"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Agilent Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
[2014] FWC 2813
•1 MAY 2014
[2014] FWC 2813 |
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, 1 MAY 2014 |
Arbitration under disputes settlement procedure of Agreement - appropriate classification of technical employees - partial resolution of the dispute by determination of Step 3 of the Competency Standards Implementation process in accordance with the National Metal and Engineering Industry Competency Standards Implementation Guide.
[1] The proceedings relate to the arbitration of a classification dispute under the Agilent Technologies Australia (M) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). This Decision follows my procedural Decision of 10 February 2014 [[2014] FWC 1005].
[2] The provisions of the Agreement in respect to disputes settlement provide at Clause 34(5) and (6) as follows:
“(5) If the discussions at the workplace level do not resolve the dispute, a party to the dispute may refer the matter to Fair Work Australia.
(6) Fair Work Australia may deal with the dispute in 2 stages:
(Stage 1) Fair Work Australia will first attempt to resolve the dispute as it considers appropriate, including mediation, conciliation, expressing an opinion or making a recommendation; and
(Stage 2) if Fair Work Australia is unable to resolve the dispute at the first stage, either party can apply to Fair Work for arbitration Fair Work Australia will:
(i) Arbitrate the dispute; and
(ii) Make a determination that is binding on the parties.
Either party has the right to appeal subject to the FWA.”
[3] The dispute in this matter is covered by a specific clause in the Agreement as follows:
“35.a Metals 2 Line Technician Classification Dispute Resolution
Competency and classification assessment of Technical Part 2 Employees
The parties recognize this has been a matter of long standing dispute and has not been resolved as intended by Clause 3.31 of the Varian Australia Enterprise Agreement 2009.
The parties have agreed to the following process of review to resolve the matter:
1. The Metals Competency framework will be utilized;
2. Nominated representatives, including the employees affected, will confirm the tasks undertaken;
3. An assessment will be undertaken by the respective nominated parties appointed representatives;
4. The process will identify the current tasks and position and review the position tasks from a historical perspective;
5. Those positions to be included in the review are Part 2 technical employees.
In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement or have not resolved the matter within the first 3 months of the operation of the Agreement, the matter will be referred to Fair Work Australia for resolution in accordance with the disputes procedure to be heard by Commissioner Roe.
Backpayment for any named employee who is reclassified as a result of the above process will be made to 1 January 2007. Employees not party to the dispute will have their back payment to 1 October 2009 per the Varian Enterprise Agreement 2009.
The parties affected by this dispute are listed in the attached Appendix 1.”
[4] Conciliation of this matter before Commissioner Ryan did not resolve the dispute.
[5] This matter has an extraordinarily long history. The matter in dispute has been the subject of specific provisions in earlier collective agreements. Clause 35.a of the Agreement acknowledges that the classification claims of some of the employees date from 1 January 2007 and that there was a provision in the 2009 collective agreement that the processes for other employees would be completed and would be operative from 1 October 2009. The stakes in this matter are high for both parties given the long period over which any entitlement to back payment of reclassification would operate in the event that the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) is successful in their case in whole or in part.
[6] The matter proceeds based upon the Statement of Agreed Facts of 21 February 2014 prepared by the parties. 1 It is not necessary to repeat all of the agreed facts. However based upon consideration of the evidence and submissions, and the Statement of Agreed Facts, I am satisfied of the following relevant matters:
● The role of the line technicians did not significantly change during the period from 2007 to 2013.
● The line technicians were progressively made redundant from February 2012 onwards.
● The Agreement and its predecessor instruments incorporated the provisions of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 (the Award) and earlier the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998. The line technicians were covered by the provisions of the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998 - Part II - Draughting, Planning and Technical Employees as incorporated into the relevant predecessor agreements.
● The dispute was first raised in 1998 and was pursued by the line technicians and the AMWU throughout the period since that time.
● The predecessor agreement, Varian Australia Enterprise Agreement 2009 (2009 Agreement), provided for a review of classifications according to the provisions of the Metal and Engineering Industry Competency Standards Implementation Guide (the Guide). Consistent with the 2009 Agreement a consultant Santo Consolino was commissioned to assist with the review in accordance with the five step process in the Guide.
