"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Agilent Technologies Australia Pty Ltd

[2015] FWC 2952

[2015] FWC 2952

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Agilent Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
(C2013/1106)

COMMISSIONER ROE MELBOURNE, 5 MAY 2015

Arbitration under disputes settlement procedure of Agreement - appropriate classification of technical employees - partial resolution of the dispute by determination of the Competency Standards Implementation process in accordance with the National Metal and Engineering Industry Competency Standards Implementation Guide.

[1] On 1 May 2014 I issued a decision finalising Step 3 of the Competency Standards Implementation process for technical employees at Agilent Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (Agilent). 1 This decision substantially resolved a very long running dispute about the employees’ classification. However, two matters remained in dispute concerning the classification outcome for the employees which flows from the earlier decision:

1. The disputed issue of whether or not an Agilent employee, without a relevant qualification at the C5 level, can be classified at C5 given that the core unit MEM30007A is not a part of the profile for line technicians.

2. There are some tasks in the profile which Agilent argue were not performed or required to be performed by particular individuals and as a consequence certain associated competencies should not be allocated to those individuals.

[2] The decision of 9 February 2015 2 resolved the first of these matters. This decision relates to the second of these matters and to a further matter concerning imported units which the parties agreed arose from the 9 February 2015 decision. I will deal first with the matter of imported units.

Units of competency from other training packages

[3] In considering whether or not there are sufficient B level units to achieve a C5 or a C4 outcome attention can be paid to “imported units”. Following a conference I advised the parties on 11 March 2015 that a consequence of the decision of 1 May 2014 is that Exhibit AMWU 2 as modified to reflect paragraphs 42 and 43 of that decision is the outcome of the step 3 process and therefore the only competency units available to individual employees are those which are contained in that outcome. The parties accepted that clarification. I noted that there was the opportunity to consider further submission about one pre-requisite unit (MEM18055) which had not been included in the step 3 outcome to date but which the AMWU argued was a necessary consequence of that decision.

[4] The MEM05 Metals and Engineering Training Package includes the following notes which are relevant to the issue of imported units:

a. The packaging rules for the Advanced Diploma Engineering qualification include the following note: “Five appropriate Group B electives may be chosen from other endorsed Training Packages and accredited courses where those units are available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma. Note that the Group A and B elective units listed below include all the MEM units that are approved for selection in this qualification. This meets the NSSC requirement that one sixth of the total units must be able to be selected from other qualifications in the same Training Package.”

b. The list of Group B specialist units for the Advanced Diploma Engineering qualification contains the following note about prerequisites: “Where a unit has prerequisites then those prerequisite units can only be used in the count towards the total number of units where they listed in the table above.”

c. The section of the Training Package which deals with Qualification Pathways contains the following:

“There is further scope for customisation of each qualification through the inclusion of units of competency drawn from other endorsed Training Packages. RTOs should exercise care to ensure that those units do not duplicate existing MEM05 units. The packaging rules for each qualification provide further information on how much of each qualification can be comprised of non-MEM05 units of competency. The selection of the units of competency applies where the non-MEM05 units are available for inclusion at the same qualification level.

NOTE:

MEM05 also contains "imported" units of competency. These units are formally introduced by MSA into MEM05 from other training packages. Imported units form part of the bank of available units in selected qualifications. They do not relate to the customisation guidelines in the preceding paragraph.” 3

[5] There are three issues in contention about imported units:

a. In respect to ICAICT508A – Evaluate vendor products and equipment and MSS402040A – Apply 5s procedures these units are in the step 3 outcome and the only question is whether or not they can be considered as contributing towards the Group B specialist units for the Advanced Diploma of Engineering. The AMWU argues that they can be regarded as part of the five Group B units which can be chosen from other endorsed Training Packages and accredited courses where those units are available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma. The question here is whether or not these units are “appropriate Group B electives” which are “available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma.”

