Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union-South Australian and Northern Territory Branch v Port Pirie Regional Council
[2009] FWA 1699
•15 DECEMBER 2009
[2009] FWA 1699 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
v
Port Pirie Regional Council
(C2009/11271)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’CALLAGHAN | ADELAIDE, 15 DECEMBER 2009 |
Application for Board of Reference for reclassification of Ms Dianne Crocker.
[1] This decision deals with an application made by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union with respect to a dispute over the classification of Ms Crocker under the Port Pirie Regional Council Enterprise Agreement No 4 of 2003 (the Agreement) and the Municipal Officers Award 1998 (the Award). The initial request was to the effect that Fair Work Australia should convene a Board of Reference to deal with this classification dispute.
[2] The application was the subject of a conference on 28 September 2009. At this conference I expressed a reservation to the parties relative to the legislative basis upon which any such Board of Reference could now be convened. The parties to the dispute subsequently agreed that the matter should be referred to me, as a member of Fair Work Australia, consistent with the dispute resolution provisions of both the Agreement and the Award. The application was initially processed with Fair Work Australia under section 524 (BOR2009/219). Upon review and agreement with the parties, the application has now been changed to a section 739 application of the Fair Work Act 2009 (C2009/11271).
[3] The parties provided written material in support of their respective positions. Additionally, Ms Crocker and her manager Mr Byles gave evidence in Port Pirie on 18 November 2009. I have taken all of the information provided to me into account in reaching a decision in this matter.
[4] Ms Crocker is a Records Officer at the Port Pirie Regional Council (the Council). She commenced employment with the Council in 1968 and has been the Records Officer for approximately 15 years.
[5] The parties both agree that, under the terms of the Agreement, the Award classification criteria determine the approach to be adopted to classify an employee. Ms Crocker is currently classified as a Level 2 officer. She asserts that she should be classified as a Level 3 officer. She has pursued this reclassification in discussions with the Council and a review process and now seeks determination of the disputed classification.
[6] It is appropriate that I note at the outset that there is no question that Ms Crocker performs her job satisfactorily. The only issue in dispute goes to the appropriate classification level.
The Classification Review Process
[7] Clause 5.1.3 of the Award states:
“5.1.3 In classifying an employee, an employer shall observe the procedure contained in Schedule 1 of this Award to apply the appropriate salary level. On initial appointment, an employer may give recognition to an employee’s previous relevant experience in order to ascertain the appropriate incremental point for the classification.”
[8] Schedule 1 of the Award details the classification structure. The following provisions provide guidance with respect to the classification process.
“1.1 The aim of the classification process is to ensure as far as practicable, that work features, responsibilities, skills, knowledge, experience and qualifications are evaluated in comparable terms irrespective of discipline. The salary structure encompasses General Officers and Senior Officers.
1.2 The first step in establishing the most appropriate classification for a position involves the gathering and documenting of information about the position and describing it in a form which can be used to compare the job with the classification criteria. The quality and extent of the information gathered is very important in this process, as it will be used to determine the appropriate classification for the position.
1.3 Based on the information gathered, a job description should be prepared specifying the responsibilities, duties, skills knowledge and/or experience required in the position.
1.4 After the job description is complete a systematic comparison with the classification criteria needs to be undertaken. This assessment is used to determine the appropriate classification of the position.”
[9] In addition, the approach toward the classification of General Officers is set out in the following terms:
“2.1 General Officers
2.1.1 To facilitate the ready and precise classification of all occupations, classification criteria have been developed describing the General Features, General Responsibilities, Specific Responsibilities and Skills Knowledge, Experience and Qualifications and/or Training There are eight distinctive levels within the structure.
2.1.2 When classifying a position all aspects of the job must be considered against the total Award criteria the classification level. The total responsibilities of the position must be compared with the total responsibilities of the level, rather than comparison with selected parts.
2.1.3 The job description should be tested against more than one level for appropriateness.”
[10] I have considered the substantial amount of material before me in this context. I have tested Ms Crocker's job description against Levels 2 and 3 of the Award and have considered all the aspects of the job which have been put to me, against the total criteria.
General Features
[11] Level 2 constitutes the performance of a range of clearly defined routine duties or functions where routines, methods, standards and procedures are clearly defined.
[12] Level 3 constitutes the performance of a range of activities of a less clearly defined and retained nature and could include operating within a specialised area of writing as a member of a professional team.
[13] Ms Crocker's position description is indicative of responsibility for the Council’s record management system. However, the evidence was that she worked within a work system established by the Council management and that, each fortnight she updated her work plan in concert with her manager.
[14] Whilst there is no doubt that Ms Crocker's function as Records Officer is important and represents a vital local government activity, I am not persuaded that the general features of the positions support a Level 3 classification. It appears to me that Ms Crocker's work function and methods of work are clearly defined. In this respect I have noted that she undertakes these functions in concert with another officer and that their work routines provide for consistency of work activity and function. I have noted that there are substantial quantities of records but I am not satisfied that this changes the nature, or the general features of the job. I do not consider that the fortnightly work-plan constitutes a requirement that Ms Crocker undertakes less clear defined functions as these activities are agreed with, or the subject of regular instructions from her manager. Ms Crocker has not demonstrated that she sets out-come objectives for specific functions other than in concert with her manager.
[15] I am persuaded that Ms Crocker exercises initiative and judgment consistent with a Level 3 position but the problem-solving aspects of her position appeared more consistent with a Level 2 position. The time management and organisational skills associated with the position are consistent with those of a Level 3 position.
Characteristic General Responsibilities
[16] Level 2 positions involve responsibilities which may include the performance of tasks of a sensitive nature going beyond the provision of routine information and requiring the understanding of clear roles.
[17] Level 3 positions involve responsibilities for establishing goals and outcomes for a work program, the undertaking of some complex operational work or supervisory requirements.
[18] There is no suggestion that Ms Crocker is required to supervise other staff. The work goes to sensitive and complex procedures and involves the responsibility for a significant work area. I have no doubt that Ms Crocker has been involved in the development, operation and review of the records procedures over a long time. I am not satisfied that she has demonstrated that she establishes goals and objectives other than as part of the regular managerial review process undertaken in concert with her manager.
[19] In overall terms this classification criteria indicates that Level 2 is most appropriate.
Specific Responsibilities
[20] I have considered the Records Officer responsibilities on the basis that this is an administrative position. In terms of the Level 2 descriptors, it involves task of a sensitive nature and the provision of more than routine information. In terms of the Level 3 criteria, it is clear that the Records Officer position involves a discrete function which is not specifically articulated in the examples of Level 3 functions but I agree with the ASU that the descriptors in this instance appear outdated. As a consequence, I have not placed a great deal of weight on this particular criteria.
Skills, Knowledge, Experience, Qualifications and/or Training Levels
[21] The Records Officer duties undertaken by Ms Crocker clearly meet the criteria specified for Level 2. I have considered whether these functions meet the Level 3 criteria and consider that this is generally the case with the exception that I am not satisfied that the qualifications and/or training levels required for the position are indicative of a Level 3 position.
Summary
[22] In overall terms, the Records Officer function undertaken by Ms Crocker is clearly a key function which involves scope for autonomy and initiative. It requires judgment and time management skills.
[23] However, in overall terms, I am not satisfied that the position involves the level of autonomy in decision-making responsibility which would align it with a Level 3 classification. Had the function involved greater autonomy in terms of the independent setting of work plans, the measurement of outcomes and greater responsibility for the determination of how work would be done, I may well have arrived at a different conclusion.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR991830>
0
0
0