● The AMWU challenged the process undertaken by Mr Consolino alleging that he had not followed the five step process in that he had failed to identify the tasks and scope of work as required by Step 2 of the process before proceeding to Step 3 which allocates units of competency to the job profile for line technicians. A steering committee was established in May 2012 to resolve the issue. The steering committee comprised Ian Curry (AMWU), David Vroland (AMWU), Ian Thompson (AMWU Delegate and line technician), Lloyd Whitford (AMWU Delegate and line technician), Peter Canavan (Ai Group), Adrian Scott (Manufacturing Manager) and Jane Hermann (Agilent Human Resources). The members of the steering committee with the exception of Mr Scott and Mr Vroland gave evidence in these proceedings. Mr Vroland was the advocate for the AMWU in these proceedings.
● The steering committee agreed that Step 3 of the process not commence until such time as the results of Step 2 were agreed. The steering committee agreed to review the work of Mr Consolino and attempt to reach agreement on the tasks and scope of work required of line technicians consistent with Step 2 of the process in the Guide.
● In May 2012 the steering committee agreed that the 5 step process in the Guide would be followed; that Mr Canavan would prepare a draft tasks list and scope of work document consistent with Step 2 of the Guide; and then the parties would attempt to reach agreement on the task and scope of work list. This process was formalised in Clause 35 of the Agreement which replaced the 2009 Agreement in August 2012. The provisions of Clause 35 essentially replicate Clause 3.31 of the 2009 Agreement.
● There are 19 employees who are subject to the dispute. They include those employees listed in Appendix A of the Agreement with the exception of Victor Sokolowski and Ricardo Ramirez. This group is to be back paid to January 2007. They also include those employees covered by the 2009 Agreement who are also to be back paid to January 2007, specifically, David Andrews, Garry Parrott, James Preston, David Fantin, Yaw Nsiah-Boadi, Nada Vujicic and Cale Hunkin. Finally there are three further employees who are to be backdated to October 2009 specifically Matthew Qinn, Jon Meester and Irvin Illarde.
● On 13 December 2012 the parties agreed upon the full list of tasks for the generic Line Technician role. This list was the full range of tasks and scope of work that line technicians had been required to perform based on a broad historical perspective. The classification result for any given individual may vary based upon the work requirements of that individual and varying classification outcomes may result. This completed Step 2 of the process in accordance with the Guide.
● Mr Canavan then prepared a draft document which aligned competency units to the tasks in accordance with Step 3 of the Guide. This was provided on 13 January 2013. The AMWU representatives of the committee agreed to review this list and respond. The AMWU provided a revised list of competency units aligned to the agreed tasks on or about 13 March 2013.
● Despite extensive discussions and conciliation the parties did not reach agreement on the outcome of Step 3, that is, the alignment of competency units to the agreed task list or job profile. The outcome of Step 3 is now to be determined by me in accordance with the procedure in the Agreement.
[7] The vocational fields are defined in Clause 3 of the Award as follows:
“vocational fields are the five vocational fields recognised within the classification structure of this award, namely, trade, technical, engineering/manufacturing, supervisor/trainer/coordinator, and professional. The fields are defined as the:
(a) trade field which includes employees who possess as a minimum qualification a trade certificate in any of the engineering streams or a Certificate IV in Engineering including Higher Engineering Trades or Special Class Trades.
(b) technical field which includes:
(i) production planning, including scheduling, work study, and estimating materials, handling systems and like work; or
(ii) technical work including inspection, quality control, supplier evaluation, laboratory, non-destructive testing, technical purchasing, and design and development work (prototypes, models, specifications) in both product and process areas and like work; or
(iii) design and draughting and like work.
(c) engineering/manufacturing field which includes employees primarily engaged in production work including production, distribution, stores and warehousing, which does not require a qualification in the trade, technical, professional or supervisory fields.
(d) supervisor/trainer/coordinator field which includes employees who are or who are mainly:
(i) responsible for the work of other employees and/or the provision of on-the-job training including coordination and/or technical guidance; or
(ii) responsible for the supervision and/or training of other supervisors or trainers; or
(iii) responsible primarily for the exercise of technical skills up to the level of their skill and competence and who are additionally involved in the supervision/training of other employees.
(e) professional field includes employees who possess an academic qualification which enables the employee to become a graduate member of the Institute of Engineers, Australia or an academic qualification in science set out in the Academic Schedule appearing in the Professional Employees Award 2010.”
