CITATION : 2011 WAIRC 00434 CORAM : PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR COMMISSIONER S J KENNER HEARD : MONDAY, 24 JANUARY 2011 DELIVERED : 21 JUNE 2011 FILE NO. : PSA 42 OF 2010 BETWEEN : VINCENT MARTELLI Applicant AND DEPARTMENT CORRECTIVE SERVICES Respondent CatchWords : Industrial Law (WA) - Reclassification appeal - Principles applied - Appliation granted - Order issued. Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 80E(2)(a) Result : Application granted. Order issued. Representation: Applicant : Mr K Trainer as agent Respondent : Ms T Borwick and with her Ms J Rundle Case(s) referred to in reasons: Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Director General of Health in Right of The Minister For Health as The Metropolitan Health Service at Pathwest Laboratory Medicine WA (2008) 88 WAIG 475; Metal Trades Award (Re Work Value Inquiry) (1967) 121 CAR 587; Wall v Department of Fisheries (2004) 84 WAIRC 3895. Case(s) also cited: Marie-Helene Mallet v Dept. of Consumer & Employment Protection (2009) 89 WAIG 705 Reasons for Decision 1 The applicant seeks a determination by the Public Service Arbitrator (‘the Arbitrator’) that his present Position Number 006465 classified at Level 7 in the Offender Management and Professional Development Division (“the OMPD”) of the respondent be reclassified from Level 7 to Level 8. The application is made in accordance s 80E(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (“the Act”). Proceedings of this kind relate to a claim in respect of a salary, range of salary or the title allocated to the office occupied by a government officer. 2 It is also the case that these proceedings are essentially in the nature of an administrative review of the respondent’s decision. 3 It is common ground that the Classification Review Committee of the respondent (“the CRC”) rejected the applicant’s reclassification request in October 2010. 4 This application seeks to overturn that decision. Contentions 5 On behalf of the applicant, Mr Trainer submitted that on the basis of the materials filed in the appeal, there is no doubt that the applicant’s position has undergone a substantial change in work value justifying a reclassification from Level 7 to Level 8. To the extent that there may have been issues raised in the past as to procedural fairness, and other matters, given that an appeal is now before the Commission, those issues largely fall away. 6 As to the merits, Mr Trainer said that the change in focus of the applicant’s position is from one that was “hands on” to one that occupies a strategically significant role in the respondent’s organisation. A comparison of the former and revised JDF’s for the position highlights the substance of the changes in work value. 7 For the respondent, Ms Borwick submitted that the decision of the respondent to not grant the applicant a reclassification is consistent with the application of its policies in relation to such matters. Further, to the extent it is relevant, Ms Borwick contended that the applicant has been afforded a fair process. 8 In terms of work value, it was submitted by the respondent that the applicant would need to demonstrate a dramatic change in the work value of the position to warrant a reclassification. Additionally, Ms Borwick contended that the applicant placed too 1144 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 91 W.A.I.G. much emphasis on parity issues with other positions in the respondent and that there was a significant flow on potential in reclassifying the position. 9 Overall, the respondent submitted that its original decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed. However, should the Arbitrator uphold the applicant’s appeal, then it was submitted that the matter should be referred back to the respondent in order that the applicant can be given an opportunity to seek a personal reclassification. Evidentiary Material 10 Both the applicant and the respondent filed a considerable amount of material in support of their respective positions. Given the nature of this application, I will only provide a summary of the essential aspects of the evidentiary material necessary to deal with the appeal. 11 On behalf of the applicant, Mr Martelli gave evidence and in doing so, referred, as contained in exhibit A1, to the history of his attempts at seeking a reclassification of his position as Divisional Business Services Manager – OMPD at the respondent (“the Position”). 12 Mr Martelli has been in the Position since the establishment of the OMPD in February 2006. The OMPD was established following the recommendations of the Mahoney Inquiry into offender management in Western Australia. The Division provides services to manage offenders in prison and in the community. Additionally, the Division is involved in providing strategic policy advice, professional development and training services to the respondent’s staff. 