TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Cheryl Adele Snowball
(T12814 of 2006)

and

Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000
(Department of Premier and Cabinet,

Telecommunications Management Division)

Industrial dispute - alleged breach of award or registered agreement - application dismissed

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On 1 October 2006, Cheryl Adele Snowball (the applicant) applied to the President, pursuant to Section 29(1A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with the Minister administering the State Service Act 2000, (Department of Premier and Cabinet, Telecommunications Management Division) (the Minister) arising out of an alleged breach of award or registered agreement.

[2] The matter was listed for hearing on 24 October 2006 (Conciliation Conference) and 19 December 2006 at the Commonwealth Law Courts, 39-41 Davey Street, Hobart, Tasmania.

[3] Prior to February 2005 the applicant was employed as Manager Business Support Services, a Level 7 role, providing office support for the Business Improvement Manager (Manager Business Operations) and others.

[4] In February 2005 the applicant assumed the responsibilities of the Quality Manager role as well as continuing to look after records management and the TMD intranet; she relinquished the remainder of her previous role at that time. To resolve an initial grievance regarding her new duties her classification was increased to Level 8, backdated to her commencement date of February 2005.

[5] At some point in time between February and July 2005, the title of her role became that of Acting Manager, Quality and Management Systems. A duty statement was submitted for this specific role in July for formal evaluation. At that juncture the applicant reported to Mr Sean Green, Manager, Business Planning and Finance who, it appears concurred with the content of the duty statement.

[6] The evaluation was not forthcoming and, in November 2005, the applicant was asked to complete a detailed job analysis document, which was subsequently submitted to the Human Resources, Department of Premier and Cabinet (HR) for classification in February 2006.

[7] A new statement of duties was prepared for the role by the Director, Mr Keith Chapman, and classified at Level 8. The new statement of duties was presented to the applicant in April 2006. The applicant immediately objected to the scope of the role as not accurately reflecting the work she did.

[8] The statement of duties was further evaluated by three other agencies. All three concurred with the original classification. The applicant objected to the entire statement of duties redevelopment and evaluation processes and sought relief from the Office of the State Service Commissioner, who directed the matter to this Commission for arbitration.

[9] The applicant alleged the Minister breached the State Service Act 2000 and the State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001.

[10] The applicant sought to have her role, now designated as Manager Quality Systems, classified as Level 10; she claimed in line with previous assessments and in line with market place assessments of similar roles.

BACKGROUND

[11] It is not disputed that in February 2005 the applicant was appointed to the role of Quality Manager. Exhibit A9 (#24) confirmed the applicant was given the responsibility to manage the quality system for the agency. She took over these duties from the Business Improvement Manager, Mr Cubbins, also referred to as Manager Business Operations. He was responsible for managing the quality management system, among other things. His position had been assessed as Level 10.

[12] The applicant stated that the position of Quality Manager was created in February 2002 as a full time role reporting to the Director and had been classified at Level 10 on at least four occasions. Exhibit A8 (#s8, 9, 25, 20, 21 and 28) was adduced to support her views. The exhibits give examples of the various roles Mr Cubbins carried out over a period of time.

[13] Mr Mulcahy, for the Minister, said the applicant's view, that the position of Quality Manager had been classified at Level 10 on a number of occasions, was misleading. He asserted the Business Improvement Manager, who previously held responsibility for managing quality, did so as a minor segment of his overall duties. The Business Improvement Manager was said to have spent about 25% of his time on the quality management role and 75% on other activities, including project management. He added that it was the Business Improvement Manager's total role, which was classified as Level 10.

[14] The applicant claimed the Business Improvement Manager received a "more responsible duties allowance" for his project work over and above remuneration at Level 10 in July 2005. This was not contested.

[15] A new statement of duties was developed in July 2005 titled, Manager, Quality and Management Systems.