[8] There is no doubt that the line technicians are employees covered by the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards in the technical field and performing technical work in particular. The relevant parts of Clause 24 of the Award are as follows:
“(b) Procedure for classifying employees covered by the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards
(i) Procedures for classifying employees under this award are set out in the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide (the Guide) distributed by Manufacturing Skills Australia “MSA” ( (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). (iii) Where the employee has a relevant qualification recognised as a minimum training requirement for the level at which the employee seeks to be classified and the employee is exercising or will be required to exercise the skills and knowledge gained from that qualification necessary for that level of work, the employee must be classified appropriately. It is up to the employer to demonstrate reasons for a qualification that is a recognised minimum training requirement not being regarded as relevant for an employee’s work. (iv) Other provisions to be followed where competency standards are being implemented in an enterprise are that:
- management and employee representatives responsible for oversighting the implementation of competency standards within an enterprise must be given access to briefing and/or training courses on the competency standards and their implementation prior to implementation; and
- such briefings and/or training courses on the competency standards and their implementation must be approved by Manufacturing Skills Australia and can be either a joint briefing delivered by the parties or by one party with the approval of other relevant parties at the enterprise or an approved course delivered by a Manufacturing Skills Australia recognised provider with the approval of the relevant parties at the enterprise, provided that this does not exclude the delivery of additional training or advice by the parties or Manufacturing Skills Australia to an enterprise.
....
(vi) Where competency requirements for a classification level are not expressed in points, the classification level of an employee is to be determined on the basis of the relative proportion of competencies in the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards held and utilised by the employee which are equivalent to the specified minimum training requirements in a classification level. Clauses 24.3(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) also apply.”
[9] “Or equivalent” is defined in Schedule B.3.1(b)(i) of the Award as follows:
“Or equivalent means:
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.”
[10] The competency requirements for the technical stream are not expressed in points. The classification level for line technicians is therefore to be determined on the basis of the relative proportion of competencies in the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards held and utilised by the employee which are equivalent to the specified minimum training requirements in a classification level. Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied that the Diploma and Advanced Diploma technical qualifications are relevant qualifications if the classification for line technicians or a line technician was being considered on the basis of qualifications in accordance with Clause 23.3(b)(iii) of the Award. However, in this decision the classification of the line technicians is not being determined on the basis of qualifications (Clause 23.3(b)(iii)) but on the basis of equivalence using the process set out in the Guide.
[11] The Ai Group argue that the line technician profile provides a potential C6 outcome whilst the AMWU argue that the line technician profile provides a potential C4 outcome.
[12] The table in Schedule B.2.1 of the Award and information in the Metals and Engineering Training Package show that progression to C5 can be achieved by comparison with 100% of the competencies required for the Diploma of Engineering - Technical, or equivalent. Where the Diploma of Engineering - Technical is used as the benchmark this will include the required core competency units for that qualification level. The appropriate proportion of the Advanced Diploma is an equivalent qualification level. It is clear from the definition at C8, C7 and C6 that progression in the technical field can be on the basis of the relevant proportion of the Diploma or the Advanced Diploma. Either can also be used as the reference point for utilising competencies and the procedure in the Guide for reclassification of technical employees.
[13] C4 can be achieved by comparison with 80% of the competencies required for the Advanced Diploma. This does not include any requirement for comparison with the Diploma core competency units as the Diploma level qualification is not required for progression to C4 only the appropriate proportion of the Advanced Diploma competencies. C3 can be achieved by comparison with 100% of the competencies required for the Advanced Diploma (which of course includes the required core competency units for the Advanced Diploma). The AMWU accepts that the line technician profile does not meet the core competency unit requirements for C3.
[14] To “objectively analyse the skills and knowledge needed to carry out the work” Step 3 of the Guide requires matching relevant competency units to the job and skill requirements identified in Step 2. The process requires the selection of those competency units “which best reflect the job and skill areas” identified in Step 2. “The objective is to arrive at a draft list of competencies which an employee would need in order to undertake the tasks identified” in Step 2. Given that the manufacture of the complex scientific measurement equipment is being moved offshore and the work of the line technicians involved in testing the equipment associated with the manufacturing process has been made redundant it was not possible to directly observe the work performed. In the circumstances the most reliable and important information to enable a decision to be made as to whether or not a particular unit of competency best reflected the job requirements was the agreed job requirements task list or job profile. The agreed job requirements list or job profile is a detailed and comprehensive document which has been carefully developed and agreed by the parties in accordance with the Guide. However, in some cases it is necessary to consider other witness evidence to better understand the nature of a particular task to assist in the selection of the unit(s) of competency which is the best fit.
