Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) v Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post

[2017] FWC 2413

[2017] FWC 2413

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU)
v
Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post
(C2017/825)

COMMISSIONER ROE MELBOURNE, 2 MAY 2017

Resolution of dispute in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure of the Australia Post Enterprise Agreement 2013. Dispute concerning the correct classification of certain employees in the Customer Contact Centre Melbourne.

Introduction

[1] On 21 February 2017 the dispute was the subject of conciliation conference pursuant to the disputes settlement procedure of the Australia Post Enterprise Agreement 2013 1. The parties agreed to accept and abide by a Recommendation to be issued by the Fair Work Commission(FWC) to resolve the issue of whether the position in dispute is correctly classified at Level 3 or whether it should be classified at Level 4. The parties agree that should the Recommendation be that the position be classified at Level 4 then this will operate from the date the dispute was notified, that is 30 June 2016.

[2] To provide the Fair Work Commission with necessary information to make a recommendation the following procedure was adopted:

• Australia Post will provide position descriptions and the material from the 2016 review report which relates to the appropriate classification Level to the FWC and CEPU by 28 February 2017.



• CEPU will provide any material in support of its argument that Level 4 is the appropriate Level by 21 March 2017.



• Australia Post will provide any further material in reply by 7 April 2017.



• An inspection will be held at 10am on 28 March 2017.

[3] Australia Post explained their position as follows

[4] I have considered the analysis undertaken for Australia Post which was attached to the initial submission of Australia Post.

[5] I do not consider that the title of the role means that employees in the customer contact centre cannot be at Level 4 and that Level 4 is only accessible to those who are in a separate specialist dedicated sales team. The Level 4 role definition specifically refers to “decisions in relation to specific customer contact matters” and to “use Call Centre telephone and computer technology” and to receiving and making calls.

[6] The Level above Level 4, Team Leader Customer Service Level 5, is specifically related to work in a Customer Contact Centre.

[7] I am satisfied that roles in the Customer Contact Centre can be classified at Level 4 if they meet the role definition and qualifications.

[8] The title “Business Relationship Consultant” or “Business Revenue Consultant” does not add much to the role definition apart from emphasising that it is a relatively senior role which involves a degree of leadership and guidance to others.

[9] The CEPU argues that the Technical Support Team, a group of about 16 staff within the large Customer Contact Centre, have higher Level responsibilities which justify their classification at Level 4. The position classification standards for customer contact work have seven Levels.

[10] Customer Contact Centre Level 1 is utilised for training of new staff. There are 26 employees at that Level. There are 210 employees at Level 2 and they are in a range of different functional areas. Australia Post estimates that 10 days of classroom training is required for Level 1 employees and then, when they have sufficient experience and competence, they are promoted to Level 2. There are 104 employees at Level 3. These employees require additional training when compared to those on Level 2. Level 3 employees are found in the Social Media Team, the International Voice On Line Team, Enterprise Back Office Team, International Back Office Team, Philatelic/Online Shop Team and the Technical Support Team. The Team Leaders in the Customer Contact Centre are classified at Level 6.

[11] Australia Post argues that each of the teams which are classified at Level 3 are responsible for providing customer service on a range of different products and services requiring competence in a range of different Australia Post policies, procedures and platforms. These teams, including the technical support teams are required to escalate issues of a complex nature and generally solutions are identified using templates and procedural material on line. Having observed the work and the material provided by both parties I accept this submission.

[12] The CEPU point to the fact that at one stage several years ago there were employees in the technical support team who were classified at Level 4. Australia Post explains this as follows:

“As previously explained prior to moving the Click and Send function down to Melbourne as part of the contact centre rationalisation project, it was part of a broader telephone account manager’s role who managed customer portfolios in the Sydney contact centre, and as such was classified at Level 4. Because of the uncertainty of the role and its tasks and responsibilities when it was moved to Melbourne it was initially set up as a category B (temporary) Level 4 role. The temporary nature of the position is supported by the organisation only seeking Expressions of Interest for the role at the time, refer union’s Attachment 6, instead of following the normal recruitment process for ongoing permanent roles. The account management functions were removed and the click and send functions were separated out to be part of a Level 3 role. This has been the case since the establishment of the national contact centre in 2010.”

[13] The parties agree that despite considerable overlap, the Level 2 descriptor focuses on less complex work, narrower skills, lower Level tasks and less responsibility than the Level 3 descriptor.

[14] The CEPU argue that the technical support team are:

• Multi-skilled consultants who ensure every interaction is geared towards leaving customers with a positive experience.



• Accept that the role will evolve to meet customer needs and demands – that is various platforms and services will be removed or added from time to time.



• Not just focused on servicing but also on exploiting in opportunities to deepen customer engagement and maintain client relationship.

[15] Australia Post argues that the first expectation is common for all Level 3 employees in the centre and is consistent with the requirements for Level 3. I agree. Australia Post argues that the second expectation is also shared by some of the other Level 3 employees and that appropriate training and information support is provided for new and changed platforms and services. Australia Post argue that this requirement is consistent with the requirements for Level 3. I agree that this may be the case depending upon the Level of autonomy and leadership required. Australia Post argues that good customer service and attempting to resolve issues without escalation are general requirements of customer service centre employees and that this is consistent with the requirements for Level 3. Australia Post argues that generally the members of the technical support team do not have ongoing relationships with particular customers and that their interaction is focused on single incidents or particular problems. I agree that this is the case and that, depending upon the Level of autonomy and decision making, this is consistent with the requirements for Level 3.