13 Mr Martelli said that the original Position was largely an operational one, involved in the preparation of financial reports, budgets, the Division’s business plan and some limited human resources functions. 14 In early 2008, following the return of Ms Tang to her position of Deputy Commissioner OMPD, Mr Martelli said the focus and responsibilities of the position changed significantly. The thrust of Mr Martelli’s evidence was that as a consequence of the requirements of the Deputy Commissioner, the job has become significantly more strategic in nature and is involved in the provision of strong leadership within the Division and leads and influences the business, financial management and performance of the Division as a whole. 15 According to Mr Martelli, the position has evolved from, as he put it, a “hands on” role, to a far higher level strategic and leadership position in financial and budgetary matters for the Division. 16 In particular, Mr Martelli emphasised that prior to 2008, all business and financial matters effectively bypassed the Position, and were dealt with by other senior corporate officers of the respondent or the Department of Treasury and Finance. The position has changed such that all significant matters that have business or financial implications for the Division are sighted by him and are the subject of his commentary before being approved by the Deputy Commissioner. 17 As a ‘third tier’ position, that being two levels below the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer, and having regard to internal relativities with corporate positions in the Adult Custodial Services (“ACS”) and Community Youth Justice (“CYJ”) Divisions of the respondent, a Level 8 classification is appropriate. 18 Following the review of the JDF for the Position, as a part of the classification review process, Mr Martelli said that in addition to that just described, other increases in work value of his Position include: (a) the establishment of business cases, concept approvals and annual Budget submissions for the Division; (b) the directing, leading and supervising of Directorate Business Managers in the preparation and submission of monthly performance and management reports; (c) he now meets regularly with the Deputy Commissioner concerning business and financial matters in the Division and the respondent as a whole, rather than on an ad hoc basis; (d) instead of following Division or business plan templates provided by the corporate Division, he now significantly influences the content of such templates and makes amendments to them; (e) the Position is now responsible for reviewing Employment Control Board requests for establishing new positions; (f) he is now responsible for complex projects that have business and financial implications for the Division; (g) the Position now has responsibilities in relation to the establishment of the Division’s first service level agreement template and provides direction and guidance as an executive member of the Division in relation to such matters; (h) the Position is now involved in developing strong internal relationships and represents the Deputy Commissioner or the Division at a strategic level within the respondent; and (i) whilst previously the Position generally managed contract delivery within the Division by maintaining a register of services, Mr Martelli now reviews procurements including all contracts and tenders. He provides advice to the Deputy Commissioner as to compliance with State Government guidelines. Mr Martelli’s advice is a prerequisite to approval by the Deputy Commissioner. 19 The changes in work value outlined in Mr Martelli’s evidence were not challenged by the respondent in its evidence. 20 These changes said to increase the work value of the Position, were also the subject of testimony from Ms Tang, the Deputy Commissioner OMPD. Ms Tang said that in November 2008 Mr Martelli presented a business case to her requesting a reclassification of the Position, which directly reports to her. As a result of this, Ms Tang commissioned a Classification 91 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1145 Review Report from Gent Consulting Group which was completed in November 2009. Gent Consulting has completed work for Ms Tang in relation to reclassification reports within the respondent in the past. 21 The recommendation of the Gent Consulting Group report was that Mr Martelli’s position be reclassified to Level 8. A copy of this report was tendered as part of exhibit A1, the applicant’s materials. I have considered it carefully. 22 As a member of the CRC since October 2008, in December 2009, Ms Tang said that she referred the Gent Consulting Group report to the CRC with her support. Ms Tang said that following the CRC meeting of 16 April 2010, and the consideration of Mr Martelli’s position, she agreed to review Mr Martelli’s JDF, as it was apparent that it did not accurately reflect the role as performed by him. 23 The JDF was further refined as a result of a second CRC meeting in July 2010. This was finalised at the end of July 2010 with the CRC further reviewing the claim by Mr Martelli. 