[15] Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford were not experts in the competency standards although they did have necessary training and experience to understand the Guide and the implementation process. They also have the technical education and work experience to properly understand the content of the relevant competency units. Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford were assisted in making the appropriate selection of units by Mr Curry who is an expert in the competency standards and the implementation process. Mr Curry was of the view that it was not appropriate for him to select the particular units since he was not a technical expert in the line technician field of work. However, it is clear from Mr Curry’s evidence that he provided extensive assistance to Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford on the nature of the unit selection task and on particular competency units. 2
[16] Mr Canavan made a selection of the relevant units of competency which is relied upon by Agilent. Mr Canavan like Mr Curry is an expert in the competency standards and the implementation process. Mr Canavan like Mr Curry freely acknowledged that he was not a technical expert in the line technician field of work. Mr Canavan did not select the units of competency based upon direct observation of the work performed but relied upon the agreed task list or job profile and upon discussion with relevant managers.
[17] I accept the evidence of Mr Curry and Mr Canavan as expert evidence. I reject the suggestion that the evidence of Mr Curry was inconsistent and unreliable. His assertion that C4 is the appropriate classification for the role of line technician is not inconsistent with the finding of the Board of Reference of which he was a member that reclassified Mr Thompson to C5. The Board of Reference process concerned the relevance of qualifications held to the appropriate classification of three employees and had nothing to do with the appropriate classification of employees based upon competency standards.
[18] In my view the Step 3 outcome proposed by the AMWU is a proposed best fit of the units of competency to the task list developed using the task list and the job knowledge and experience of Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford assisted by the job knowledge and experience of other line technicians and the competency standards expertise of Mr Curry. The Step 3 outcome proposed by the Ai Group on behalf of Agilent is a proposed best fit of the units of competency to the task list developed using the task list and the competency standards expertise of Mr Canavan assisted by the job knowledge and experience of the relevant managers.
[19] The witnesses in the proceedings provided further evidence about the nature of the work performed by the line technicians. In some cases this was of assistance in determining which units of competency were the best fit to the agreed job requirement list. However, there were a number of shortcomings with this evidence including the following:
● Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford as line technicians could give direct evidence of what they did, however, some of the tasks (or aspects of the tasks) had not been performed by Mr Thompson or Mr Whitford for some time or not at all. In those cases Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford relied upon their observations of what other line technicians did and or their discussions with the other line technicians. Given the length of time during which this dispute played out and the redundancy process some of these observations and discussions were some time ago.
● With the exception of Mr Mattingley and Mr Ferrier the managers who gave evidence did not have direct experience in the role of line technician. Mr Mattingley did not fulfil all of the functions of a line technician during the period he worked in that role. 3 Managers of course have considerable knowledge of the work requirements of those whose work they manage however it is commonplace that work is not always performed in accordance with known and documented procedures. Managers are often unaware of situations where workers take initiative to resolve problems. The management witnesses were sometimes confused about the nature of the competency standards implementation process. Mr Ferrier was not involved in the competency standards implementation process. On occasion management witnesses incorrectly referred to the process as constructing a qualification, or incorrectly identified certain competency units as only relevant to those with professional engineering qualifications. Some of the management evidence was based upon their rejection of elements of the agreed job profile.
[20] In my view little purpose would be served by my reciting all the details of the evidence in these proceedings. The parties made an agreement that I should determine this dispute presumably partly because of my previous role in the development of the Guide, the competency standards implementation process and the national training system. In making my decision I have carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions before me. However, before turning to the particular competency units selected there are some other general observations which may be of assistance.
[21] The Ai Group submitted that the AMWU, in its submissions and evidence, failed to adequately address the applicability of the alternative units of competency selected by the Ai Group. I agree with the Ai Group that the process for selection of the best fit units of competency is a comparative one and is not absolute. In other words it is necessary to “select the unit at the right level of complexity for the job” (Guide Page 62). In particular skill areas there are units of competency available at varying levels of complexity and responsibility. There is a hierarchy of terms which are commonly utilised in the competency units to reflect this. The terms “manage” and “evaluate” for example will be utilised in higher level units. However, it is clear that Mr Whitford and Mr Thompson with the assistance of Mr Curry carefully considered the appropriate units which were best fit. In doing so they necessarily considered and rejected the Ai Group selection of units as best fit even if they did not state this explicitly in particular documents.
