Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/as Australian Paper Pty Ltd

[2011] FWA 4267

[2011] FWA 4267

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/as Australian Paper Pty Ltd
(C2010/5454)

COMMISSIONER BLAIR BRISBANE, 15 JULY 2011

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES [s186(6)]

[1] This is an application under s739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), and brought to Fair Work Australia (the Tribunal) by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Union) to deal with a dispute with Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/as Australian Paper Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] Mr Bakri, with the permission of the Tribunal, appeared on behalf of the Union and Mr Farr, also with permission of the Tribunal, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

[3] The matter in question arises out of clause 10, Reserved Matters, of the Australian Paper Agreement 2010-2012 (AE878467) (the Agreement) which states as follows:

“10. Reserved Matters

The parties agree that the following claims regarding reserved matters will be referred to Fair Work Australia for arbitration under the disputes procedure in this agreement:

(a) Wages claim made by the Recovery Boiler employees arising from modification to equipment during the Pulp Mill Project.

(b) Wages claim made by the Powerhouse employees in relation to wage relativity.

The parties agree to accept the outcome of the decision of Fair Work Australia including, if necessary, variation of this agreement to reflect the decision of the FWA.”

[4] The matter referred to in subclause 10(b) of the Agreement was dealt with by way of an Order issued by the Tribunal on 31 May 2011 [PR510067], which states as follows:

“[1] The wages claim by Powerhouse employees of Australian Paper Pty Ltd in relation to wage relativity pursuant to section 10 of the Australian Paper Agreement 2010-2012 is dismissed by consent.”

[5] Therefore, the matter that is before the Tribunal, where there is no issue regarding jurisdiction as both parties concede that jurisdiction is available, is in relation subclause 10(a) of the Agreement, the wages claim by the Recovery House employees arising from modification to equipment during the Pulp Mill Project.

[6] The Union, on behalf of their member, claim a 3% wage movement for all Recovery House employees.

[7] Several conferences were held between the parties directly, and also involving the Tribunal, to try to reach a settlement regarding the claim by the Recovery House employees.

[8] Inspections occurred on 15 March 2011 at the Maryville Mill with subsequent conferences occurring after that date. The parties were, however, unable to reach a settlement. The matter was set down for arbitration in Morwell between 20 and 22 June 2011.

[9] This decision arises from the arbitration process.

The Union

[10] The Union, as part of their evidence states:

“During 2006 and 2007 the Recovery House at the Maryvale Mill was overhauled as part of the Pulp Mill Project. The Recovery House was upgraded and became a modern technologically advanced plant with major changes being made to the Evaporators, the Boilers and the Caustisizer. The upgrades have fundamentally impacted on the work performed by the Recovery House Operators. The Recovery House wages claim originates from the impacts that the Pulp Mill Project had on the work performed by the Recovery House Operators.”

[11] Evidence was provided on behalf of the Union by Mr Ray Scott (Exhibit CFMEU1), Mr Wayne Pollard (Exhibit CFMEU2) and Mr Stephen Forrest (Exhibit CFMEU3).

[12] Mr Scott, in his evidence, mainly referred to the Evaporators, indicating that until recently he had spent the vast majority of his time operating the Evaporators but recently he had been spending most of his time operating the kiln.

[13] Mr Scott states:

“The major upgrades to the plant and the impacts of those upgrades are as follows:

(a) the E4 Concentrator and E4 Finishing Concentrator: new plant that has increased production with solids output increasing from 64% to 74%;

(b) the Liquor Heaters: new plant that has improved efficiency;

(c) the Number 6 Effect: new plant that has replaced the Number 2 Effect and has increased production;

(d) the Surface Condenser: new plant that has replaced the old Surface Condenser to allow a higher volume;

(e) the 12 new Cooling towers: new plant that is required to cool the water for the new E4 Surface Condenser; and

(f) new vacuum pump: new plant that has increased production

[14] Mr Scott further states:

“The upgrades to the Evaporators have significantly changed the manner in which work is performed by Operators in the Recovery House and has resulted in a higher workload. The plant is now more difficult to run and requires a lot more monitoring and maintenance. Furthermore, significantly more time is spent by employees walking plant due to the fact that there is a lot more plant.”