24 As a part of the CRC process, the Classification Unit of the Department of the Attorney General (“the CU”) had undertaken a review of the Position and the Gent Consulting Group report. The CU concluded that whilst recognising there had been some change in work value, the potential flow on impacts were considerable. It was also concluded that the work value changes were not substantial enough to warrant a reclassification from Level 7 to Level 8. 25 I have also carefully considered the CU report. 26 Despite the CU report, Ms Tang remained strongly of the view that the classification review should succeed. In particular in her evidence, Ms Tang gave her assessment of the Position in its direct report to her. Ms Tang emphasised that her experience of the Position was influenced by a period in which she worked in the CYJ Division of the respondent as its Deputy Commissioner. 27 In that role she had a Business Manager position reporting to her with which she was very familiar. In her evidence, Ms Tang said that that position, classified as a Level 8, was very similar in terms of its responsibilities and the demands that she placed on it, to the work undertaken by Mr Martelli. 28 In her period on the CYJ Division, Ms Tang said that her interaction with the Level 8 business manager role in that area shaped her views as to her expectations of the Position. She said that when she returned to the OMPD, she had expectations of the applicant’s position very similar to that in her previous role in the CYJ Division. According to Ms Tang, she expects the applicant to shows significant leadership as a member of the executive team and to provide her with timely and accurate advice in relation to important and complex financial management matters within the Division. 29 In particular, Ms Tang said that her expectations of the Position are to work closely with her in all matters affecting the financial management of the Division. This involves daily interaction in relation to the overall financial objectives of the Division, considering finance submissions from other Divisions, general government initiatives and the day to day management of funding in relation to what can be complex financial transactions. 30 Overall, Ms Tang’s evidence was that the most significant aspect of the work value change in the Position was a movement from a passive role to a role involving leading, directing and initiating the high level management of financial matters within the OMPD. It was this area in particular that the former JDF for the role did not adequately reflect. 31 There was also witness statement evidence adduced by the applicant from Ms Harker, the Deputy Commissioner of the CYJ Division. Ms Harker, as a member of the CRC, supported the reclassification of Mr Martelli’s position. In particular, she said she expressed the view within the CRC that based upon similar positions within the Division, and recognition of the increase in work value of the Position, it ought to be reclassified. 32 Mr Lee, currently the Acting Assistant Director Corporate Health Services of the respondent, is also a member of the CRC. Mr Lee gave evidence in relation to his involvement with the application for reclassification of Mr Martelli’s position. Mr Lee has previously overseen classification and reclassification issues in earlier roles in the former Department of Justice. 33 Whilst not initially supporting the reclassification, once the JDF for the position was reviewed to reflect the activities currently undertaken, Mr Lee said that he agreed there was a significant increase in work value warranting a reclassification. Mr Lee said that he disagreed with the CU report in this regard. 34 In particular, Mr Lee referred to the reliance on the Position within the OMPD and the degree of similarity of the Position with the Level 8 Manager Business Services in the CYJ Division, the subject of evidence from Ms Tang. 35 As well as the changes in terms of leading and developing policies, practices and procedures and in relation to financial management matters, Mr Lee referred to the Position now providing direct leadership to other business managers within the Division. Notably Mr Lee commented on the OMPD’s financial performance as falling within its budget management parameters, which has been a significant achievement in the post Mahoney Report reforms. 36 Witness statements were also filed on behalf of the respondent from Mr Wilding, the Director of Human Resources of the respondent and the present chair of the CRC, and Mr Bouwman, the Manager, Recruitment, Organisational Data and Classification Services of the Department of Attorney General. These persons were not called to give viva voce evidence. 37 Mr Wilding’s witness statement outlined the process undertaken by the CRC in relation to Mr Martelli’s reclassification request. Mr Wilding said that he considered the process to be thorough and that at all stages of the review process, the Deputy Commissioner OMPD and the applicant had the opportunity to substantiate the applicant’s claim for reclassification. 