[16] The applicant alleged the content of the statement of duties had been agreed to by her Manager, the Director and herself. Exhibit A13 (#34) shows e-mails, dated May and July 2005, between the applicant and Mr Green confirming the agreed content of a duty statement. Although the details in the e-mails were not specific to the duty statement in question, they went unchallenged by Mr Mulcahy.

[17] The July 2005 duty statement was never formally approved.

[18] The applicant stated that the revised statement of duties developed in April of 2006 did not accurately represent the true scope of duties required of her and, in her view, did not take into consideration the content of the job analysis. She also asserted she was not consulted with regard to the scope of the revised duty statement.

[19] Mr Mulcahy informed the Commission, and the applicant agreed, he had spent about an hour with her discussing the proposed duty statement once it had been formulated. He also asserted the Director had set down the parameters of the role as he wished it to be performed and that the applicant's then Manager was involved in its development. He said the final duty statement evolved over a number of iterations incorporating the Manager's input, the requirements of the Director and the content of the detailed job analysis provided by the applicant.

[20] The applicant insisted that neither, HR or the TMD Management, in general, understood the requirements of ISO accreditation or the importance of her role in it. At paragraph 52 of transcript she stated:

"... - the standard changed in 2000 from a compliance aspect to comply with procedures to a process approach aspect for continual improvement. That is the reason that there is a misunderstanding within HR and management of the actual role, and its high level duties."

[21] The applicant cited the fact that current top management, as defined in ISO 9001:2000, had not been retrained in the new philosophy as further evidence they did not understand her role.

[22] When asked by the Commission, at paragraph 67 of transcript, if her view of what was expected of the role was consistent with that of TMD Management, the applicant responded:

"Yes. Well, it is the role that not only the managers want me to perform, but it is defined by the ISO standard...."

[23] And further, at paragraph 69:

"Yes. It is the - defined and it is written in my statement of duties"

[24] However, further pursuing this theme, she qualified her answer at paragraph 71 as follows:

"It was the statement of duties that was agreed with my previous manager ..."

[25] The April 2006 duty statement, as a principal objective, required the incumbent to ensure ongoing ISO certification. The document does not specifically nominate the incumbent as the ISO Management representative.

[26] Mr Mulcahy acknowledged the applicant was indeed the nominated ISO Management representative and the omission from the document was of no significance.

[27] The applicant also cited an example of, in her view, a similar position at TAFE Tasmania classified at Level 10 as well as other quality management roles offering executive level salary packages, Exhibit A18 (#47).

[28] The applicant claimed that her position as the ISO Management representative, as defined by ISO 9001:2000, equated to a Level 10 role.

[29] The applicant also stated that the agency viewed the role as ensuring `compliance' to the ISO Standard, while the requirements of the role defined by the ISO was to ensure the process of continuous improvement within the department was implemented and maintained.

[30] At paragraph 52 of transcript, she stated:

"The high level quality management duties are defined by the ISO (sic)2001/2000 standard, and as such I have a role within that ..."

[31] Mr Geoffrey Allan King, witness for the applicant, gave evidence in support of her position. He quoted liberally from the ISO 9001:2000 standards. Specifically, he emphasized the importance of demonstrable top management commitment to the process approach of continuous improvement. He also gave his opinion with respect to the activities of the ISO Management representative in relation to the award classifications. At paragraphs 275 to 280 of transcript:

"Ms Snowball: Could you please relate the duties of the quality manager role in relation to that standard and what the requirement would be of a quality manager? - Yes. If we refer to the management representative - are you happy with that?

Yes? - Level 10 of the A and C award, it says:

A specialist, consultative, advisory level reporting to senior management under broad direction to achieve outcomes.

When you look at that management representative role which, Cheryl, I believe you have been appointed to, it is almost the same words, certainly the same intent:

Ensuring that the processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained.

Reporting to top management on the implementation, on the effectiveness of the management system, all those things I think the words - they could easily have got those words from the standard because it is exactly the same kind of level I believe anyway."

[32] Mr King said, in his opinion the applicant's position warranted a Level 10 classification.