[22] It is necessary in considering whether or not to select a unit of competency to consider the unit as a whole including its unit descriptor, its elements, its performance criteria, and its range statement. The Guide also specifically notes the relevance of underlying knowledge and skills at Step 3 of the process. This is because in some cases the underpinning knowledge will give an indication of the level of complexity and judgment inherent in a unit and associated job requirements but it is not necessary that the underpinning knowledge be demonstrated at Step 3 of the process.
[23] I consider that pre-requisite units must be treated somewhat differently to other units in determining best fit at Step 3 of the process. The Guide makes it clear that if a particular unit is selected then the pre-requisite units must be selected with that unit (Guide Page 62). In considering whether a unit of competency is best fit then regard must be had to the pre-requisite units. They help define the level of complexity of the unit. If the pre-requisite units have no relevance to the job then the higher level unit may not be best fit. However, if the higher level unit does fit the job well but there are some elements of a pre-requisite unit which do not have direct relevance to the job then this would not rule out selection of the higher level unit together with its pre-requisites.
[24] It is important to recognise that the Guide and the classification structure of the Award provides for more than one pathway to a classification outcome. The competency units underpin the pathway to recognition in the training system through qualifications as well as the pathway to classification through recognition of the level of experience and work required to be performed. They also underpin pathways which combine qualifications and workplace recognition. The competency standards and the qualifications are designed to equip workers for industry more broadly and to give workers the capacity to transfer skills to new situations with the same employer or a new employer as industry evolves in search of greater productivity and competitiveness. Where job requirements at a particular enterprise are being matched to industry level competency units it is not likely that every element and performance criteria and all underlying knowledge and aspects of the range statement of a unit and or its pre-requisites will be required. This is why the process of utilising competency standards to classify employees through recognition of experience and work requirements is different from the process of recognition of prior learning and workplace practice for the purpose of qualifications. The former process is a matter of “best fit” whilst the later requires all of the elements and performance criteria to be met before a unit of competency can be credited. Registered Training Organisations use a variety of means to ensure that those aspects of a competency unit, including underpinning knowledge, which are not relevant to the work of a particular enterprise can be appropriately achieved and assessed.
[25] If all aspects of a lower level competency unit are met by a particular job requirement and all aspects of the particular job requirement are relevant to that unit but only a small proportion of the aspects of a higher level unit are met by that same job requirement then it is likely that the lower level unit will be “best fit”. However if there are significant aspects of a particular job requirement which are not relevant to the lower level unit and if most aspects of the higher level unit are met by the job requirements then it is likely that the higher level unit will be “best fit”. The description of the competency standards framework in Chapter 2 of the Guide covers the framework for qualifications and training and, when read in conjunction with Chapters 3 and 4, the framework for classification and other uses.
[26] The Ai Group submitted that the fundamental character of the work of the line technicians was to test and fault find components to defined and pre-determined specifications. Where design work or rectification issues arose there were defined processes to escalate these issues to others, rather than them being resolved by line technicians. The evidence of Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford was that although many procedures and processes were defined and pre-determined they were also subject to development and that line technicians were involved in such development including in design work and rectification issues.
[27] I consider that the management witnesses displayed a lack of understanding of the distinction between the technical field of work and the trade and professional fields of work. They tended to undervalue the level of skill, knowledge, autonomy and initiative in the work of the line technicians. They tended to consider many of the disputed units of competency as the province of the professional engineers. However, all of the disputed units of competency are ones that can be relevant to the technical field of work.
[28] I found Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford to be good witnesses. I am satisfied that they undertook the exercise of selecting the units of competency to match the job profile with great diligence and integrity. I am satisfied that they answered questions about their work and their unit selection honestly. Their evidence was subject to skilful but respectful cross examination and this revealed areas where the job requirements did not match aspects of the units of competency selected. Generally I found the evidence of Mr Thompson and Mr Whitford and their cross examination very useful in expanding my understanding of the job profile.
[29] My overall assessment of the evidence is that the company was consistently a leading edge manufacturing company producing and developing high technology and relatively low volume products. The company encouraged a high degree of responsibility, team work and initiative from its technical employees. Although the extent to which practices and procedures were documented and made routine changed over time I am not satisfied that all aspects of the line technicians testing and fault finding work was performed utilising documented and pre-determined specifications. In some cases line technicians were involved in design or rectification issues either directly or in conjunction with other employees.