1146 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 91 W.A.I.G. 38 Mr Wilding’s statement referred to the CU report that did not support the reclassification, and that three of the six members of the CRC also did not support it. Three divisions, they being the OMPD, the CYJ Division and Professional Standards did support the reclassification. As the chair, he also did not support the reclassification of the applicant’s position. 39 Mr Bouwman’s witness statement referred to the report of the CU and its conclusion that although some work value changes in the applicant’s position were demonstrated, they did not appear to be sufficient to warrant a reclassification. Mr Bouwman was not the author of the original report of the CU, which was completed by a Mr Boylen. Consideration 40 The relevant principles in relation to these matters are well settled. The issue for consideration in this appeal is whether the applicant’s position has undergone a significant net addition to its work value. This requires a consideration of the Position itself and the work value attached to it. 41 In determining work value changes, regard is to be had to the nature of the work performed, the skills required, the responsibilities of the position and the circumstances in which the work is performed. An assessment of the work value of a position in a reclassification appeal is undertaken at the time the appeal is lodged: Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Director General of Health in Right of the Minister for Health as the Metropolitan Health Service at PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA (2008) 88 WAIG 475; Wall v Department of Fisheries (2004) 84 WAIRC 3895. 42 Historically, work value was the fulcrum of wage and salary determination and later introduced under the system of wage indexation in the 1970’s and adopted by industrial tribunals generally as a basis of measuring the worth of work in setting wages and salaries. See for example the Metal Trades Award (re Work Value Inquiry) (1967) 121 CAR 587. 43 For the following reasons, in my opinion, this appeal should succeed and the applicant’s position be reclassified from Level 7 to Level 8. 44 In assessing the present claim, the Arbitrator is required to focus on changes in work value and not other subsidiary issues such as workload or volume. The latter is not a matter which is relevant to my determination as to whether taken overall, in the context of the applicable principles, the applicant’s claim should succeed. 45 Whilst the evidence before the Arbitrator included reference to other measures of the Position such as BIPERS assessments and a Job Evaluation Questionnaire, such material can never be conclusive in relation to reclassification matters. The fact that the BIPERS assessments conducted by Gent Consulting, the agency, the applicant and the CU all differed bears this out. 46 It is apparent on the evidence before me, that the respondent placed considerable weight, and in my view an over assessment, on matters such as flow on, in determining whether Mr Martelli’s reclassification request should be granted. 47 Whilst the CU and the Gent Consulting reports were carefully prepared, on the assessment of all of the materials before the Arbitrator, the applicant’s position, as reflected in the current JDF has undergone a substantial change in focus. It is plain that the former JDF, as reflecting the role as originally developed, was a largely passive role that participated in financial management of the OMPD. The former JDF, as at June 2008, contained at Tab 4 of exhibit A1, refers to the Role of the Position as follows: “The position will ensure that modern business and management practices are used to manage the Offender Management & Professional Management Division (OM & PD) in an efficient and effective manner. The position will provide effective corporate and business services, including: • Facilitating the business planning process within the Division; • Participating in the development of key performance indicators, implementation and monitoring; • Overseeing the management of the Divisional finances, including long and short term Budgeting of Recurrent and Capital Works; • Utilisation of human and physical resources to best ensure the achievement of diversity, occupational safety and heath and targeted Division business outcomes; and • Management of contracts, information technology, assets and facilities.” 