T2399 T2467 T2469 T2470 T2471 T2472 T2473 T2474 T2475 T2476 T2477 T2478 T2479 T2480 T3200 T2508 T2511 T2586 T2605 T2504 T2506 T2516 T3119 T2594 - 29 November 1991
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.2467 of 1990) (T.2469 of 1990) (T.2470 of 1990) (T.2471 of 1990) (T.2472 of 1990) (T.2473 of 1990) (T.2474 of 1990) (T.2475 of 1990) (T.2476 of 1990) (T.2477 of 1990) (T.2478 of 1990) (T.2479 of 1990) (T.2480 of 1990) (T.3200 of 1991) Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association Ambulance Employees' Association of Tasmania Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Association of Professional Engineers and Scientists, Australia (T.2506 of 1990) Police Association of Tasmania Tasmanian Prison Officers Association United Firefighters' Union of Tasmania
Structural Efficiency Adjustment - State Wage Case (October 1989) - Public Sector Awards FURTHER INTERIM DECISION Since our last decision in these matters on 1 July 1991, the issues raised therein have been comprehensively canvassed and addressed by the parties. This has involved extensive submissions and arguments during which the unions and the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act (the Minister) have outlined their respective positions on proposals designed to accommodate new classification structures in four new occupational streams, viz. Operational, Clerical, Professional and Technical. The other streams are being, or are to be, dealt with in a different manner. For example, the teaching service stream is being considered by a different Full Bench and the four awards which make up the Emergency and Custodial Services Stream, viz. the Ambulance Service Award, the Fire Brigades Award, the Police Award and the Prison Officers Award, will be referred individually to the Commission members dealing with those award areas. In respect of these latter awards we would expect that on the completion of the arguable special case deliberations the parties will enter into serious negotiations for the purpose of developing a common emergency and custodial stream. We now address matters relating to the creation of the four occupational streams. Mr Vines, appearing for the Tasmanian Public Service Association and as spokesperson for the Combined Public Sector Unions subgroup formed by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council (TTLC), in supporting the creation of the four streams submitted that the aim of establishing the streams was to ensure that employees who do like work at like level are classified in a like manner. He further stated:
It was claimed that broader streams would provide for a much broader range of work and would lead to a "fairly significant reduction in artificial demarcations between occupational groups". Broadbanding of classifications would address and overcome such problems as -
Mr. Vines asserted that benefits to flow from restructuring included the following -
There was no opposition to the concept of the creation of four new occupational streams. There were, however, differences as to the number of levels in some streams, some differences as to classification standards, and as to whether we should determine rates of pay for the streams. As to the latter point, the TTLC was in no doubt that we should determine rates of pay, but the representatives of the Minister expressed the view that any increase in rates of pay would be contrary to the wage fixing principles and unsubstantiated in terms of work value. We reject the Minister's submission on this point because any broadbanding and structural efficiency exercise, which by its very nature contemplates a change to existing structures, should take into account the value of the work required to be performed as identified by the new classification structure. In that regard the Wage Fixing Principles provide for changes in work patterns, conditions of employment, employee flexibility, and the removal of demarcations to be recognised in an appropriate salaries and classification structure. In addition, the Commission has determined in other structural efficiency exercises involving a reorganisation of work and classification structures, including broadbanding of classifications, increases in excess of 6% without resort to the special case provisions. We are mindful of the cost of a restructuring of this magnitude, but we have no doubt that to continue with the existing awards will, in the long term, prove counter -productive to the employer and to the community generally. We now determine that there shall be four model awards to cover the operational, clerical, professional and technical streams. These model awards shall have application across the State public sector in the award areas subject to these proceedings. They will be known as -