b. There are some six MEM units which are part of the step 3 outcome and which are not listed in the Group B specialist units for the Advanced Diploma of Engineering which the AMWU argues can be regarded as part of the five Group B units which can be chosen from other endorsed Training Packages and accredited courses where those units are available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma. The only question to be considered here is whether or not the rules for the Advanced Diploma Engineering as quoted above permit these units to be chosen as Group B units. There are two elements to this: (a) does the note, “the Group A and B elective units listed below include all the MEM units that are approved for selection in this qualification”, prevent the selection of these units as Group B electives? and (b) if not are the units appropriate Group B electives which are from other endorsed Training Packages and which are available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma?

c. If the AMWU is correct in its position in respect to the ability to include additional MEM units as Group B specialist units by classifying them as imported units then is there a basis for including MEM 18055 even though it is not specifically included in the step 3 outcome?  Does the decision of 1 May 2014 which confines the step 3 outcome to Exhibit AMWU 2 as modified prevent the inclusion of this unit? If the AMWU is not successful in their argument about the ability to include additional MEM units as Group B specialist units by classifying them as imported units then MEM 18055 is irrelevant to the classification outcomes and does not need to be further considered.

[6] I am not satisfied that MEM units can be regarded as units from other endorsed Training Packages which are available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma. I am satisfied that the Group B elective units listed for the Advanced Diploma are “all the MEM units that are approved for selection in this qualification” and that the ability to import units from other training packages does not alter this. The units in question become units of the other training package once they are imported into that package however they still meet the description of being an MEM unit.

[7] I do not see this as contradicting the national training package policy or NSSC policy to which the AMWU referred. A substantial proportion of the units which are listed as available for the Advanced Diploma of Engineering are units which are found in the requirements for other qualifications in the MEM training package including the Diploma of Engineering Technical. I am not satisfied that the national training package policy prevents the training package from putting limits on the particular units or types of units from other qualifications within the same training package or another training package which can be utilised towards a particular qualification provided that one sixth of the total units can be sourced from within the host Training Package or another Training Package. It does not seem surprising that the training package developers would want to restrict the ability to use importation to dilute the requirement that a certain number of units be at a particular level of complexity or to undermine the distinctiveness or specialisation of particular qualifications. In any case the MEM Training Package has been endorsed and it is that Training Package which underpins the relevant Award and Agreement.

[8] The term “or equivalent” is defined in the Award as including:

“any training which a registered provider (e.g. TAFE), or State recognition authority recognises as equivalent to a qualification which Manufacturing Skills Australia recognises for this level, which can include advanced standing through recognition of prior learning and/or overseas qualifications; or

where competencies meet the requirements set out in the Manufacturing Skills Australia competency standards in accordance with the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide.”

[9] I am required to look at the qualifications and competency standards recognised by Manufacturing Skills Australia and in accordance with the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide. Those requirements do not allow other MEM units of competency to be imported as Group B units.

[10] As a consequence of this finding the only two imported units which can be considered are ICAICT508A – Evaluate vendor products and equipment and MSS402040A – Apply 5s procedures. It should be noted that another unit, MSS402060A, is in the step 3 outcome and is listed in the Advanced Diploma engineering as a Group B unit.

[11] The parties accept that ICAICT508A – Evaluate vendor products and equipment is an imported unit from another training package which is available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma. This unit can count as one of the Group B units for the purposes of determining appropriate classification.

[12] The AiGroup argue that although MSS402040A – Apply 5s procedures is a unit which has been imported from another Training Package it is not a unit which is appropriate for selection as a B unit and in that sense it is not available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma. The AiGroup argues this on three main grounds. Firstly, they say that the unit is not at a high enough level to be regarded as available for inclusion or appropriate for selection at Advanced Diploma. Secondly, they say that the unit effectively duplicates another MEM unit, MEM150002A - Apply quality systems (the requirement in the Training Package to avoid importing units which duplicate MEM units is found at pages 166-167 of the Training Package version R 11.1). Thirdly, they argue that the equivalent MEM unit is not a unit which is available as a Group B unit. In support of these contentions the AiGroup argues that higher level competencies in respect to 5S quality systems, Facilitate and improve implementation of 5S and Manage 5S system in an organisation are included as Group B electives for the Advanced Diploma Engineering and this suggests that the absence of inclusion of the lower level unit in the Group B list is deliberate. In my earlier decision I rejected the submission of the AMWU that Facilitate and improve implementation of 5S should be included in the profile.