48 This has substantially changed. The revised JDF as at July 2010, following the CRC process, is contained at Tab 15 of exhibit A1 and is in the following terms: “• The position contributes significantly to the strategic leadership, direction and management of the Division and is a member of the OMPD Executive Management Team. • The position has considerable autonomy and leads in the development and coordination of Business Strategies, Business Planning, Financial Planning and Budgeting of the Division and the development and review of Performance Measurement and Performance reporting for the Division. • The position manages the Business Management unit within the Division, including the Budget and Management Accounting, Capital Investment and Asset Accounting. • The position undertakes complex financial analyses and provides high-level specialist advice and support to the Divisions business units to facilitate the achievement of organisation objectives.” 91 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1147 49 These changes are reflected in the specific position responsibilities as further set out in the revised JDF. They are also reflected generally in the unchallenged evidence of Mr Martelli as noted above. These changes must also be considered in the context of the evidence in particular from Ms Tang, as dealt with further below. 50 I accept the contention advanced by the applicant that the role now is self evidently far more strategic in nature, and provides high level financial management advice to the Deputy Commissioner of the OMPD. 51 In particular, I am satisfied and I find that the work value changes are indeed those as particularised above in Mr Martelli’s evidence. An assessment of comparable roles within the respondent, in particular the Director Business Management in the ACS Division, and the Manager, Business Services role in the CYJ Division, both of which were Level 8 positions, shows the applicant’s role responsibilities are very similar. It is recognised that there are budgetary and staff reporting differences in these comparisons. Additionally, whilst the Arbitrator was informed by the respondent that the ACS position has now been abolished, the comparisons made at the time were not inappropriate. 52 It would be unfair to fail to recognise the significant change in the responsibilities of the Position which constitute in my view a significant net addition in work value. 53 Ms Tang’s evidence, the officer most directly involved in the working relationship with the applicant’s Position, clearly outlined the change in expectations of the Position, as part of the circumstances under which the work is performed, which is a relevant consideration when reviewing work value changes. That is part of the overall environment within which the work is performed and it is clear evidence of the change in the demands, and expectations, placed upon the applicant’s Position. 54 From a review of the relevant JDF’s and the evidence, I do not consider it inappropriate to have had regard to the three positions of that of the applicant, the Director Business Management in the ACS, and the Manager Business Services in the CYJ as referred to in the Gent Consulting Group report. I acknowledge however, the CU report observations that the Gent Report perhaps placed too much weight on issues of parity. 55 It should be emphasised however, that the Gent Consulting Group report was undertaken following a detailed analysis of the position, discussion with the incumbent and the Deputy Commissioner OMPD, and preceded further review and refinement of the JDF for the Position as a result of the CRC process. 56 Accordingly, there will be an order that the applicant’s Position be reclassified from Level 7 to Level 8. As a consequence, it would be appropriate for the respondent to consider any request by the applicant for a personal reclassification with the reclassified position. 2011 WAIRC 00441 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES VINCENT MARTELLI APPLICANT -v- DEPARTMENT CORRECTIVE SERVICES RESPONDENT CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR COMMISSIONER S J KENNER DATE FRIDAY, 24 JUNE 2011 FILE NO PSA 42 OF 2010 CITATION NO. 2011 WAIRC 00441 Result Application granted. Order issued Representation Applicant Mr K Trainer as agent Respondent Ms T Borwick and with her Ms J Rundle Order HAVING heard Mr K Trainer as agent on behalf of the applicant and Ms T Borwick and with her Ms J Rundle on behalf of the respondent, the Public Service Arbitrator, pursuant to the powers conferred under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby orders – THAT Position No. 006465 be reclassified from Level 7 to Level 8. (Sgd.) S J KENNER, Commissioner, [L.S.] Public Service Arbitrator. 