[30] The Ai Group submit that some of the higher level responsibilities were confined to team leader or coordinator position and that leading hand/coordinators were paid an allowance. For the competency units associated with particular job functions to be absorbed into the leading hand allowance it is necessary to show that the allowance is payable for exactly the same skills and knowledge that is covered by the particular competency unit (Section 3.7 of the Guide). I will return to this matter later.
[31] It is accepted that from time to time line technicians worked in the R and D area. The Ai Group submits that this was not part of the principal function of the line technicians. They submit that the evidence of most witnesses was that the R and D technicians operated as a separate and distinct position. It was also submitted that in all cases referred to by the witnesses, except the case of Mr Thompson, line technicians received additional payment when they worked as R and D technicians.
[32] I am satisfied that the parties determined the job profile for line technicians in accordance with the Guide. Section 3.2 and 3.3 of the Guide deals with the treatment of skills acquired and used and skills used occasionally. Section 4.3 and particularly the Example 2 deals with broad approach to skills areas and/or functions at Step 2. I am satisfied that all those matters which are identified in the job profile should be included for the purpose of identification of appropriate units of competency as part of Step 3. For this reason I reject those parts of the evidence for Agilent which seeks to challenge the accuracy or validity of the agreed job profile. For example, Ms Herman gave evidence that: “we subsequently learnt that there were many tasks that were not undertaken by the employees”. 4 Mr Mattingley gave evidence that: “in my view the type of work performed by the technicians does not conform to the Award’s definition”.5
[33] Reference was made to advertisements for line technicians posted in 1998 which referred to commissioning as part of the line technicians job and to the desirability of an Advanced Certificate in Electronics. 6 To the extent that the job profile refers to commissioning (regardless of whether that term is used) I accept that commissioning is part of the line technician’s role. I do not see the advertisement as a basis for adding to the agreed job profile. However, to the extent that management evidence seeks to remove any reference to commissioning, the advertisement weakens the impact of that evidence. The reference to the Advanced Certificate in Electronics adds weight to the assumption that the line technicians role is at least a middle level role in the technical field. However, it is not suggested that there is a mandatory qualification requirement for the line technician role and the dispute is about determining the classification level of the line technicians on the basis of competency standards not qualifications.
[34] Reference was made to the internal wage relativities with the assembler positions. The line technicians worked closely with the assemblers. The assembler positions have been classified in the range C12 to C10 using the Guide. I do not see any impact on the classification of assemblers arising from the outcome of the dispute about the appropriate classification of the line technicians. This is made clear by Section 3.4 to 3.7 of the Guide.
[35] Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the RPL process undertaken by Box Hill TAFE has any relevance to the assessment of the classification of the line technicians in accordance with the competency standards and the Guide.
[36] I am satisfied that the parties made the correct decision when commencing Step 3 of the process to look at the relevant competency units from the Technical Diplomas and Advanced Diplomas as the starting point. There is no doubt that the work of the line technicians is in the technical field not the production, trade or professional fields. A cursory examination of the job profile and the level of autonomy, initiative and complexity of the work demonstrates that the work of the line technician is not technical assistant work at the bottom end of the technical field (C9) nor is it at the top end of the technical field (C2b).
[37] It is quite clear that Box Hill TAFE assessed the line technicians against the requirements of the Certificate III in Engineering (Electrical Trade) and/or Certificate III in Engineering (Fabrication Trade) and/or Diploma of Project Management or Diploma of Business Administration. 7 The initial process conducted by Box Hill TAFE determined that these were the qualifications to be used in the RPL process. There was no reference to the job profile nor any detailed independent assessment of the job requirements in this initial process. I am not satisfied that there was any serious consideration of the Technical Diplomas or Advanced Diplomas from the Metal and Engineering Training Package. I am satisfied that one of the reasons why the focus was on the trades qualifications was because funding assistance was available for the RPL process against these qualifications and the employees concerned would have had to pay significant additional amounts for RPL against higher level technical qualifications. The technical expertise in the RPL process for the Certificate III in Engineering (Electrical Trade) and/or Certificate III in Engineering (Fabrication Trade) was provided by Mr Dalton and Mr Laing who are trades teachers and assessors in the electrical trade and fabrication trade respectively and they do not hold Technical Diploma or Advanced Diploma qualifications.
[38] In evaluating the evidence in respect to particular units of competency I have been assisted by the summaries and analysis of the evidence provided by the parties together with final written submissions. In evaluating whether or not a particular disputed unit of competency should be included in the profile I have taken account of the alternative units which have been included in the profile by agreement.