[15] Mr Scottt further states:

“Due to the upgrade Operators in the Recovery House operating the Evaporators were required to undertake training to be able to use the more sophisticated and complicated technology. Documents developed by AP to assist with training Recovery House employees in relation to the Evaporators include the following documents: “Training Aid #4 Evaporators No. 6 Effect, 4th Effect Liquor Preheater and Condensate Flash Tanks”, ”Training Aid #4 Evaporators Concentrator and Finishing Concentrator”, and “Work Instruction E4 Cooling Towers Prestart Checks and Start Up.”

[16] Mr Scott states that these documents illustrate the complex nature of the Evaporators since the upgrade.

[17] Mr Pollard gave evidence in relation to dealing with the Causticizer. He states:

“Between states 2006 and 2008 I was involved in the installation of the new Causticizer plant.

The Causticizer is the plant used in the final step of the process to convert Black Liquor into White Liquor.”

[18] Mr Pollard further states:

“There have been significant changes made to the Causticizer as part of the upgrade of equipment in the Recovery House. The changes to the Causticizer are the most significant changes that have occurred to the plant during my employment with AP. The major upgrades to the plant and the impact of these upgrades are as follows:

(a) the 5 Disc Lime Mud Filer: new plant that has resulted in the increased production of lime;

(b) the Extraction Screw: new plant that has assisted in removing excess mud from the system and requires increased monitoring;

(c) the Green Liquor Cooler: new plant that has assisted in maintaining a constant temperature for the Green Liquor allowing more stable causticizing;

(d) the Cooling Tower: new plant that produces cool water for the process;

(e) the Green Liquor Slaker: new plant that has a larger capacity;

(f) the Green Liquor Heater: new plant that was installed to assist with start up process; and

(g) the Stabilisation Tank: new plant that controls the density and smooth out the flows of Green Liquor.”

[19] Mr Pollard further states:

“Recover House Operators that work with the Causticizer face a higher workload as a result of the modification to the plant. Prior to the modifications the plant was more simple to run, Operators now need to monitor plant that did not previously exist. It is now very complicated and requires a lot more training and knowledge.

[20] Mr Forrest gave evidence in relation to the Boiler in the Recovery House. He states:

“The Boilers are the plant used after the Evaporators and before the Causticizer. The Boilers conver the Black Liquor into Green Liquor that can then be treated by the Causticizer.

As part of the Mill Project there have been major changes to the Boilers which have impacted on the role performed by Recovery House Operators that are operating the Boilers. These changes to the Boiler are the most significant upgrades that have occurred to the Boiler during my employment at the Mill. The upgrades have increased the operating capacity of the boiler. The major upgrades to the plant and the impact of these upgrades are as follows:

(a) the Sootblowers: new plant that has resulted in more cleaning of the boiler;

(b) the Desuperheater: new plant that supplies steam to the new Sootblower system;

(c) the Air Distribution system: replaced old system and has resulted in more sophisticated controls;

(d) the Spray guns: new plant that has replaced the old Spray Guns;

(e) the Burners: new plant that has replaced the previous Burners and are more technologically advanced;

(f) the Liquor Heater: new plant that is required to maintain higher solids:

(g) the Precipitators: existing plant that was rebuilt to allow a higher output;

(h) the Saltcake Collection system: new plant that has replaced the previous system;

(i) the Foul Gas Burner and Collection System: new plant that enables the collection and burning of foul gases in the Recovery 6 Boiler; and

(j) the additional set of Superheaters, Valves and Piping: new plant that has provided a larger heating surface and increased output.

The role performed by Recovery House Operators that operate the Boilers face has changed due to the upgrades to the plant. The plant is now more complicated to operate, and has resulted in increased monitoring and workload. The role is now more difficult and complicated and requires more knowledge than previously.”

[21] The four classifications that the Union seeks a 3% wages outcome based on work value principles are the Evaporator Operator, the Causticizer Operator, the Boiler Operator and the Utility Operator.

The Respondent

[22] The Respondent states:

“During 2006 and 2007, the Maryvale Mill underwent and upgrade as part of the Pulp Mill Project (Upgrade). The Recovery Area and Power House were affected as part of the Upgrade.

The Respondent submits that the majority of the changes to the Recovery Area resulting from the Upgrade were of a maintenance nature.”

[23] The Respondent further states:

“For the purpose of this claim, the Applicant relies on the definition of “work value reasons” as set out in section 156(4) of the FWA Act relating to the review of the Modern Awards.