[33] In Mr Mulcahy's cross-examination, Mr King agreed that the classification of the ISO Management representative is a matter for the host organization. At paragraphs 290 and 291 of transcript he responded:

"Mr Mulcahy: ... does the standard actually say anything about the classification for a person who is conducting the management of the ISO or about the level of remuneration that it should be paid at? - No.

It doesn't? - No, the standard simply tells what should be in any organisation that hopes to be compliant to it. It doesn't say how that should be worked out."

[34] The applicant then gave the Commission details of the role she believed she was required to perform in terms of the Administrative and Clerical Employees Award (the award) definition of the Level 10 responsibilities. Which reads:

"Level 10 classification standard:

A specialist consultative advisory level reporting to senior management under broad direction to achieve outcomes. The position would play a key role in planning, developing and implementing programs. The position would have a significant effect on the operation of the Agency and requires specialist administrative research or analytical skills. Highly developed marketing, conceptual and strategic skills are required for positions at this level."

[35] To fulfil the role of Quality Manager, the applicant asserted at paragraph 382 of transcript, that she must:

" ... carry out the duties as required and documented by the ISO 9001/2000 standard ... There is a requirement for the high level duties of a level 10 under the Administrative and Clerical Award (sic)."

[36] And further at paragraph 388:

" ... under ISO requirements the ISO 9001/2000 management representative must report to top management. The quality manager at TMD reports to the general manager TMD directly..."

[37] The applicant cited Clause 5.2 of the Standard. She also adduced Exhibit A27 (#66), a sample organization chart as evidence of this requirement. The exhibit is a simplistic positional arrangement, which has no correlation with the agency's management structure.

[38] It was not disputed that the applicant was required to report to the General Manager (Dirctor) on the health and progress of the quality management system, although the Manager, Business Management and Support was her immediate supervisor.

[39] At paragraph 398 of transcript:

" ... provides consultative specialist advice in regard to the understanding of and the application of the ISO 9001/2000 standard ... provides advice in regard to best practice ISO 9001/2000 management of TMD critical services including the development of all TMD processes, including service level agreements, contracts and their review to ensure awareness of customer service requirements, and TMD services to customers are adequately resourced."

[40] Further, at paragraphs 399 and 400 of transcript, the applicant continued:

" ... provides advice in regard to TMD supplier management ... reports to the general manager on the overall effectiveness of the adoption of the best practice ISO 9001/2000 management of all TMD operations and supporting processes and makes recommendations for improvement.

This includes service delivery processes, human resources, infrastructure management, training and development and performance reviews for all TMD staff, customer feedback including complaints. And these recommendations are inputs into the business planning processes of TMD ... "

[41] It was not disputed the applicant approved changes to procedures in line with ISO requirements, in conjunction with the various mangers. However, at paragraph 393 of transcript, she claimed her role had a much wider responsibility:

" ... reviews and authorises all TMD procedures to ensure that best practice controls are in the processes to achieve quality outcome ... These requirements affect the management of TMD processes ... "

[42] The applicant stated, at paragraph 402 of transcript, that she was responsible for program development and implementation:

"Key role in planning, developing and implementing programs; the quality manager, together with the responsible manager, has equal sign-off on the development of all new and changes to TMD processes ... the planning, to establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with customer requirements and the organisation's policies. And then there is the doing; we implement the processes."

[43] Further, at paragraphs 403 and 436, the applicant asserted she was responsible for measuring the effectiveness of processes:

" ... monitor and measure processes ... and report the results to management. And then the action, we take action to continually improve process performance on the results of those reviews."

"Currently, the quality manager is charged with measuring the effectiveness of all TMD business processes ... "

[44] The applicant stated, at paragraphs 407 and 483, that she had a key role in business planning:

"The quality management system managed by the quality manager plays a key role in the business planning of TMD. ISO 9001/2000 ... "

" ... must ensure that business planning at TMD is fully integrated with quality management process objectives .... section 5.4 of ISO standard ... Specifically, the quality manager is involved in TMD business planning; provides strategic advice to the general manager on quality aspects of the TMD business planning and ensures quality objectives are established and reviewed when planning of all TMD processes ... required of the standard, 5.5.2, ... "

[45] It was not disputed the applicant had developed the program and managed the conduct of internal audits.