[39] Line Technicians are required to contribute to the investigation, design and implementation of product and/or process improvements when participating in various lean manufacturing teams. Line technicians will use their technical expertise to provide input into changes in assembly procedures, e.g. they may recommend changing the order in which components are placed in an assembly to make testing or fault finding easier at a later time. Line Technicians are also involved in the selection of appropriate tests and test equipment and the development of new test equipment. Line technicians also conduct assessments of production instrument performance issues, test equipment performance/faults, production systems/quality and prepare reports and recommendations based on those assessments.
[40] The AMWU argue that additional competency units are required to capture the skills required for these and other tasks. The AMWU focused on two particular areas: units which they argue better capture the level of technical expertise and knowledge of line technicians and units which they argue better capture the level of responsibility and involvement of line technicians in competitive systems and practices particularly workplace change.
[41] I was not satisfied that the evidence supported the inclusion of most of the additional units proposed by the AMWU particularly the additional units associated with competitive systems and practices. The role of leading hand line technicians in competitive systems and practices was the subject of some conflicting evidence but I was generally not satisfied that the additional requirements for the competitive systems units was met based upon the AMWU evidence and the cross examination of that evidence. However, I was satisfied that the alternative units of competency selected did not adequately reflect the level of application of engineering fundamentals to the technical tasks and the underpinning knowledge associated with this.
[42] My conclusions in respect to the disputed units of competency are as follows:
Competency Unit ID | Unit Title | Decision: Include unit in profile | Comment |
BSBCRT401A | Articulate, present and debate ideas | NO | Job requirements except for negotiate and debate included in MEM16006A Organise and communicate information. On balance unit not included because significant aspects not satisfied by job requirement. |
MEM14089A | Integrate mechanical fundamentals into an engineering task | NO | I was satisfied that the line technicians do utilise many of the mechanical engineering fundamentals specified in this unit in the identified tasks. I was satisfied that the management evidence significantly underplayed the skills and knowledge utilised. I also was concerned that the alternative units considered as a whole did not adequately meet the scope of the job requirements in the areas identified by the AMWU. However, on a fine balance I concluded that it was inappropriate to include this unit. |
MEM22005A | Manage engineering operations | NO | Significant aspects of the unit do not relate to job profile. |
MEM23003A | Operate and program computers and/or controllers in engineering situations | NO | Underpinning knowledge and some aspects of the unit are met. However, on balance unit is not included because significant aspects of the unit do not relate to job profile |
MEM23004A | Apply technical mathematics | YES | Many aspects of the unit relate to the job profile. I was satisfied that the management evidence significantly underplayed the skills and knowledge utilised. I also was concerned that the alternative units considered as a whole did not adequately meet the scope of the job requirements in the areas identified by the AMWU. On fine balance I concluded that it was appropriate to include this unit. |
MEM23005A | Apply statistics and probability techniques to engineering tasks | NO | Significant aspects of the unit do not relate to the job profile. |
MEM23109A | Apply engineering mechanics principles | NO | Not all aspects of the unit relate to the job profile but it would have been sufficiently applicable for this pre-requisite unit to be included if I had decided to include MEM14089 (see above). On balance it is not appropriate to include this unit. |
MEM23111A | Select electrical equipment and components for engineering applications | NO | I was satisfied that the line technicians do utilise many aspects specified in this unit in the identified tasks. However, on balance the evidence concerning the work was not strong enough to allow selection of this unit. |
MEM23112A | Investigate electrical and electronic controllers in engineering applications | NO | Significant aspects of the unit do not relate to the job profile |
MEM23123A | Evaluate manufacturing processes | NO | Alternative units of competency adequately cover the job profile. |
MEM234031A | Manage installation, commissioning or modification of machines and equipment | NO | Some elements of commissioning involved but not leadership/ management of process. Significant aspects of the unit do not relate to the job profile |
MEM234035A | Maintain and apply technical and engineering skills | NO | Unit covers skills and knowledge at Principal Technical Officer level. Not applicable to the level of work of the line technicians. |
MEM30026A | Select and test components for simple electronic switching and timing circuits | YES | Having considered all the evidence on balance I am satisfied that it is appropriate to select this unit. |