The classification standards, definitions and levels of pay determined in respect of these new awards are set out in the attached appendices in the form of model awards. The model awards will provide the parties with the essential framework to enable the appropriate classification and translation of existing positions and employees. In the meantime the Commission will continue to hear submissions in relation to those conditions of service matters which remain for the parties to develop standardised conditions in the public sector. In addition, we will also hear matters dealing with the agency -specific agendas which have been deferred since the August 1990 decision. SPECIAL CASES AND WORK VALUE The Bench was informed of the concern of the Minister that in those matters where arguable special cases have been found this may provide employee organisations with the opportunity to seek further increases during the translation process. We reiterate therefore that special case claims in the four streams under consideration are subsumed by this decision and the only criterion for the classification of employees will be the classification standards we have determined. With regard to future work value cases and the benchmarks from which work value changes may be assessed, we make the following comments:
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL STREAM As with most public sector awards, this area has been in need of revision for some time. The existing Clerical Employees Award has 21 classes of administrative and clerical officers and 10 classes of clerical assistants encompassing 83 salary points, and the Keyboard Employees and Office Assistants Award with its 8 classes and 24 salary points have long outlived their usefulness. These awards have been an unnecessary barrier to career opportunities, particularly in respect of women, and an impediment to the efficient organisation of tasks at the workplace for some time. The parties were in basic agreement as to the need to restructure this area, the major point of contention being the number of levels necessary. Accordingly we adopt the submissions of the parties that there should be a single new award covering these areas of work and we accept the classification structure and standards proposed by the Minister which establish a twelve -level scale ranging from trainee at Level 1 to senior specialist, advisory and policy employees at Level 12. A model award is attached to this decision as Appendix 1. OPERATIONAL STREAM We are satisfied that the structure and standards put forward by the Minister are appropriate for implementation as a general code for this area. We are mindful of the concerns expressed by the unions involved that their specific awards should not be abolished. However the need to properly review the wages structure and conditions of employment in this particular area is long overdue. The Cartland Report1 in September 1981 clearly identified these problems as being in need of attention and advocated the progressive development of a co -ordinated and interrelated code to encompass all government employees. The development of such a code in our opinion would be impeded if we adopted the unions' proposal that industry substreams should be retained for the various union groupings. In our interim decision of 1 July 1991, to assist in assessing rates of pay for each classification level within the occupational streams, we asked the parties to address us on:
We now intend to address those issues in this segment dealing with the operational stream. In respect to (a), a number of unions supported the view that the tradesperson's rate should be used as a `benchmark' for evaluating all work carried out in the four streams, but this was not the position of all unions nor of the representative of the Minister. Given the submissions presented on this question we have been left in no doubt that a `benchmark' of 100% should be established for tradespersons and appropriate relativities developed above and below that level in the operational stream only and we decide accordingly. In respect to (b), our task has been made a lot harder in arriving at the amount of money that should constitute the 100% rate at the tradespersons level because of: (i) the diversity of rates currently applying; (ii) the existence of paid rates and minimum rates awards in the public sector; and (iii) the method of hire, i.e. hourly, weekly and fortnightly. The submissions before us ranged in amounts from $417.20 to $461.25 per week, although the representative of the Minister suggested that if we were considering a paid rates award concept then an appropriate amount should be no higher than $432.55 per week, or $22493 per annum. We are convinced of the need to have all four streams viewed as paid rates awards thus eliminating the minimum rates concept in the public sector. That being the case we now determine that the base tradesperson's rate, i.e. Level 6 in the Operational Stream, should be $453.10 per week, or $23561 per annum. Given this decision we would now expect, in respect of (c), that:
