those changes on each Level. [35] Mr Paterson addressed the areas of change under the generic headings of "service delivery employees" (relevant to Levels 4-7) and "managerial positions" (relevant to Levels 4-7). [36] In relation to service delivery employees, Mr Paterson highlighted what he called "client oriented" changes and "organisational" changes as follows: [37] Client oriented -
[38] Organisational -
[39] In relation to managerial positions, Mr Paterson identified "Levels 4 and 5 Work Value Indicators" and "Levels 6 and 7 Work Value Indicators" as follows: LEVELS 4 AND 5 WORK VALUE INDICATORS -
_ complex reporting requirements; _ the organisation's involvement in multi-agency arrangements, eg consortia; _ potential conflict of interest in relation to statutory requirements; _ potential conflict of interest between client and/or staff and/or committee; _ service/programme performance against service agreement/contract LEVELS 6 AND 7 WORK VALUE INDICATORS - [40] Mr Paterson submitted the work value factors that impact on the skills and responsibility of employees engaged in management and coordination functions apply at all relevant award classification levels, but most significantly at Levels 6 and 7. [41] The differentiation between these levels, he said, tends to relate to the characteristics of the organization; the range of programmes or services provided and the degree of specialization of the services. Positions at these levels include coordinators and managers with responsibility for one or more programme or service; regional services and managers and `directors' with responsibility for whole of organisation. [42] Mr Paterson contended that managers in relatively smaller organisations with a high degree of specialist services might also be at this level. He used as examples - women's legal services; specialist services in health related fields. [43] Mr Paterson said key aspects of work value change relevant to employees engaged as coordinators or managers, centres on the exercise of high level delegated authority within constraints of organisational policy and model of governance as evidenced by:
[44] For evidence relating to managers and coordinators, Mr Paterson relied on the evidence presented by Colony 47 in respect to Programme Managers at Level 6, Executive Officer at Level 7 and the witness evidence of Mr David Owen, particularly in relation to significant change in relation to models of governance with higher degree and extent of delegated managerial authority. [45] Mr Paterson contended that these factors and other changes in the characteristics of the larger multi-services agencies, such as Colony 47, warrant a new classification Level 8. These include high level responsibility and skills in the following areas:
[46] Mr P Aiken for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch, supported the submissions of Mr Paterson. EMPLOYERS SUBMISSION [47] Mr J O'Neill, for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (TCCI), stated that the TCCI had consulted extensively with its members in relation to this claim. [48] He said many member organisations participated in and committed themselves fully to the investigation process and analysis of evidence presented by the unions' party to this matter. He further submitted that the TCCI had also provided them with a full and thorough analysis of the evidence. [49] Mr O'Neill said, that from the evidence provided to the TCCI prior to hearing and upon hearing evidence on 24 October and again on 25 November 2003, there appeared to be a material change in work value since the award was created back in 1995. He said the TCCI did not have any evidence to put to the Commission to refute the claim or challenge the evidence presented. [50] Mr O'Neill did, however, foreshadow that the issues for employers would surface during the second phase of this application should the Commission find there has been a change in work value. [51] He identified the issues as: implementation and public interest considerations; the impact of work value changes and its applicability to all employees in the sector; the quantum of any wage increases resulting from a positive finding; problems associated with funding any increase in wage rates. FINDING [52] The applicant in this matter set out to establish that changes had taken place which had increased the value of the work being undertaken by employees occupying the classifications of Community Services Employee - Level 4 through to and including the classifications of Community Services Employee - Level 7. [53] After considering the extensive evidence and submissions as summarised above, I would have to conclude the applicant has satisfied the onus required under the Wage Fixing Principles and in particular Principle 9 - Work Value Changes. [54] For the classifications subject to this application I determine that, over the review period, changes have taken place in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility of employees so as to constitute a significant net addition to the work requirements. [55] I am also satisfied that the changes have not been taken into account in any previous work value adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise conducted in accordance with the Wage Fixing Principles. [56] In keeping with the agreed process and having made the above finding, I now direct the parties to have further discussions regarding the quantum of the increase (if any) that should be attributed to classifications under review. This process may also lead to a review of the current classification structure contained in the award. [57] In doing so, I remind the parties of Principle 9.5 which stated:
[58] This application will be adjourned sine die and will be reconvened at the request of any of the parties.
R J Watling Appearances: Date and place of hearing: |