[16] I am not satisfied that the high Level of outbound calls as opposed to inbound calls required in the team justifies a Level 4 classification. I accept that outbound calling can be covered by the Level 3 classification and that it is a feature of some other Level 3 teams at the centre.

[17] Australia Post accepts that only a very small number of cases are escalated by the technical support team to more senior Levels. However, Australia Post say that the focus on first call resolution is required of all call centre employees regardless of Level. Australia Post argue that on line “knowledge” resources are available to assist employees and to increase standardisation in customer experience.

[18] The CEPU argues that load and go customers require some analysis of their transactions when dealing with disputed or blocked transactions. The CEPU argue that this requires some basic accounting to check total expenditure items against all credit items. Australia Post argues that this requires no more knowledge than when a person checks their own credit card statement.

[19] Australia Post also point to the fact that members of the team only have discretion to compensate up to $50 without approval from a senior manager.

[20] The CEPU point to the fact that many members of the team have achieved the Certificate IV in Customer Contact.

[21] There is some contest between the parties about the degree of initiative and decision making required by the employees.

[22] It is accepted that the members of the Technical Support Team work autonomously, work across a range of products and platforms and work on more complex customer service issues. However, Australia Post argue that this is within the scope of Level 3 and that other teams classified at Level 3 within the call centre work across a number of products and platforms, work autonomously and also work on more complex customer service issues.

[23] In the context of this case the key distinguishing factors between Level 3 and Level 4 are found in the second paragraph of the classification descriptor and relate to the issue of autonomy and leadership. The factors in the Australia Post analysis which may support a Level 4 classification are:

• The high level of autonomy with authority to make decisions. In some cases there are issues which need to be responded to which are not covered by process documents. This is handled by the more experienced members of the team. The Level 3 work relates to defined skilled operations involving known routines, methods and procedures. This contrasts with the requirement at Level 4 for a high degree of autonomy and requiring greater discretion/judgment.



• Providing leadership as a coach, mentor or senior member of staff. Australia Post concedes that some Technical Support Consultants are “potentially acting as more senior staff members”. The Level 4 worker provides leadership as a coach, mentor or senior staff member and this is not part of the Level 3 descriptor.

[24] I am satisfied that the members of the team substantially meet the other requirements for Level 4. In particular the team members: receive calls or make calls, use call centre telephone and computer technology, enter and retrieve data, work in a team and manage their own work. They provide services to customers involving a high level of product knowledge, using multiple technologies, and take responsibility for complex situations involving substantial complaints. The requirements are substantially met notwithstanding that they are probably not managing a new or existing portfolio of customers. There is of course no requirement for all indicative tasks to be performed in order to be classified at a particular level. I am not satisfied that the absence of management of a new or existing portfolio of customers is sufficient to prevent classification at Level 4. However, without the matters referred to in the preceding paragraph the overall substance of Level 4 is not met.

[25] The work described by Michelle West at the inspection relating to a privacy breach was an illustration of complex work requiring autonomy and judgment which was not fully covered by process documents.

[26] During the inspection, the CEPU pointed to the role in monitoring fraudulent credit card activity. Australia Post points to the fact that this work is only performed for a small proportion of total team time. However, I am satisfied that it is required for a sufficient period of time to be seen as part of normal duties for those employees who are required to do the work. On the inspection it appeared to me that the work in monitoring for fraudulent credit card activity required a higher degree of experience, autonomy and judgement. However, the degree of decision making is limited as possible fraud identified is then escalated.

[27] The work described by Eva Vega at the inspection relating to dangerous goods classification was an illustration of complex work requiring a higher degree of experience, autonomy and judgment and which was not fully covered by process documents.

[28] I am not satisfied that the work of the team as a whole fits the Level 4 descriptor. However, I am satisfied that highly experienced members of the team who meet the following characteristics should be classified at Level 4:

• are effectively acting as more senior staff members in providing advice to others from time to time; and



• who exercise a high degree of autonomy and judgement without the necessity for frequent escalation in resolving complex matters. Particular examples of where this is the case include where the solution is not prescribed in easily accessible “knowledge” resources. That is where knowledge is autonomously acquired. Other examples are where decision making requires significant discretion/judgment.

[29] I have established the criteria which can be utilised to determine if members of the team should be classified to Level 4. However, given my finding that only some of the team members are likely to meet the criteria some further process is required to finalise the dispute.

[30] I recommend that Australia Post should provide its proposal, together with its rationale, as to which members of the team meet the requirement set out in paragraph 28 above within fourteen days. The CEPU may respond to the Australia Post proposal within a further seven days. A conference will be convened on 26 May 2017 at 10am to finalise the matter.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr D Dwyer on behalf of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

Mr D Hope on behalf of the Respondent

Conference details:

2017

Melbourne

21 February

 1   AE402555

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR592585>