The apprentices' percentage relativities to the tradesperson's rate varies from award to award. Having standardised the tradesperson's rate it is only appropriate that apprentice rates be consistent throughout the Service. With this in mind we have adopted the percentages now appearing in the General Officers Award as being relevant and suitable for inclusion in the Operational Stream. Those percentages of the tradesperson's rate are: 1st year of service 45% A model Operational Employees Award is attached as Appendix 2. PROFESSIONAL STREAM As with the Administrative and Clerical Stream and the Technical Stream, the Tasmanian Public Service Association had carriage of the case on behalf of the TTLC Combined Public Sector Unions subgroup. In respect of the Professional Stream, Mr Vines submitted that the Bench should adopt the five level salary structure and classification standards as set out in the TTLC Award Restructuring document dated 30 April 1991. He proposed that the Scientific Officers Award be retitled the Scientific and Professional Employees Award which could be regarded as the omnibus professional employees award. In that context Mr Vines submitted that the professional stream should be placed in that award which would then be regarded as the model award from which salary levels and classifications would be drawn for inclusion in other professional awards which the Bench was asked to retain. The Association of Professional Engineers and Scientists, Australia, Professional Engineers Branch, Tasmania (APESA), whilst supporting the submissions of Mr Vines with regard to the five level structure wished to retain the Professional Engineers Award on the basis that:
Whilst Mr Pyrke for the APESA submitted that the Professional Engineers Award should contain a 5 level salary and classification structure, he considered that it would be appropriate for there to be 3 grades at level 5. Each grade to be a promotable position. In later proceedings the APESA adopted the 5 level structure as put forward by Mr Vines, but held to the view that it should be contained in the Professional Engineers Award. Mr Warwick appearing for the HSUA said that health professionals should be provided for in a Health Professionals Award and accordingly should not be included in the Scientific and Professional Employees Award proposed by Mr Vines. Mr Warwick indicated that a Health Professionals Award would be more appropriate because:
In the circumstances Mr Warwick considered that the proposals for a professional stream outlined by Mr Vines should be included in a Health Professionals Award "but as part of a trial period there should be additions and refinements to the classification standards proposed". (transcript p.939) Mr Warwick was anxious to ensure that the Bench not arbitrate at this time on whether or not there should be a Health Professionals Award and requested that this matter be held over and the HSUA be granted leave reserved on that issue. In the interim Mr Warwick said that health professionals could be included in the Hospital Employees (Public Hospitals) Award by deriving the levels and classification standards from the model advanced by Mr Vines. Mr Jarman appearing with Mr Hanlon for the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 said that the Minister would support a public health sector industry award. He said that such an award should comprehend all four streams. Mr Jarman submitted that:
With regard to the structure that should be included in an award Mr Jarman said that the existing automatic progression from Class I to Class II Grade 2 or in some cases to Class III Grade 1 should be discontinued. It was submitted by Mr Jarman that Level 1 in the Minister's proposal in respect of the public sector generally should provide automatic progression to $32,500 which would be achieved in six incremental steps. At that point a barrier would operate which could only be exceeded where health professionals could satisfy the agency, i.e. the Department of Health, that they had achieved the necessary experience and skills to progress beyond that salary point. In addition, Mr Jarman advocated that there should be three distinct promotable salary points at levels 3 and 4 of the structure for health professionals compared to the two proposed by the Minister for the remainder of the public sector. Essentially the different salary points for health professionals at levels 3 and 4 would enable the Agency to fine tune rates of pay where broad work parameters are similar but where regional and other operational differences may impact on the extent of the responsibilities undertaken by individual employees. Mr Jarman referred the Bench to Exhibit J1 which set out classification standards which he said enabled employees to be classified in accordance with the job they do and the responsibilities they have. It was submitted by Mr J tman that the structure for health professionals would, if adopted by the Bench, still result in significant increases in wages costs but it would amount to considerably less than if the TTLC proposals were accepted. The foregoing establishes in brief detail that the Bench was requested to endorse a five level professional classification and salary structure. However all of the proposals contained some variations with the Minister supporting a different approach for health professionals compared to professionals in the remainder of the public sector. Whilst the HSUA supported the structure proposed by Mr Vines it did so on the basis that classification standards should be revised as appropriate in a move towards a Health Professionals Award. The APESA submitted that there was a fair degree of commonality between what it considered appropriate and the Minister's proposal for the public sector in general. In determining this matter we are of the opinion that the HSUA, APESA and to some extent the Minister in respect of the Department of Health developed their positions from the viewpoint of accommodating existing arrangements. This is an understandable