PR946033 AW821161 PR946033 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 Review of award pursuant to Item 51 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (C No. 00846 of 1999) PUBLIC TRANSPORT (RAILWAYS) SALARIED OFFICERS AWARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2003 (ODN C No. 00403 of 1959) [ PR926969 [AW821161]] Various employees Public transport industry SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN ADELAIDE, 27 APRIL 2004 Award simplification - wages and classifications. DECISION [1] If the old German proverb "Good things are not done in a hurry" is to be relied upon, the simplification of the award now known as the Public Transport (Railways) Salaried Officers Award of Western Australia 2003 is a truly great accomplishment. However, despite this decision concluding the simplification process, I doubt that this process can be described in that fashion, or indeed, can be relied upon as indicative of the efficiency and function that the Western Australian Public Transport Authority strives for. [2] It is appropriate that I summarise the history of this matter. [3] Following conferences over a two year period, in November 2002, I published a decision ( PR924747 ) which proposed a draft award to replace the Railways Salaried Officers Interim Award 1995 . In this decision I outlined a proposed approach to the establishment of properly fixed minimum rates of pay pursuant to the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (`the WROLA Act'). At the request of the parties, the issues of wages and classifications were deferred. [4] This award was finalised through a further decision in January 2003 ( PR926968 ). This award established the Public Transport (Railways) Salaried Officers Award of Western Australia 2003 . It did not deal with the issue of classifications and wages which were the subject of ongoing conferences, discussions and hearings. [5] The difficulties that have arisen in relation to the wages and classification structure are largely a result of the fact that the award classification structure reflects the previous "member only" award structure and has its genesis in arrangements applicable in the 1950s which now no longer have any practical relevance. Further, the classification structure, now utilised by the Public Transport Authority, is not easily described in terms that enable work value based comparisons to be made consistent with the approach adopted by the Commission in the Paid Rates Review Decision (Print Q7661). [6] As a result of continuing difficulties experienced by the parties in concluding this last aspect of the simplification process and my understanding of the failure of the parties to comply with directions issued, I published a further decision in November 2003 ( PR941076 ) which outlined a preferred methodology and a Draft Order relative to classifications and wages. [7] Following publication of this decision, the parties bought to my attention that they had complied with my directions issued and had forwarded to the Commission an agreed position relative to wages and classifications sometime earlier. The parties both expressed concern over the Draft Order appended to the November 2003 decision and sought to rely on a position agreed on 7 July 2003. [8] To the extent that the November 2003 decision was erroneously founded on my understanding that the parties had not complied with the directions that I had issued, I advised the parties that this decision was in error, but that I was not able to reconcile the approach agreed between the parties on 7 July 2003 with the requirements of the WROLA Act. The parties were advised of specific concerns in this respect. [9] At a hearing on 20 January 2004 the parties advised that their July 2003 agreement was substantially flawed. As a consequence of this hearing, I wrote to the parties on 9 February 2004 to clarify my understanding of the classification structure they were proposing to me and to seek advice relative to the identification of a key classification and the relationship between this classification and the C10 Tradesperson classification in the Metals, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998 . [10] The parties were not able to respond to these questions. As a consequence, the matter was the subject of a further hearing on 7 April 2004. At this hearing the ASU were represented by Mr Bibby and the Public Transport Authority by Ms Bishop. [11] At this hearing the parties confirmed that the position they had agreed upon in July 2003 was now considered deficient and that, with two exceptions, they now proposed the adoption of the approach set out in my November 2003 decision. The two exceptions related firstly, to classifications identified in the November 2003 decision, where the parties now sought to remove redundant classifications and include current classifications and descriptors which were based on the Western Australian Local Government award structure. Secondly, the parties sought to include a classification structure and definitions for four senior management classifications not currently addressed in the award. [12] The parties were given the opportunity to present additional information to me in these respects within one week. [13] Since the 7 April 2004 hearing, the Public Transport Authority has provided a draft Public Transport Authority comparison of Level 2 position functions. Given the uncertain status of this document and my doubts about what it actually establishes, I have not relied upon it. [14] The Public Transport Authority