[46] At paragraph 417 of transcript, the applicant stated that she had major responsibilities for ensuring all new processes are implemented effectively:

" ... has major responsibilities in ensuring that new TMD processes are implemented effectively. And that is in section 8.5 of the standard."

[47] At paragraph 421 of transcript, the applicant stated she had a major role to play in meeting customer needs:

"Having a significant effect on the operation of the agency ... which ensures quality policy, objectives and key performance indicators ... are focussed on meeting customer requirements and expectations; ensures business processes are effectively controlled through process measures, ..."

[48] And further, at paragraphs 422 and 457 of transcript, the applicant stated she was charged with driving change:

"It drives and fosters changes through system improvement requests for all TMD processes and systems to meet the customer requirements. It promotes, through awareness sessions, audits meetings, planning sessions, the understanding of customer requirements and expectations and the need for best practice controls, responsibilities and records. And that is clause 8.5 in the standard ..."

"And also that I have been directed to propel the changes ..."

[49] Exhibit A36 (#42) was provided as proof the applicant was required to "propel" change. The document is a set of minutes regarding the change to Service Delivery commonality. There was no direction specifically given to the applicant to propel change in general in the Agency.

[50] However, it was acknowledged in her assessment of November 2006, Exhibit A41 (#63), that the applicant had "provided leadership to the change process arising from the audits."

[51] At paragraph 462 of transcript, the applicant stated her role required high level research and analytical skills:

"Required specialist research and analytical skills; the quality manager must ensure that TMD customer satisfaction and expectations are measured and effectively analysed. The quality manager must ensure that TMD processes are monitored and measured and these duties require research and understanding of suitable measurement and analytical methods including statistical quality management techniques where applicable."

[52] The applicant cited Section 8 of the Standard as evidence of the need for her to have specialist research and analytical skills.

[53] At paragraph 468 of transcript, the applicant stated her role required high level marketing skills:

"Understanding customer expectation is central to the marketing of TMD services as are the design of new services, developing and delivery existing services. Product, or service design, delivery, pricing, promotion, information systems and product or service quality are important aspects of marketing and are in the scope of the ISO 9001/2000 system."

[54] At paragraph 469, the applicant stated she was required to monitor customer requirements:

"The quality manager role is responsible for ensuring customer requirements and expectations are monitored and all TMD business processes are effective in meeting their objectives .... And this requires a highly developed understanding of complex customer supply relationships ... "

[55] At paragraph 470, the applicant stated that her role must ensure effective communications with customers:

"And that is page 11 and 7 of the standard, clauses 8.2.1 and clause 7.2. The quality manager must ensure that there is effective communication with the customer in the marketing and promotion of our services ..."

[56] At paragraph 473, the applicant stated she was responsible for the control of TMD processes:

"The quality manager must ensure adequate controls in TMD processes, resources are trained and effective measures are taken of TMD processes and products and services to ensure quality of TMD customer services. ... section 7.5, product and service provision ... section 8.2.3 ... section 8.2.4 ... "

[57] At paragraph 474, the applicant stated she was responsible for process development:

"The quality manager is involved in developing processes for customer proposals, that is in quotes, and contracts to ensure TMD is reviewing and understanding customer requirements before TMD services are implemented."

[58] At paragraph 478, the applicant stated she required conceptual skills in her role:

"The quality manager must ensure, and is involved in the analysis of customer feedback. That is required by section 7.2.3 ... of the standard ... Conceptual skills; ISO 9001/2000 is based on the concept of defining TMD activities that use resources to transform inputs into our outputs, and the application of a system of processes within TMD together with the identification and interaction of these processes and their management is defined by the ISO standard as the process approach."