approach, however it would not permit the establishment of a generic professional award able to be used throughout the State Service for all professionals. We consider that in this restructuring exercise we should look to a future where all professionals performing like work will receive a like salary. If the opportunity is not seized now to reform structures then the objective of achieving a common award may be lost. Having regard to the foregoing submissions we have decided to endorse the classification standards contained in the Government document of 30 April 1991 as we consider that these provide the necessary scope to classify employees within the salary structure that we have determined. It will be noted that we have decided that beyond level 1 each level can only be attained by promotion. We would also make it clear that we are of the opinion that only employees with professional qualifications should be classified in the professional stream. In that regard we consider that those employees entering the professional stream with a diploma or a 3 -year degree should commence at level 1, 1st year of service, with those holding a 4 year degree and above entering at level 1, 2nd year of service. The application by the HSUA for leave reserved on these matters is not approved. A model Professional Employees Award is attached as Appendix 3. TECHNICAL STREAM Both the employer and employees' representatives regarded this stream as one which required as a condition of entry qualifications which would admit the individual to a relevant course of study. The Minister proposed that the course be one conducted at a recognised TAFE institution, whilst the unions referred to a course of study resulting in an appropriate qualification. We support the general thrust of that notion. Both parties saw the stream as requiring six levels and we endorse that also. A model Technical Employees Award is attached as Appendix 4. AUTOMATIC PROGRESSION - TRAINEE Administrative and Clerical Stream The TTLC proposed that in the Administrative and Clerical Stream following 12 months' relevant experience in training and/or, for some positions, the possession of keyboard skills, a trainee would automatically advance from Level 1 to Level 2 (Skilled Clerk). The Minister proposed that the trainee level should contain only junior rates. Consequently on attaining a certain age junior employees would automatically progress to Level 2. We have decided that the use of junior rates established on the basis of age should be discontinued and trainee rates, expressed as a percentage, 70%, 75% or 85%, of the final rate of Level 2, shall be applied. The employer may exercise discretion as to the percentage at which a trainee commences employment and moves through to the top of Level 2. Thereafter progress will be by promotion only. Operational Stream In the Operational Stream the TTLC submitted that Level 1 would apply to participants in the Australian Traineeship System or to inductees participating in a structured training program for a period of no more than three months. The Minister proposed that Level 1 should be the trainee level and advancement from Level 1 would be by promotion only. We have decided that there shall be two percentage rates in Level 1, being 75% and 78% of the tradesperson's rate which is Level 6. Level 1 shall apply to trainees who, depending on experience and capacity to perform the routine activities required at this level, shall, if they commence at 75%, remain on that rate while they undergo basic training and induction for a period of 3 months. A further period of 12 months at the 78% rate should enable the trainee to become sufficiently competent to progress automatically to Level 2. Thereafter progress will be by promotion only. Professional Stream Automatic progression between levels is not countenanced in this stream. Level 1 is the first level for a qualified professional and advancement other than by increments shall be by promotion from one level to another. Technical Stream The TTLC proposed that Level 1, in the Technical Stream should apply to trainees and to unqualified employees, but that as a prerequisite such employees should possess the educational standards necessary for entry into a course of study leading to an appropriate qualification. The TTLC claim envisaged the automatic progression of trainees, once qualified, to Level 2. The Minister also viewed Level 1 as a trainee level with automatic progression to Level 2. Minimum qualifications were seen as being "eligibility for admission to a relevant course of study at a recognised TAFE institution or relevant training and/or experience appropriate to the nature of the work as approved in accordance with Section 37 of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984". We have decided to create a trainee level of five increments which will enable training in a relevant discipline to take place with automatic progression to Level 2 on the successful completion of the course. Entry point, and advancement within Level 1, will be determined by the employer subject to qualifications, experience and progress in the chosen course of study. Thereafter progress shall be by promotion only. REPEAL We are of the view that the following awards which are subject to this application fall into