The notion of work value was more predominantly considered in relation to the Safety Net Review - Wages Decisions made under the previous legislation, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WR Act). The final and most recent Safety Net Review - Wages Decision, the Safety Net Review - Wages June 2005 attached a statement of the relevant wage fixing principles. Principle 6(a) of that statement provides the criteria for changes in the work value in terms consistent with section 156(4) of the FW Act:

(a) the nature of the work;

(b) the skill and responsibility required; or

(c) the conditions under which the work is performed.

It is accepted that these principles, together with the jurisprudence relating to principle 6 of the safety net decisions are applicable to this matter before Fair Work Australia.

The jurisprudence relating to work value establishes that the requirements under the work value principle impose a significant burden on an applicant because of the strict test requiring the applicant to demonstrate a “significant net addition to work requirements” so as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification.

Changes in work by themselves do not justify an increase in wages. This is particularly the case in a situation of a decade or more of rapid and continuing workplace changes and the universal impact this has had on employees.

In essence, the jurisprudence suggests a range of factors that are relevant to the assessment of whether or not the changes constitute the required significant net addition to work requirements as follows:

(a) Some changes reflect the evolving nature of the occupation where skills or responsibilities are lost and new ones gained without producing a net addition to work requirements;

(b) Change and the requirement to cope with it by coming to terms with new methods and new technology is an inherent and accepted characteristic of the employment;

(c) Changes do not necessarily make things more difficult or more demanding;

(d) Progressive or evolutionary change is insufficient;

(e) Changes in workload goes to the issue of manning levels and not work value.

The process to be applied by Fair Work Australia was adopted in [DP Sams decision] as follows:

“(a) The tribunal met must carefully sift through the material that has been placed before it and separate out those changes which have occurred to the nature of the work, skill and responsibility of employees or to the environment in which the employees work and which have not previously been the subject of compensation.

(b) An objective assessment then has to be made as to whether the changes that have occurred amount to such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification.

(c) The change is to be measure from the last time wages were increased on the basis of work value.

(d) An assessment is then to be made as to how that change should be measured in money terms. Such assessment will normally be based on the previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work and the nature and extent of the change in work.”

[24] In relation to the Recovery House wages claim the Respondent states:

“Changes in nature of the work

The Applicant submits that the Upgrade has resulted in Recovery House employees having to spend an increased amount of time monitoring the plant and conducting maintenance.

The Respondent submits that this submission is based on “work volume” as distinct from “work value”.

The majority of the evidence filed by the Applicant in relation to the Recovery Wages Claim points to an increase in work volume and not work value.

The Respondent submits that increased work volume goes to the issue of manning levels not work value.

The Respondent submits that there has not been a significant net addition to work requirement in the Recovery Area so as to warrant the increase in wage.

Level of skill and responsibility

The Applicant submits that the work now performed by the Recovery House employees requires a higher level of skill and that those employees have additional responsibilities.

The Respondent submits that the Applicant is blurring the distinction between the additional responsibilities and an increase in work volume.

The Recovery House employees continue to operate the same functions of the Recovery Area as was the case prior to the upgrade.

The Respondent submits that additional workload does not equate to additional responsibilities.

The Respondent submits that the skill level of the Recovery House employees was maintained with the Upgrade. Once-off training in slightly new systems or technology does not necessarily equate to achieving a higher skill level.

Conditions under which work is performed

It is submitted that there are no relevant changes to the conditions under which the work is performed to warrant a conclusion that there has been a significant net addition to the work requirements.”

[25] In support of the Respondent’s argument, they called Mr Donald Vandersteen, who is the Power Recovery Manager. Mr Vandersteen has held that position for 14 years. He has been employed by Australian Paper for approximately 35 years.

[26] The Tribunal would point out that Mr Vandersteen is responding to questions put to him by Mr Farr, on behalf of the Respondent, based upon a statement of Mr Ross Jacobs. Mr Jacobs was not able to give evidence directly as he was away and unavailable. Mr Jacobs is a former employee of Australian Paper and employee for approximately 43 years before leaving in August 2010.

[27] Mr Jacobs was Senior Project Engineer - Capital Projects and had held that role for approximately two years. Mr Jacobs was part of the project team on the Pulp Mill Project.