[13] The AMWU argue that if the unit is available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma then it should be recognised as one of up to five imported units which can contribute to the required number of Group B units. I agree with the AMWU that a wide discretion is available in the selection of imported units for qualifications. In the current circumstance the decision about imported units is not being made for the purpose of a qualification but in considering what are the competencies which are equivalent to the relevant proportion of a qualification. This suggests that all reasonable options should be considered. However, there are two requirements in the specification “Five appropriate Group B electives may be chosen from other endorsed Training Packages and accredited courses where those units are available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma”. The unit must be available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma and it must be an “appropriate Group B elective”. I am not satisfied that the word “appropriate” is simply a reference to the unit being available for inclusion at Advanced Diploma.

[14] Although there is some overlap between the unit MEM150002A and MSS402040A I do not think that they are duplicates to the extent that it would be inappropriate to import MSS402040A into an MEM qualification. However, it is relevant that MEM150002A which has some overlap with the unit in question and is at a similar level of complexity is not available for inclusion as a Group B unit.

[15] I am satisfied that the developers of the package decided to include the management of 5S systems as a part of the Advanced Diploma of Engineering and in doing so they selected the appropriate MSS units for inclusion in the list of Group B electives. MSS402040A – Apply 5S procedures is not part of that group. This does raise a question mark as to whether the unit is appropriate for inclusion.

[16] Although the unit is able to be used in the Advanced Diploma of Electronics and Communications Engineering in the training package which is its origin, the MSS package, it is part of qualifications at AQF 2 and AQF 3 level. In the Electrotechnology training package the Unit Apply 5S procedures is found within a group headed Group A imported and common elective units. Up to 360 points can be selected from this group towards the total of 1320 points. The packaging rules require a minimum number of points from higher level units and a maximum number of points from various categories of lower level units. When a unit is imported into another training package it becomes a unit of that training package. The AMWU is correct that if the unit is in an Advanced Diploma it can be considered for importation. However, this unit has been developed by MSA and it is found in MSA training packages. The unit is found in many training packages, however, the only one where the unit is specifically listed as being available in an Advanced Diploma is the Electrotechnology Training Package. It is not found in the MSA advanced diploma qualifications. It is found in a number of MSA qualifications at the Certificate II, III and IV levels. It is not included in the mandatory higher level electives required for the Certificate IV in process manufacturing.

[17] None of these considerations by themselves means that the unit cannot be included. However, taken together they suggest that the unit is not an appropriate Group B elective. I am not satisfied that MSS402040A – Apply 5S procedures is appropriate for inclusion as an imported Group B unit.

The approach to the disputed tasks and their associated competency units.

[18] The AiGroup argue that the mere performance of the task may not be sufficient to demonstrate that the competency unit is being held and used. Of course this is correct when considering assessment for the purposes of recognition towards a qualification. The process to be adopted at Step 4 of the competency standards implementation process will vary depending upon the outcome of the consultative process at each enterprise. When using competency standards for the purpose of classification review and job and work redesign steps one, two and three of the process are generally designed to ensure that the competency units associated with particular tasks are properly identified.

[19] The Competency Standards Implementation Guide provides that a flexible approach can be agreed through the consultative process at each enterprise to implement Step 4 Skills Audit. As part of that process individual assessment of competency is only required where: “you are unable to reach agreement that the skills are actually held and are being used to the level described in the competency standards/”

[20] The assessment process required as part of a skills audit for the purposes of determining classifications under the Competency Standards Implementation Guide is therefore not the same as the assessment process required for recognition of competency by a Registered Training Organisation for the purposes of issuing qualifications. The Competency Standards Implementation Guide includes the longer term objective that industry skills recognition processes and RTO assessment processes will converge. However, it is not a requirement at this stage. There is no requirement to use the rules of evidence and other assessment requirements contained in the Training Package when determining classifications through the five step process.