one or all of the new occupational streams determined by us. They are: S076 Agricultural Officers Subject to what we have said regarding operative date, we propose to remove Clause 8 only from each of those awards with effect from 1 December 1992. This should remove any conflict when the four new awards come into operation on that day. Parties to the following agreements (where they contain salary rates) should, in our opinion, retire from those agreements with effect from the same date. Building Trades (Tasmanian Public Sector) Interim Wages and Conditions Suplementary Industrial Agreement No. 1 of 1990 Metal Trades (Tasmanian Public Sector) Industrial Agreement Mines Department Drilling Section Agreement Ministerial Drivers - Conditions of Employment Agreement State Fire Commission (Interim Structural Efficiency Changes) Agreement In our opinion other public sector awards falling within the scope of the four occupational streams we have now determined, but which are not part of these proceedings, should be absorbed into the common streams. We would expect applications to be made to give effect to such an arrangement in due course. These awards are: S091 Herd Improvement Board of Tasmania Staff Once we have finalised the conditions of employment and agency -specific matters, those previously mentioned awards will be repealed, unless we are persuaded to the contrary, with effect from 1 December 1992. TRANSLATION In order to derive the maximum benefits from the package we have determined it is now important that the parties innovatively apply themselves to the tasks of job redesign, including broadbanding, to be followed up by accurate job descriptions. This will then enable positions for which job descriptions have been finalised to be translated into the appropriate new award by reference to the relevant classification standards. The parties should co -operate in this process. Such an approach should facilitate the satisfactory conclusion of the exercise. Except in circumstances which are referred to later, employees should not be transferred from a current award to one of the new awards on a point -to -point basis using their current salary level as the determining factor. This decision requires strict adherence to classification standards and accurate job descriptions. However, in the unlikely event that the translation process has not been concluded by the commencement date of the new awards, employees occupying such positions are to be deemed to have been classified, temporarily, at a level which would attract a salary equal to or immediately above that employee's existing rate of pay. That salary level will continue to apply until that employee's position has been classified in accordance with the classification standards contained in the new award. If the subsequent classification assigned to the employee following consideration of the new job description results in a further increase in salary, that employee shall be entitled to receive the difference calculated back to the date of operation of the new award. Conversely any amounts received as a consequence of this process which are in excess of that which the new classification would attract will not require a retrospective adjustment on the part of the employee. OPERATIVE DATE Before this decision can be implemented fully it will be necessary for the employer to prepare job descriptions for each position covered by the streams. This will have to be undertaken before employees can be classified at an appropriate level in one of the streams. Given the magnitude of this task we believe that it would be inappropriate to determine an operative date prior to 1 December 1992. Notwithstanding that, it is our prima facie view that the operative date should be as stated above, however, as indicated to the parties during the hearing, we intend to give operative effect to wage and salary rates from the same date as will apply to agency -specific and conditions of employment matters. Therefore the operative date is contingent upon the finalisation of those matters, but in any event it will not be before 1 December 1992. In the event that the Commission hands down a State Wage Case decision between now and 1 December 1992 resulting in salary increases, then the amounts appearing in the four model awards attached to this decision will be adjusted accordingly. SAVINGS PROVISION We intend to insert in each of the new awards the following savings provision: "PROVIDED that employees who, prior to the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 December 1992, are in receipt of a salary or wage rate in excess of those herein prescribed shall not have their salary or wage rate reduced as a result of the making of this new award and/or the translation process." MONITORING HEARINGS We intend to conduct hearings on a regular basis during 1992 for the purpose of monitoring progress with the translation process and formalising the details of the titles and scope clauses. We will also set down a timetable for the conclusion of conditions of employment and agency -specific matters. The first hearing will take place on Monday, 24 February, at 10.30 am.
Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 Report of Phase II of the Review of Tasmanian Government Administration, First Instalment |