[28] In questioning from Mr Farr, Mr Vandersteen states at PN617 of transcript:

“Within the Recovery area there was very little of what was classified as red work, or new work.”

[29] Mr Vandersteen states at PN618 of transcript that any new equipment was only marginally different to the equipment that was already being used in the recovery house prior to the project upgrade. He states that basically, the principles were the same.

[30] Mr Vandersteen further states at PN619 of transcript that there was some extension of the skills that they had and some retraining required or new training required but essentially the work to be performed was the same.

[31] Mr Vandersteen has been Maintenance Superintendent, Project Engineer, Engineering Manager, Power Recovery Manager and involved with special projects. Currently he is the Power Recovery Manager who looks after all the utilities associated with the Mill. Those utilities include all the incoming water and treatment distribution, effluent systems, disposal of the effluence, the landfill system, the power plant where they generate their own steam and power and the Recovery Area. The Recovery Area incorporates the evaporators, the recovery boilers and the recausticizing area.

[32] In response to a question from Mr Farr regarding the lime mud disc filter, Mr Vandersteen states:

“Well I’m not an operator but certainly I think it would - it previously had two mud disc filters which were not easy to operate. I would think it is not terribly more difficult.”

[33] Mr Vandersteen agreed with Mr Jacobs’s statement that the relevant operators may have required a little extra training to operate the equipment.

[34] In regards to the boilers, Mr Vandersteen states at PN632 of transcript:

“There were some changes in the Number 6 Recovery with the burning of DNCG gases in the secondary air. There was a CNCG burner put for burning concentrated gases, which is something which was not there before so, yes, there was training associated with that, something a little bit different. But for the rest of the boiler operation the principles were pretty much the same.”

[35] In relation to the further changes that took place within the Recovery Area, Mr Vandersteen states at PN633 of transcript:

“The area that had other changes, of course, was the evaporator area. Most of the equipment that went in there was really an extension of what was already there.”

[36] In relation to the recausticizing process, Mr Vandersteen states at PN634 of transcript:

“Again, there was some new equipment that went in there but the principles were the same as what we had, equipment that was already operating.”

[37] Mr Vandersteen also states that the operators have always been well skilled.

[38] In relation to the evaporator area, Mr Vandersteen states at PN652 of transcript:

“We never had cooling towers before. We had a condenser with the cooling system all in one. So slightly different, but the principles are exactly the same. Additional concentrators, but we already had a concentrator there which the operators knew how to run, so the principles were just an extension of that. The recovery boiler, the main change, as I said, was the burning of the foul gases. Yes, we put in an additional super heater bank but that didn’t change the principle of operation of the boiler.”

[39] In relation to recausticizing, Mr Vandersteen states at PN6565 of transcript:

“I’m not an operator, but my observation is that it is not difficult - there are certainly things that people need to be diligent about and to watch in the operation of it, but is it any more difficult than when we had the drum filers, I don’t think so.”

[40] In relation to the Utility Operator, which the Tribunal notes no witness statement or evidence has been provided to substantiate a claim under the work value principle, Mr Vandersteen states at PN676 of transcript:

“My opinion is they’re probably a little bit easier today than they were then because previously he used to change the cloths on the drum filers. They’re shut down now. We only use them very occasionally. I think the area is a little bit cleaner. No, I don’t think the skills have changed. The skills haven’t changed.”

[41] In relation to the upgrade to the Recovery Area and its impact on the roles of the operators, Mr Vandersteen states at PN677 of transcript:

“The biggest change - you've got to keep in mind that the pulp mill project was basically about upgrading the capacity of the pulp mills. Prior to the project, the recovery as an area, was able to outrun the problems. So we were never under a lot of pressure. It doesn't mean we didn't have problems, but not under a lot of pressure. There was always catch up. So, yes, we just weren't under that same pressure but the capacity of the pulp mills were increased considerably as a result of the project, and that put a - directly put the recovery area under pressure. So what it's mean now is that the operators need to be a lot more diligent, they have to react a lot quicker to problems. The equipment is being run very close to its maximum capabilities, so it certainly shortened the reaction time, if you like.”