1148 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 91 W.A.I.G. NOTICES—Union Matters— 2011 WAIRC 00515 NOTICE FBM 6 of 2011 Notice is given of an application by “The State School Teachers’ Union of W.A. (Incorporated)” to the Full Bench of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission for an alteration to its Rule 4 - Membership. Existing Rule 4 4 - MEMBERSHIP The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) shall consist of an unlimited number of persons employed or usually employed in the following categories:- (a) FULL MEMBERS: (i) Teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training or by any institution providing technical and further education in Western Australia and teachers employed in pre-school centres in Western Australia provided that such teachers hold or are enrolled for the purpose of obtaining a teaching academic qualification. (ii) Any person employed by any of the employers or in any of the places referred to in sub-rule (a)(i) of this rule who is employed as an education officer, guidance officer, counsellor or demonstrator. (iii) Teachers employed in a temporary capacity by a technical and further education institution. (iv) Teachers employed by and in a Community College in Western Australia. (v) School teachers who are employed on a part-time (fractional) basis in the supervision and/or coordination of student teachers during their periods of practice teaching in schools provided that they are eligible for membership of the Union within one of the preceding paragraphs of this subrule. (vi) Any person elected to an office in the State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia. (vii) Any employee of the SSTUWA (Inc) provided that such persons are not eligible for membership of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union of Employees, W.A., Clerical and Administrative Branch. (viii) Persons who are qualified to be and desire to be employed in any of the categories of persons specified in subrules (i)-(iv) of this rule. Notwithstanding the above, any person who is not registered with the relevant employer as available for work, and has not worked as a teacher for at least two years and who no longer has a contract of employment with the relevant employer shall not be eligible for membership under this subrule. (b) HONORARY LIFE MEMBERS: Any teacher or any employee of the Union who has rendered long and meritorious service to the Union may, upon retirement, be appointed as an Honorary Life Member. For the purpose of such an appointment it shall be necessary that nominations be received and approved by the Executive and published in the W.A. Teachers' Journal or The Western Teacher at least three months prior to the opening of State Council. (c) HONORARY MEMBERS: Exchange teachers who are members of a teachers' organisation in the State or country from which they have come may be appointed by the Executive as Honorary Members of this Union. (d) SPECIAL CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP: Persons who are not trained teachers but who because of their special expertise are placed in charge of a class in any area of the educational service may become Special Category Members. (e) RETIRED TEACHER MEMBERS: Teachers retired from the Department of Education and Training because of age or invalidism may be admitted as Retired Teacher Members at the discretion of the Executive. (f) ASSOCIATE MEMBERS: The following persons are eligible:- (i) Retired employees of the Union. (ii) Former members, including all categories who are not eligible for any other form of membership.” Proposed New Rule 4 4 - MEMBERSHIP The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) shall consist of an unlimited number of persons employed or usually employed in the following categories:- (a) FULL MEMBERS: (i) Teachers employed by or on behalf of the state of Western Australia including teachers employed in pre-school centres in Western Australia provided that such teachers hold or are enrolled for the purpose of obtaining a teaching academic qualification. (ii) Teachers, lecturers or trainers employed by any institution providing technical and further education in Western Australia. (iii) Any person employed by any of the employers or in any of the places referred to in sub-rule (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this rule who is employed as an education officer, guidance officer, counsellor or demonstrator. 91 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1149 (iv) Teachers employed in a temporary capacity by a technical and further education institution. (v) Teachers employed by and in a Community College in Western Australia. (vi) School teachers who are employed on a part-time (fractional) basis in the supervision and/or coordination of student teachers during their periods of practice teaching in schools provided that they are eligible for membership of the Union within one of the preceding paragraphs of this subrule. (vii) Any person elected to an office in the State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia. (viii) Any employee of the SSTUWA (Inc) provided that such persons are not eligible for membership of the Western Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union of Employees. (ix) Persons who are qualified to be and desire to be employed in any of the categories of persons specified in subrules (i) - (v) of this rule. Notwithstanding the above, any person who is not registered with the relevant employer as available for work, and has not worked as a teacher for at least two years and who no