[21] The parties have agreed as part of the process undertaken since my decision in May 2014 that there are a limited number of tasks in respect to a limited number of individuals where there is not agreement that the skills are actually held and are being used to the level described in the competency standards.

[22] The approach taken in the case of Agilent is similar to the examples given in the Competency Standards Implementation Guide. That is, a comprehensive linkage was made between each of the tasks performed or required to be performed by employees in the work group and the competency units. That process of linkage was the subject of the dispute which led to the Fair Work Commission determining the Step 3 outcome. This process included consideration of arguments from the parties about whether or not the performance of a particular task adequately demonstrated competency in a particular unit. This required consideration of the competency unit including its purpose, range statement, elements and performance criteria. In some cases enterprises may adopt an approach where the selection of the competency units associated with tasks at Step 3 is subject to less rigour. A consequence of the more rigorous Step 3 process adopted in the Agilent case is that the skills audit and assessment process is confined to the question of whether or not the particular individual performs or is required to perform a particular task. If the answer is in the affirmative then the competency unit(s) is allocated to that individual for the purposes of classification. If the task is being performed or is required to be performed it can reasonably be assumed that “the skills are actually held and are being used to the level described in the competency standards”. This is because the skills required to be used to perform the task were compared to the competency unit requirements at Step 3.
[23] I am satisfied that this is the approach which was adopted by the parties at Agilent.

[24] In a number of cases in my first decision I rejected the AMWU’s submission that performance of a particular task was sufficient to demonstrate competency in a particular unit and as a result that unit was not included at Step 3 of the process. What flowed from this is that the Step 4 process was essentially confined to cases where there remains a dispute about whether or not a particular task was performed or required to be performed by an individual. This includes instances where there is dispute about whether or not all aspects of the task were performed including where an example of work performed was not fully reflective of the task.

[25] In November 2014 the parties were in dispute about the extent of the assessment process required. The positions of the parties were documented at that time and were the subject of conciliation conference. The outcome of this process was the Statement and Directions of 2 December 2014 which records that:

“The parties agree that the following process will result in the finalisation of the competencies which are attributable to each of the individual line technicians as a result of the five step process and the classification outcome will flow directly from that as the conclusion of the disputed process.

1. The disputed issue of whether or not an Agilent employee, without a relevant qualification at the C5 level, can be classified at C5 given that the core unit MEM30007A is not a part of the profile for line technicians will be determined by written submissions. The parties will provide a submission by 18 December 2014 and any submission in reply by 5 January 2015. The Commissioner will endeavour to provide a decision on this matter in January 2015.

2. There are some tasks in the profile which Agilent argue were not performed or required to be performed by particular individuals and as a consequence certain associated competencies should not be allocated to those individuals. These are identified in the document provided on 24 November 2014. Agilent will confirm by 28 November 2014 if there any amendments to this document which relate to the two technicians currently classified at C9. AMWU will respond to this document with written submission and witness statements from relevant line technicians by 17 February 2015. Agilent will respond with written submission, references to the previous evidence and any additional witness statements by 3 March 2015.”

[26] I am satisfied that the skills audit process in the Agilent case is confined to the question of whether or not the disputed tasks listed in the document of 28 November 2014 were performed or required to be performed by particular individuals. In the process since 28 November 2014 the AMWU and Agilent have decided not to press some points of difference in the document of 28 November 2014. The revised list of the disputed tasks and associated competency units is agreed between the parties and is Annexure 1 to this decision. If I am satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to allocate the disputed task to an individual then as a consequence the associated competency will be allocated to that individual.