[42] In response to a question from Mr Farr concerning the terms of workload, Mr Vandersteen states at PN680 of transcript:

“I think what the operators are finding is they're going to spend a lot more time in front of the screens because they need to know what's happening at all times. They are more reluctant to go out and check around in the - outside the field. But in terms of their skills I don't think, you know, there's been a change there, but certainly I think in terms of the workloads, I think that has changed.”

[43] Mr Farr then asked at PN681 of transcript:

“You mentioned skills, what's your observations of the skills and responsibilities of the role of the operator pre the pulp mill upgrade project versus post the pulp mill upgrade project.”

[44] Mr Vandersteen responded:

“Well, certainly, in the evaporated area. I mean, there are some new things that they've had to learn: there's the addition of the, as I said, the cooling towers, which is different to what we had before, so they've had to learn that. But then the principles of evaporation, even with the additional concentrators haven't really changed. In the recovery, as I mentioned previously, there was the - now the burning of the foul gases in two different places, and there was some extra equipment associated with scrubbing and cooling of that. But, again, the principles of firing liquor haven't changed, except that we're doing it a lot harder than we did previously.

And as well in the recausticising. None of the processes changed, except that we put a few more tanks in to give us more retention time reaction on a few things, just a filter that's larger and what we call a green liquor slaker, which is pretty much identical of what was there before except it's much larger and more modern.”

[45] In cross-examination by Mr Bakri, on behalf of the Union, the following exchange occurred:

“MR BAKRI: You've provided evidence that the operators now spend more time in front of the screens to do monitors. There is a lot more monitoring required, isn't there?

MR VANDERSTEEN: That's correct

MR BAKRI: Yes. You said that - you then went onto say, in evidence, that the skills haven't changed, there's just more time on the screens. That's not exactly right, is it? If someone - that is - that represents, in one sense, an increase in workload, doesn't it, and then you'll find that having to monitor the screens more, it does?

MR VANDERSTEEN: Well, when we talk about skills, what I was talking about - I think, what they had to learn as part of the new project was an extension of the skills they had in terms of the - and, I mean, the principles of evaporation, the principles of the recovery operations or boiler operation, recaustisicing, they haven't had to learn anything differently. The principles have been the same. But has their workload increased? I think it probably has as a result of running the equipment harder.

MR BAKRI: But I put it to you that it's not just an increasing workload, it's also an increasing skills and responsibility. Now, would you agree that if someone is required to do more monitoring, that's an increase in responsibility, isn't it?

MR VANDERSTEEN: Well, if they weren't doing that monitoring they would be walking around checking their equipment so - out in the fields. It's a change of responsibility.

[46] Several times during Mr Vandersteen’s evidence he referred to the running of the Recovery Area at higher rates therefore creating possibly some pressure on the operators.

Summary

[47] In looking at the relevant principles at s156(4) of the Act, which state as follows:

“(4) Work value reasons are reasons justifying the amount that employees should be paid for doing a particular kind of work, being reasons related to any of the following:

(a) the nature of the work;

(b) the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work;

(c) the conditions under which the work is done.”

as well as the guidelines arising out of a decision of a Full Bench in [PR954938] of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which provide for the following considerations to be relevant in regard to work value principles:

• Rapidly changing technology, dramatic or unanticipated changes which result in a need for new skills and/or increased responsibility may justify a wage increase on work value grounds. But progressive or evolutionary change is insufficient.



• An increase in the skills, knowledge or other expertise required to adequately undertake the duties concerned demonstrates an increase in work value.



• The mere introduction of a statutory requirement to hold a certificate of competency does not of itself constitute a significant net addition to work requirements. It must be demonstrated that there has been some change in the work itself or in the skills and/or responsibility required. However, where additional training is required to become certified and hence to fulfil a statutory requirement a wage increase may be warranted.



• A requirement to exercise care and caution is, of itself, insufficient to warrant a work value increase. But an increase in the level of responsibility required to be exercised may warrant a wage increase on work value grounds. Such a change may be demonstrated by a requirement to work with less supervision.



• The requirement to exercise a quality control function may constitute a significant net addition to work requirements when associated with increased accountability.



• The fact that the emphasis on some aspects of the work has changed does not in itself constitute a significant net addition to work requirements.



• The introduction of a new training program or the necessity to undertake additional training is illustrative of the increased level of skill required due to the change in the nature of the work. But keeping abreast of changes and developments in any trade or profession is part of the requirements of that trade or profession and generally only some basic changes in the educational requirements can be regarded, of itself, as constituting a change in work value.