have also provided a list of classifications proposed to be included at level 2 on the basis that the level 2 definition is agreed. I do not have information which enables these positions to be clearly categorised within a nominated and defined classification. [15] Finally, the Public Transport Authority have provided a list of classification descriptors which purports to link the existing award classifications with Local Government classifications applicable in 2003 and 2004. I do not understand this to be a position agreed upon at the present time such that I could rely upon it. Perhaps even more significantly, I cannot discern a change in the Local Government Award classification structures between 2003 and 2004. [16] At the hearing on 7 April 2004 I advised the parties that: "If, however, within the next week I couldn't be provided or convinced of the integrity of the new structure, then we will simply conclude the simplification of the award on the basis of the draft order attaching to the November decision with reliance on the old classification structure, which everybody agrees is to a significant extent redundant, and might need to be updated at a future by way of a section 113 award application. MR BIBBY: Thank you, sir. THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does that make sense? MR BIBBY: There's clarity in Perth, sir, and a great deal of rejoicing. THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, as long as you understand that I would intend to issue that order in the event that irrespective of whether the parties provide information to me, it is simply the opportunity now over the next week for the parties to demonstrate the integrity of particularly the new level 2 definition. MR BIBBY: Okay, and when you say you issue that order it will be with the 9 levels? THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It will be with the 9 levels, given that at this stage we are not yet talking about classifications 1 through to 4. We are about to try to do that." [Transcript PN377 - PN383] [17] The proposed four additional classifications which relate to senior management functions were requested by the parties on the basis that information about these classifications would be provided on an agreed basis within one week from 7 April 2004. [18] Information of such an agreed character has not been provided to me, and, as a result, I have not included the proposed classifications 1 to 4 at the end of the final classification structure. [19] If the parties were to reach an agreement relative to these management functions and seek the inclusion of these levels in the award, a separate application will need to be made to that effect. [20] I have relied on the approach set out in the November 2003 decision. [21] I have preserved the existing classification structure, notwithstanding that I have noted that a number of these functions may now be redundant. If the parties ever reach an agreement on a new structure, they have the capacity to make an application for the award to be varied in that respect [22] On the limited information before me, I have concluded that the existing level 2 classification is best taken as a key classification and that work functions within this classification are comparable with the C10 tradesperson classification in the Metals, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998 . Rates of pay for other levels in the award have been adjusted so as to preserve the relativities best discernible as at 1989. On the basis of what I understand to be the request of the parties, I have retained levels 6, 7, 8 and 9, notwithstanding that on the information before me, these levels are not given effect by definitions or substantial award references. [23] I have deleted the existing incremental adjustments. I identified those levels where the now properly fixed minimum rates of pay are more than those that are currently applicable and have specified residual amounts which are to be progressively eliminated by future safety net adjustments. [24] I doubt that this classification structure serves the parties well in reality. However, the obligation imposed upon the Commission by the WROLA Act is to provide for minimum rates of pay consistent with sections 88A and 88B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . On this occasion, despite my best endeavours, the information provided to me by the parties does not allow for the adoption of an agreed classification structure which reflects the reality of all the work functions now undertaken within the Public Transport Authority. [25] It may well be that the parties choose to rely upon certified agreements to establish future classifications and wages structures. Whilst the Act allows for just such an approach, I suggest to the parties that it is incumbent upon them to agree on whatever structure they are adopting as soon as possible, to minimise the potential for confusion and disputation. [26] The Order [ PR946035 ] giving effect to this decision will come into effect from 3 May 2004 and will operate for a period of one month, so that if the parties did seek to vary the award they may do so within a short time period. BY THE COMMISSION: SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT Appearances: S Bibby representing the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union. S Majeks and J Bishop on behalf of the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia. Hearing Details: 2004. Perth: January 20 April 7 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code B>