[27] In assessing the evidence about the performance of a particular task there is a significant practical difficulty in this case. The dispute has taken so long to resolve that much of the evidence is old and the participants are no longer performing the work and have not being doing so for some time. If this had not been the case then inspection and other forms of evidence gathering might have been adopted. It would be unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances of this case to exclude evidence even though it is old, lacks collaboration, and in some cases is hearsay. I also took the approach that opinion evidence which was not subject to cross examination was not taken to be accepted and is able to be evaluated.

The particular disputed tasks - approach

[28] Annexure 1 shows that there are two units of competency one or both of which Agilent argues are not applicable to certain individuals because Agilent argues particular associated tasks were not performed or required to be performed by particular individuals. The evidence will determine whether or not certain individuals performed or were required to perform the disputed tasks. Agilent argues that some of the evidence should be disregarded because:

a. It relates to the performance of work outside of the dispute period which is says is 2007-2013.

b. The evidence is weak in that the examples are not corroborated or backed by documentary evidence or sufficient detail, do not relate to the task, were not performed when appointed as a line technician, are an isolated example, or do not fully demonstrate the active involvement in the performance of the task.

c. The example tasks relate only to the application of part of the unit of competency and do not meet the rules of evidence set out in the Training Package.

[29] I dealt with objection (c) earlier. I accept that the matters raised in objection (b) are relevant considerations. Before considering the evidence in respect to particular tasks and individuals I will consider objection (a).

[30] The agreed statement of facts provided at the start of these proceedings indicates that the dispute about classification goes back to the 1990’s. The parties reached an agreement to resolve the dispute utilising the competency standards and to backdate the outcomes in some cases to 2007. At some earlier stages of the classification dispute the focus was on the qualifications held by technical employees.

[31] The Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 and its predecessors provided as follows:

“24.3(b)(ii) Where there is agreement to implement the competency standards at the enterprise, or in the event that the classification of an employee is called into question, the issue is to be settled by the application of competency standards in accordance with clause 24.3(b) and the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide or by reference to the minimum training requirement in the relevant classification definition, except as provided in clause 24.3(b)(iii).”

[32] The various enterprise agreements adopted the Award approach. I am satisfied that the classification of technical employees was called into question prior to 2007 and that the parties agreed to implement the competency standards in respect to technicians from 2007.

[33] I am satisfied that if an employee performed or was required to perform a task listed in the profile whilst engaged as a technician in 2007, or subsequently, it should be utilised for the purposes of classification. The parties did not reach agreement as part of the competency standards implementation process to use the mixed functions clause and therefore skills used occasionally are to be included for the purpose of classification.

[34] Given the long history of the dispute I have regard to evidence of tasks performed prior to 2007. However, where the evidence of performance of a task is the statement in evidence of the individual concerned and it relates to work performed prior to 2007, I am not inclined to rely upon this evidence unless it is reinforced by other documentation or other evidence for the following reasons:

● There are some doubts about the reliability of the evidence and the ability for it to be fairly tested.
● It is more difficult to establish that management required the work to be performed.
● The absence of further examples of the requirement to perform the task in the many subsequent years raises doubt about whether the performance of the task was a requirement of the job.

The particular disputed tasks

[35] I have considered the evidence and the submissions concerning the evidence and reach the following conclusions.

MEM 15011B Exercise External Quality Assurance

[36] Chris Kourtidis and Yaw Nsaih-Boadi gave examples to support the task “Liaise with vendors” and Mr Nsaih-Boadi gave example of the task “calibration”.

[37] The calibration task requires the identification of the most capable calibration laboratory. Mr Nsaih-Boadi did not identify or select the most capable calibration laboratory.

[38] The task liaise with vendors requires direct work with the external vendors with the objective of assisting them to produce goods which meet standards. I am satisfied that Mr Nsaih-Boadi’s contacts were internal not external.

[39] Mr Kourtidis undertook the task liaise with vendors when he was engaged as an R&D technician not as a line technician. In my earlier decision I accepted evidence which related to situations where a line technician was working in the R&D area, however, Steps 1, 2 and 3 of the process have related to the work of the line technicians and it is their classification which is being determined. There is an important distinction between a line technician working in the R&D area and a person who is engaged as an R&D technician. The R&D technicians are not part of the agreed work group and profile.