[59] At paragraph 484, the applicant stated she was required to have a strategic input into the agency:

"... must develop strategies and methods to successfully ensure effective operation and improvement of the quality management system ... including considerable emphasis on communication, training and staff development."

[60] At paragraph 486, the applicant stated that she required high level change management ability:

"The position of quality manager requires a high level of knowledge in changed management and quality processes. Also requires high level interpersonal fields."

[61] The applicant adduced a report on her performance from November 2006, Exhibit A41(#63), to support much of what she has claimed she was required to do.

[62] Mr Mulcahy stated that the applicant does not play a key role in planning, development or implementing programs within the department. He acknowledged that ISO accreditation was an aspect of the department's business plan, however, he stated that it did not have a significant impact on the organization. At paragraph 94 of transcript:

" ... we see it much more as a procedural role, and that the business rules and the business documentation is then done by the managers to resolve any issues that are identified not complying with ISO. So we see that as being quite separate."

[63] The applicant rejected these views.

[64] In Mr Mulcahy's view the position could be adequately performed by a person functioning at Level 8. His position was that the key elements of a person functioning at Level 10 were not required of the job, such as specialist administration, research or analytical skills. It did not require highly developed marketing, conceptual or strategic skills. He also stated that the role was not required, nor expected to be, supervisory in nature.

[65] The applicant rejected these views. She stated she had a clerical assistant report to her and hence was expected to supervise.

[66] The applicant claimed the process applied to evaluating the April 2006 statement of duties was flawed.

[67] Mr Mulcahy put the argument, that the position had been fairly and properly assessed in accordance with the recognized process of developing a draft statement of duties. He asserted the applicant and her manager had been consulted in the development of the duty statement. The draft had also been assessed by three other agencies; they had also classified the statement of duties as Level 8.

[68] The applicant rejected their input as not being independent, she cited Exhibit A17 (#s45 and 46) as evidence of this.

[69] Mr Mulcahy stated that a number of approaches had been tried to resolve the issue. The April 2006 duty statement was circulated to various other independent agencies for evaluation. Their collective view was that the duty statement reviewed was adjudged to be at Level 8.

[70] It was put to the Commission by Mr Mulcahy, that an offer was made to the applicant to have the matter of classification evaluated by a person knowledgeable in ISO 9001, from another department; the applicant had declined the offer.

[71] The applicant maintained she did not trust the proposed process, nor did she agree with the Minister's choice of independent assessor, hence she chose to apply to this Commission for relief.

FINDINGS

[72] The applicant addressed her grievances utilising several different approaches. They are as follows:

· the statement of duties depicting the applicant's role had been agreed to in 2005 by her then Manger and acknowledged as Level 10;

· the statement of duties of April 2006 did not adequately depict the role she performed;

· her position of ISO Management representative as defined by ISO 9001:2000 equated to a Level 10 role; and

· the process applied to evaluating the April 2006 statement of duties was flawed.

[73] I will address each in turn.

[74] The applicant continually referred to the position in which she has been acting, and those positions from which she alleged her role was derived, as that of Quality Manager. This nomenclature is an over simplification and detracts from the full scope of each of the roles and from the differences, some of which are significant, between the various roles.

[75] Consistently throughout this matter the applicant supported her assertions by claiming the duties she was expected to perform were required of her by the ISO 9001:2000 Standard.

[76] I find no reference in the ISO 9001:2000 Standard to the role or duties of a "Quality Manager". At 5.5.2 of the Standard the duties of the "Management representative" are defined. The only requirement prescribed of the "Management representative", with respect to position, is simply to be "a member of management". Now the applicant is indeed the "Management representative" and happens to be the Quality Manager. I find that the extent of her responsibilities with respect to managing the quality system of TMD, as required by the agency's participation in the ISO system, goes no further than those defined in section 5.5.2 of the Standard.

The statement of duties depicting the applicant's role had been agreed to in 2005 by her then Manger and acknowledged as Level 10.