MEM30031A | Operate computer-aided design (CAD) system to produce basic drawing elements | NO but add to profile MEM09009C | MEM09009C Create 2D drawings using computer aided design system better fits the job profile and the evidence. 3D access was view only. |
MSL976003A | Evaluate and select appropriate test methods and/or procedures | NO | I was satisfied that line technicians do evaluate and select appropriate test methods. However, the level and context of this unit does not fit job profile. |
MSS403002A | Ensure process improvements are sustained | NO | Work requirement is too narrow in scope to justify selection of unit. |
MSS403010A | Facilitate change in an organisation implementing competitive systems and practices | NO | Work requirement is too narrow in scope, and level of responsibility inadequate to justify selection of unit |
MSS403021A | Facilitate a Just in Time system | NO | Significant aspects of the unit do not relate to the job profile |
MSS403040A | Facilitate and improve implementation of 5S | NO | The evidence shows that the relevance of this unit is confined to team leaders/leading hands. Evidence re leading hands role not strong enough to justify selection. MSS402040A is a better fit for the role of other line technicians in respect to 5S |
MSS403050A | Undertake process capability improvements | NO | The evidence shows that the relevance of this unit is confined to team leaders/leading hands and Mr Hunkin in particular. Evidence concerning extent unit is applicable is conflicting. On balance I was not satisfied it should be included. |
MSS403052A | Apply statistics to operational processes | NO | Unit included because of unit Undertake process capability improvements. Significant aspects of unit do not relate to job profile. |
MSS405061A | Determine and establish information collection requirements and processes | NO | Significant aspects of the unit do not relate to job profile. |
MSS405075A | Facilitate the development of a new product | NO | Level and context of the unit does not fit job profile. |
MSS407007A | Respond to a major non-conformance | NO | The evidence shows that this unit only has relevance to team leaders/leading hands and “A team” in particular. The evidence is not strong enough to establish the applicability of the unit. |
MSS407009A | Facilitate improvements in the external value stream | NO | The job profile includes reference to helping a supplier by observing the process and suggesting ways to improve quality and batch yield. The evidence concerning what Mr Hunkin was responsible for in this case was not sufficient to establish that it went beyond the scope of the alternative units selected. |
MSS407012A | Lead a problem solving process to determine and solve root cause | NO | The evidence shows that this unit only has relevance to team leaders/leading hands who are given leadership of a problem solving team. In other cases the unit MSS402080A is sufficient. On balance evidence does not establish that the unit is best fit for the job profile as it appears significant aspects of the unit do not relate to the job profile. |
[43] As is evident from the above table it is my decision that the disputed units should not be included in the profile subject to the following modifications:
● MEM09009C Create 2D drawings using computer aided design system should be added to the profile in respect to those tasks where the AMWU proposed the unit MEM30031A.
● MEM30026A Select and test components for simple electronic switching and timing circuits should be added to the profile where proposed by the AMWU.
● MEM23004A Apply technical mathematics should be added to the profile where proposed by the AMWU.
[44] I determine that Exhibit AMWU 2 shall be modified by the parties to reflect this decision and that is to be the outcome of the Step 3 process in accordance with the Guide.
[45] I am not satisfied that payments due to classification should be offset against the allowances paid to leading hands and coordinators. The Guide only allows this to occur where the allowances are for the specific extra skills and knowledge identified in the competency standards. There was no evidence before me that suggested that the allowance related to specific skills and knowledge as opposed to the additional responsibility of the role. I determine that there should be no offset of classification payments against allowances paid to leading hands and coordinators.
[46] The only unit directly associated with first aid is MEM13001 Perform Emergency First Aid. First aid allowance may be relevant in respect to this unit if the conditions in Section 3.7 of the Guide are met.
[47] I am not able to identify any units of competency in the profile, as modified by my decision, which should be discounted against higher duties payments paid when a line technician was acting as an R&D technician.
[48] Any underpayments are limited to the back pay periods as set out within Clause 35a of the Agreement and to the employees as identified.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr D Vroland appeared for the AMWU.
Mr M Moir appeared for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2014
Melbourne
February 25, 26, 27 & 28
March 5
April 7
1 Exhibit AMWU 1.
2 Exhibit AMWU 4, at paras 35 to 48.
3 PN3454.
4 Exhibit Agilent 7, at para 81.2.
5 Exhibit Agilent 8, at para 101.
6 Exhibit Agilent 7, Attachment JH 12.
7 Exhibit Agilent 2, at para 25.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR550088>
2
1
0