[40] The unit MEM 15011B is not allocated to Chris Kourtidis or Yaw Nsaih-Boadi.

MSS 402060A Use Planning Software Systems in Operations.

[41] David Andrews, Nada Vujicic, Chris Kourtidis and Yaw Nsiah Boadi provided evidence that they performed the task “write, rewrite or amend assembly/test records and assembly/test instructions” and should be attributed the unit of competency. The task is described as follows:

“Systems knowledge is necessary in determining the type and sequence of actions to be undertaken to fully setup and test an instrument or subassembly and when providing fault finding advice in a work instruction.”

[42] The task requires systems knowledge in determining and writing or amending assembly/test instructions.

[43] Agilent submitted that the unit of competency requires that test instructions be updated in the software system and that the system was accessed to make changes to schedule production. Agilent submits that the task requires that the person actually update the systems, that is make the changes using the planning software. For the reasons discussed earlier I am satisfied that the skills audit in the circumstances of this case is by reference to the task and not the considerations raised by Agilent.

[44] Mr Mattingley was not consistently the direct supervisor of the technicians at the time of the examples given.

[45] The example of the task given by Nada Vujicic is an isolated example from before 2005 and involves the production of her own notes of instructions to test CCD chips for optics. The evidence is not sufficient to determine if it involved systems knowledge. The unit is not allocated to Nada Vujicic.

[46] The examples given by David Andrews relate to Cary 1/3, Cary 4/5 and Eclipse testing calculation and xenon lamp assembly. The first example was more than a decade ago, the date of the second example is probably 2006-2007 and the third example occurred in 2009-10. David Andrews made the changes to the work instructions but the changes were entered into the system by someone else. I am not satisfied that the evidence of Mr Mattingley undermines the evidence of Mr Andrews. Mr Andrews gave evidence that he rewrote assembly instructions and that these revised instructions were utilised. I am satisfied that this required systems knowledge.

[47] I am satisfied that MSS 402060A Use Planning Software Systems in Operations should be allocated to Mr Andrews.

[48] The examples given by Mr Kourtidis relate to amendments to the test procedure for the ICPMS Quad Controller including of a sub-assembly unit and unofficial amendments to the testing procedure for the Cary UV-Vis Photo Spectrometer. The first example related to the period 2005-2006. I am not satisfied that the evidence of Mr Mattingley undermines the evidence of Mr Kourtidis. The unofficial amendments were only utilised by Mr Kourtidis himself to perform the testing procedure of the instrument. Mr Kourtidis gave evidence that he was following a program and I am satisfied that the work required systems knowledge.

[49] Given that the first example is from before 2007 and the second example is of “unofficial” amendments which were only utilised by Mr Kourtidis the evidence is not particularly strong. However, in the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that it is sufficient to determine that MSS 402060A Use Planning Software Systems in Operations should be allocated to Mr Kourtidis.

[50] Mr Nsaih-Boadi gave three examples of work related to the task concerning writing test instructions. Mr Scott was unaware of the activities being performed but I am not satisfied that his evidence undermines that of Mr Nsaih-Boadi. Mr Nsaih-Boadi used the program Work Instructions Viewer to write work instructions and did not directly update the planning software system. I am satisfied that the work required systems knowledge and that Mr Nasaih-Boadi performed the task “write, rewrite or amend assembly/test records and assembly/test instructions” on a number of occasions.

[51] Mr Nsaih-Boadi also claims the unit on the basis of his performance of the task “product introductions: work with R&D to bring new products from prototype to prediction to full production eg integrated HPLC.” He gives an example related to testing of new CCD and poly-chromatids performance for the 700 series of ICP. Agilent submits that the example is an extension of production work and not bringing products from prototype to production and that it relates to testing a component only and further that it was only a small part of the broader product introduction requirement. Having considered the evidence as a whole I agree with the Agilent submission.