[77] The applicant asserted, a statement of duties for the position of Manager, Quality & Business Management Systems was developed and finally agreed to by her Manager, the Director and herself in July 2005.

[78] Mr Mulcahy did not challenge the documentary evidence adduced, I therefore accept the applicant's assertion to be the case.

[79] There does not appear to have been a challenge to the evolution of the July 2005 duty statement as it applied to the applicant.

[80] There was evidence educed which confirmed HR was aware of the applicant's endeavours with regards to the classification of her assumed role. No evidence was forthcoming that might suggest the applicant was counselled against pursuing the form of the July 2005 duty statement.

[81] On the evidence, I accept the applicant had an expectation that her substantive role would have been that as depicted in the duty statement of July 2005. Regardless, the duty statement for the position of Manager Quality & Business Management Systems was never formally assessed or approved nor was the applicant ever appointed to it.

[82] The applicant stated that the position of Quality Manager was created in February 2002 as a full-time, Level 10 role and translated over time into that depicted in the July 2005 duty statement.

[83] From the documentation provided it is clear Mr Cubbins as the Business Improvement Manager, functioned at or above Level 10 throughout the period in question. However, the evidence adduced does not offer any concrete correlation between Mr Cubbins' high-level accountabilities and those depicted in the July 2005 duty statement for the applicant, nor those required of the applicant by the agency.

[84] I do not accept the July 2005 role can be taken as a continuation of Mr Cubbins' various roles. It cannot be assumed the responsibilities of the roles held by Mr Cubbins over a number of years would fall on the applicant, without formal sanction of the agency by way of an approved duty statement reflecting such responsibilities.

[85] Perusal of the duty statements for Business Improvement Manager (July 2002), Business Improvement Manager (August 2002) and Business Improvement Manager (Manager Business Operations)(May 2003) shows that these three positions are senior management positions with significant and wide-ranging strategic accountabilities, well beyond managing the quality system. Neither the role of Manager, Quality & Business Management Systems (July 2005), or that of Business Management & Support (April 2006), had the scope or the critical accountabilities of the other three roles.

[86] In considering the comparison of the various duty statements provided, I accept Mr Mulcahy's assertion that Mr Cubbins had allocated only a portion of his time to managing the quality system. The figure proffered was 25%, however, there was no evidence to substantiate any finite proportion.

The statement of duties of April 2006 did not adequately depict the role she performed.

[87] The applicant asserted the April 2006 duty statement development was based on a flawed premise of her role assuring compliance to ISO 9001 rather than continuous improvement. She said both the April 2006 duty statement and Mr Mulcahy's own words in the initial conference confirm her assertion.

[88] A simple reading of the duty statement shows that the incumbent was expected to ensure that the process approach to ISO 9001:2000 was complied with. In my view, this confirms management's desire to maintain the process of continuous improvement.

[89] The comment Mr Mulcahy made, which was criticised by the applicant, referred to the position as being a "procedural role" of monitoring, implementation and reporting. Meanwhile, the more senior managers were expected to act on recommendations from the applicant and resolve issues where the ISO requirements were not complied with. This fits comfortably with the ISO requirement of top management commitment and involvement.

[90] However, still on this theme, to illustrate that the April 2006 duty statement did not truly reflect the role she was expected to perform, the applicant accused the top management and HR of failing to grasp the change in emphasis of the ISO process since 2000; and, failing to understand the requirements of ISO 9001:2000. She cited the fact that top management had not yet been trained in the updated philosophy as confirmation of their lack of understanding.

[91] On the other hand, the applicant stressed that the Agency had been ISO re-certified in September 2006 through her endeavours.

[92] It is evident from Exhibit A2, the ISO 9001:2000 requirements, supplied by the applicant, that top management commitment and support is essential for an entity to attain certification. Indeed, that the Agency achieved re-certification would strongly suggest top management had an adequate understanding of the ISO principles and philosophy, and therefore of her role in it, regardless of whether they had been formally trained or not.