longer has a contract of employment with the relevant employer shall not be eligible for membership under this subrule. (b) HONORARY LIFE MEMBERS: Any member of the Union who has rendered long and meritorious service to the Union may, upon retirement, be appointed as an Honorary Life Member. For the purpose of such an appointment it shall be necessary that nominations be received and approved by the Executive and published in The Western Teacher or other authorised publication of the Union at least three months prior to the opening of State Council. (c) HONORARY MEMBERS: Exchange teachers who are members of a teachers' organisation in the State or country from which they have come may be appointed by the Executive as Honorary Members of this Union. (d) SPECIAL CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP: Persons who are not trained teachers but who because of their special expertise are placed in charge of a class in any area of the educational service may become Special Category Members. (e) RETIRED TEACHER MEMBERS: Teachers retired from the Department of Education and Training because of age or invalidism may be admitted as Retired Teacher Members at the discretion of the Executive. (f) ASSOCIATE MEMBERS: The following persons are eligible:- (i) Retired employees of the Union. (ii) Former members, including all categories who are not eligible for any other form of membership. The matter has been listed before the Full Bench at 10:30am on Monday, 29 August 2011 in Court 3 (Floor 18). A copy of the Rules of the Union and the proposed rule alterations may be inspected on the 16th Floor, 111 St Georges Terrace, Perth. Any organisation/association registered under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, or any person who satisfies the Full Bench that he/she has a sufficient interest or desires to object to the application may do so by filing a notice of objection (Form 13) in accordance with the Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005. S BASTIAN DEPUTY REGISTRAR 13 July 2011 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT—Matters Dealt With— 2011 WAIRC 00415 DISPUTE REGARDING WORKSAFE IMPROVEMENT NOTICE 70024491 THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TRIBUNAL PARTIES BRADLEY JAMES JONES APPLICANT -v- THE WORKSAFE WESTERN AUSTRALIA COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER S M MAYMAN DATE TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2011 FILE NO/S OSHT 2 OF 2011 CITATION NO. 2011 WAIRC 00415 Result Application discontinued Representation Applicant Mr B J Jones and Ms L Anderson Respondent Mr T Bishop (of counsel) 1150 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 91 W.A.I.G. Order WHEREAS this is a referral to the Occupational Safety and Health Tribunal pursuant to s 51A of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 seeking a review of Improvement Notice 70024491; AND WHEREAS the matter was listed for hearing on 11 May 2011; AND WHEREAS the hearing was, by consent, adjourned for the parties to meet; AND WHEREAS on 27 May 2011 the applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of the application; NOW THEREFORE, I the undersigned, pursuant to the powers conferred under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, hereby order – THAT this application be, and is hereby discontinued. (Sgd.) S M MAYMAN, [L.S.] Commissioner. 2011 WAIRC 00414 REFERRAL OF DISPUTE RE ENTITLEMENTS TO PAY AND OTHER BENEFITS THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TRIBUNAL PARTIES MICHAEL PICKERSGILL, MARK SHAW, DEAN D'ALESSIO APPLICANT -v- TOTAL MARINE SERVICES PTY LTD RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER S M MAYMAN DATE TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2011 FILE NO/S OSHT 1 OF 2011 CITATION NO. 2011 WAIRC 00414 Result Application discontinued Representation Applicant Mr L Edmonds Respondent Ms L D’Ascanio (of counsel) and Mr M Llewellyn Order WHEREAS this is an application pursuant to s 28(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984; AND WHEREAS the Tribunal convened a conference on 24 February 2011 for the purpose of conciliation between the parties; AND WHEREAS at the conclusion of that conference no agreement was able to be reached between the parties; AND WHEREAS on 23 May 2011 the applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of the application; NOW THEREFORE, I the undersigned, pursuant to the powers conferred under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, hereby order – THAT this application be, and is hereby discontinued. (Sgd.) S M MAYMAN, [L.S.] Commissioner. 91 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1151 ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT INDUSTRY TRIBUNAL—Matters Dealt With— 2011 WAIRC 00516 REFERRAL OF DISPUTE RE PAYMENT OF OWNER-DRIVER BY EMPLOYER IN THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION SITTING AS THE ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT INDUSTRY TRIBUNAL