[52] Mr Nsaih-Boadi performed the task “write, rewrite or amend assembly/test records and assembly/test instructions” on a number of occasions and I am therefore satisfied that MSS 402060A Use Planning Software Systems in Operations should be allocated to him.

Conclusion

The agreed applications in Annexure 1 should be varied by allocating MSS 402060A Use Planning Software Systems in Operations to Mr Andrews, Mr Nsaih-Boadi and Mr Kourtidis. ICAICT508A – Evaluate vendor products and equipment is an imported unit from another training package which can count as one of the Group B units for the purposes of determining appropriate classification. These determinations in conjunction with the determinations in the earlier decisions in this matter finalise this dispute.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr D Vroland appeared for the Applicant.

Ms K Sheridan appeared for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2015

March 5, 17, 30

Melbourne

Final written submissions:

17 April 2015

ANNEXURE 1

Analysis of the Application of the Disputed Competencies to Tasks
MEM 15011B - Exercise External Quality Assurance	Agreed Application	Disputed Competencies
Tasks associated with this competency
Liaise with Vendors
Work collaboratively with vendor/supplier to help them to produce goods which meet design specification and quality expectations	Ian Thompson and Cale Hunkin	Chris Kourtidis and Yaw Nsiah Boadi
Calibration
Identify the most capable calibration lab for the equipment requiring calibration. Location, lead time, level & integrity of certification are all considered when determing the best lab for the job at hand	Cale Hunkin, Ian Thompson, Lloyd Whitford, Ian Connaughton, James Preston	Yaw Nsiah Boadi
Summary of application of MEM15011B	Cale Hunkin, Ian Thompson, Lloyd Whitford, Ian Connaughton, James Preston	Chris Kourtidis and Yaw Nsiah Boadi

MSS402060A - Use planning software systems in operations	Agreed Application	Disputed Competencies
Tasks associated with this competency
Write, Rewrite or Amend assembly/test records & assembly/test instructions
Systems knowledge is necessary in determining the type & sequence of actions to be undertakens to fully setup & test an instrument or subassembly and when providing fault finding advice in a work instruction	Ian Connoughton, Tony Ng, Alex Csendes, James Preston, Ian Thompson and Lloyd Whitford	David Andrews Nada Vujicic Yaw Nsiah Boadi Chris Kourtidis
Product Introductions
Work with R&D to bring new products from prototype to preproduction to full production e.g Integrated HPLC	Cale Hunkin
Schedule Production
Schedule manufacture of parts to meet production and spares requirements eg ICP-MS cones. In the absence of planning and customer service departments to provide guidance, all decisions regarding scheduling were made autonomously	Cale Hunkin
Manage Production
Schedule builds (instruments, spares and accessories.)
Summary of application of MSS402060A	Cale Hunkin, Ian Connoughton, Tony Ng, Alex Csendes, James Preston, Ian Thompson and Lloyd Whitford	David Andrews Nada Vujicic Yaw Nsiah Boadi Chris Kourtidis

MEM12005B  - Calibrate measuring equipment	Agreed Application	Disputed Competencies
Tasks associated with this competency
Calibration
Apply technical skills and knowledge to the performance of Calibration, Maintenance and repair of a range of calibration items e.g. multimeter, pressure gauge, torque driver etc	David Andrews, Ian Connoughton, Alex Csendes, Cale Hunkin, Chris Kourtidis, Tony Ng, Yaw Nsiah-Boadi, James Preston, Ian Thompson, Nada Vujicic and Lloyd Whitford
Use GAGEpack calibration database to maintain an accurate record of calibration activity e.g. update calibration status, record calibration results, view gauge history, setup new calibration items etc	was not reviewed as competency already allocated for above task
Summary of application of MEM12005B	David Andrews, Ian Connoughton, Alex Csendes, Cale Hunkin, Chris Kourtidis, Tony Ng, Yaw Nsiah-Boadi, James Preston, Ian Thompson, Nada Vujicic and Lloyd Whitford

 1   [2014] FWC 2813.

 2   [2015] FWC 887.

 3   MEM05 Version 11.1, at page 166-167.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR566600>