[93] The applicant, when challenged, confirmed that the role she saw herself performing was consistent with management's requirements of the role. This is simply not the case. The fact that this matter is before this Commission surely indicates to the applicant that, indeed, her view of the role and that of her management differ considerably.

[94] The applicant further qualified her position by adding that the ISO Standard defined the role as she saw it. As noted earlier, the ISO Standard does not define the Quality Manager's role, in any way. The applicant has drawn a parallel that does not currently exist between her role and the overall demands of the ISO Standard and would only be valid if specified by the General Manager (Director) as a requirement.

[95] The applicant tendered a Statement of Duties for an Enterprise Quality Leader for TAFE classified at Level 10. She cited this as proof her role should be at Level 10. It is unwise to assume the requirements of TAFE are the same as those of TMD with regards to the management of quality without knowing fully the basis upon which both positions had been developed. I do no accept the TAFE statement of duties contributes to the matter at hand.

[96] I find there is nothing defined in the ISO Standard 5.5.2 "Management representative" which could not be embraced by the April 2006 duty statement, either specifically or implied.

The position of ISO management representative as defined by ISO 9001:2000 equate to a Level 10 role;

[97] Mr King, witness for the applicant, gave his opinion of where the "Management representative" was positioned with respect to the award. He stressed the importance of top management commitment and the reporting relationship of the applicant's role to top management. I accept the applicant reports to top management specifically on the health and progress of the quality management system. However, her direct Manager whether applying the July 2005 or the April 2006 criteria was to be the Manager, Business Management and Support.

[98] Mr King equated the words of the award's Level 10 role and the requirements of the Management representative as being "almost the same words, certainly the same intent". The examples he cited were as follows:

· From the Award - "A specialist consultative advisory level reporting to senior management under broad direction to achieve outcomes."

· From the ISO Standard - "Ensuring that the processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained."

[99] A correlation between the two statements could be construed given enough imagination. A plain English interpretation is more likely to be that the award is defining a senior position with considerable freedom to act within an overall direction. The ISO Standard, on the other hand, is directing a defined set of activities to be accomplished within the very precise framework of the ISO Standard. In my view, the two roles require very different suites of skills and expertise.

[100] Throughout this dispute the applicant insisted that the activities she was required to perform and the level at which they were to be performed were defined in the ISO 9001:2000 Standard. This is simply not the case. While defending a position for the seniority of the role across the various requirements of a Level 10 she cited elements of the ISO Standard as supporting her position. Other than section 5.2.2 "Management representative" every other section she cited has the introduction "Top management shall ensure ..." or "The organization shall ...".

[101] It is my view the applicant has transposed those responsibilities generally ascribed to top management or to the overall organization into the requirements of her own role. There is no evidence the applicant "had a key role in business planning" or " a key role in meeting customer needs" or that she "required high level marketing skills" or that she required "conceptual skills" or that she had "strategic input into the agency" or that she provides "specialist consultative advice" or that she was required to demonstrate " specialist research and analytical skills", as prescribed for Level 10 by the award.

[102] Although the applicant does have a clerical assistant reporting to her, the arrangement cannot be seen in the context of Level 10 supervisory requirements.

[103] A more realistic view of the applicant's function can be seen in Exhibit A41 (#63), Job Performance Report dated November 2006. This is a document accepted by the applicant as accurately reflecting her work to date in the role of Acting Manager, Quality & Business Management Systems, the July 2005 role. The level of accountability is made quite clear:

[104] The language in the document is not ambiguous, "prepare", "facilitate", "implement", "promote", "focus and commitment" all are initiated by specific directions given from a more senior person.

[105] I accept Mr Mulcahy's rebuttal of the applicants somewhat exaggerated view of the responsibilities she claims are required of her role.

The process applied to evaluating the April 2006 statement of duties was flawed.

[106] Mr Mulcahy demonstrated that the position, as depicted in the April 2006 duty statement, had been assessed in accordance with the recognized process of developing a draft statement of duties. There is no evidence to support the applicant's assertion that the job analysis she supplied was not considered.

[107] The applicant claimed bias and discrimination in the communications between HR and the three other agencies asked to review the duty statement. The documentation cited by the applicant as proof of bias, Exhibit A17, does not substantiate her claim. The documentation illustrates the agency went to considerable lengths to ensure even handedness in assessing the duty statement of April 2006.

[108] Although I accept the applicant may not have been consulted with respect to the scope of the duty statement, the position was discussed with her prior to final evaluation. Also, it was not challenged that her current Manager was party to the development of the role. However, I also accept that the dynamics of a business or agency would necessitate the development of any position to be an iteration until a final duty statement evolves to suit the operational needs of the particular entity.

[109] The applicant had the opportunity to have further input through expert involvement. She nominated Mr King, a recognized authority as her expert, but objected to the Agency's choice of Ms White and withdrew from the process. I consider the applicant's rejection of the Agency's choice of expert to be unreasonable in the circumstance.

[110] I find the process applied by the Agency to classify the duty statement of the Manager, Quality Systems dated April 2006 was appropriate, transparent and even handed. It follows that I have no reason to challenge the recommendation from the various parties who classified the role at Level 8.

[111] The applicant alleged the Head of Agency, Department of Premier and Cabinet breached the State Service Act 2000 by not having the role she was assigned to classified properly. The State Service Act 2000 at section 34(1) states in part:

[112] It is evident from Mr Mulcahy's testimony that HR and others were in the process of assigning a classification to the applicant's role according to the criteria in the award. The fact that she did not agree with the process does not detract from the fact that is was happening.

[113] No clause appears under "Functions and powers of the Heads of Agencies" which directs a Head of Agency to have a ready made duty statement and classification available on demand.

[114] I find the Head of Agency, Department of Premier and Cabinet did not breached section 34(1)(d)(i) of the State Service Act 2000.

[115] The applicant further alleged the Head of Agency, Department of Premier and Cabinet breached section 8(c) of the State Service Act 2000 (Exhibit A1 (#53)).

"A Head of Agency must uphold, promote and comply with the State Service Principles."

[116] And in particular, the State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001, states:

"The State Service establishes workplace practices that encourages communication, consultation, cooperation and input from employees on matters that affect their work and workplace.

Heads of Agencies must put in place measures in the Agency directed at insuring that:

...

(c) managers are committed to effective workplace relations practices that include consultation with staff; ..."

[117] The applicant's whole case has been supported by documentation she adduced, which clearly shows considerable and consistent communications between the Agency, HR and herself. Despite the fact that the applicant rejects the process undertaken to classify the April 2006 duty statement, she was consulted as well as having her very detailed job evaluation considered.

[118] I find the Head of Agency, Department of Premier and Cabinet did not breached section 8 of the State Service Act 2000 and, in particular, the State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001.

[119] The applicant further alleged the Head of Agency, Department of Premier and Cabinet breached section 11(b) of the State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001.

[120] The State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001, at section 11, states:

The State Service promotes equity in employment.

...

(b) employment practices and position requirements are regularly reviewed to eliminate any direct or indirect discrimination; ..."

[121] It was made clear by Mr Mulcahy that the April 2006 duty statement evolved over time to suit the needs of the Agency as the General Manager (Director) required. The Agency was following precisely the intent of section 11 of the State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001. In my view the applicant failed to establish any evidence of breach.

[122] I find the Head of Agency, Department of Premier and Cabinet did not breached the State Service Act 2000, or any part of the State Service Commissioner's Direction No. 2 of 2001.

[123] The application is dismissed, and I so order.

James P McAlpine
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mrs CA Snowball with Mr PF Snowball for Mrs CA Snowball
Mr C Mulcahy with Mr R Gunn for the Minister administering the State Service Act 2000, (Department of Premier and Cabinet, Telecommunications Management Division)

Date and Place of Hearing:
2006
October 24
December 19
Hobart