• Increased workload generally goes to the issue of manning levels not work value. But, where an increase in workload leads to increased pressure on skills and the speed with which vital decisions must be made then it may be a relevant consideration.

[48] The Tribunal should make it abundantly clear to the parties that each of the classifications that seek to be judged against the work value principles stand on their own. Simply because one classification may achieve a result out of the work value argument, it does not follow that the other classifications can then piggyback on the back of that classification that obtained any movement and expect the same outcome.

Utility Operator

[49] Despite the best efforts of the Union to argue a work value movement for the Utility Operator, no evidence or material was provided to substantiate such a claim other than assertions from the bar table. Having considered those assertions, the Tribunal rejects any argument relating to a wage movement arising out of the work value principles to the Utility Operator.

Boiler Operator

[50] Having considered the material and evidence provided by Mr Forrest in regards to the Boiler Operator, particularly under cross-examination by Mr Farr, and looking at the range of factors relevant to the assessment of whether or not the changes constitute the required significant net addition to work requirements, which are set out as follows:

(a) Some changes reflect the evolving nature of the occupation where skills or responsibilities are lost and new ones gained without producing a net addition to work requirements;

(b) Change and the requirement to cope with it by coming to terms with new methods and new technology is an inherent and accepted characteristic of the employment;

(c) Changes do not necessarily make things more difficult or more demanding;

(d) Progressive or evolutionary change is insufficient;

(e) Changes in workload goes to the issue of manning levels and not work value;

the Tribunal is satisfied that in regards to the Boiler Operator, the issue is more of an increase in the volume of work rather than increased responsibility. If one looks at subclauses (b) - (c), it states:

(b) Change and the requirement to cope with it by coming to terms with new methods and new technology is an inherent and accepted characteristic of the employment;

(c) Changes do not necessarily make things more difficult or more demanding.

[51] The Tribunal would therefore determine that in regards to the Boiler Operator, there is insufficient material when judged against the work value principles to warrant an increase in their rate of pay. Accordingly the Boiler Operator’s application is rejected, on the basis that what changes have occurred have not made things more difficult or demanding, and is in accordance with the introduction of new technology that is inherent and is a characteristic of the role.

Caustisizer

[52] Having considered the evidence provided by Mr Pollard, and the questioning-in-chief and cross-examination, particularly at PN370 - PN373 of transcript and given that the Tribunal acknowledges that there has been some additional skills, some of those identified at PN374 of transcript, again, the Tribunal is of the view, that what is argued before it is a change in work volume, not a change in work value in regards to the Caustisizer. If one looks at the range of factors relevant to the assessment, one must look at subclauses (a) - (e) which state that:

(a) Some changes reflect the evolving nature of the occupation where skills or responsibilities are lost and new ones gained without producing a net addition to work requirements;

(b) Change and the requirement to cope with it by coming to terms with new methods and new technology is an inherent and accepted characteristic of the employment;

(c) Changes do not necessarily make things more difficult or more demanding;

(d) Progressive or evolutionary change is insufficient;

(e) Changes in workload goes to the issue of manning levels and not work value.

[53] Having considered the relevant factors in determining the definition of the work value reasons as set out in section 156(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that a claim has not been made out in regards to a movement in the wages outcome in the Caustisizing area. Accordingly the claim is rejected.

Evaporators

[54] Again the Tribunal has considered the material and the witness statement provided by Mr Scott and the evidence under questioning-in-chief and cross-examination. Although there has been some additional responsibilities identified in dealing with the Evaporators, what is more important is that there appears to be an acknowledgement that any stress relating to the operating of the equipment to acceptable tolerances that includes guidelines for the pressure, the temperature that goes to the monitoring of the equipment, relate more to the increase to work volume than it does to work value. The Tribunal does acknowledge that the equipment that is being run, is being run close to its maximum capabilities and this has shortened the reaction time. This is clearly identitfied in the evidence of Mr Vandersteen and at times during the evidence of the Applicant.

[55] However the mere fact that a plant is running at near capacity because of changes to equipment simply indicates that if those changes did not occur, the plant was not running efficiently. That does not warrant an increase in any wages outcome arising from the work value principles because it simply does not fit within the work value principles. It may say that the employees in those classifications have also not worked to their fullest efficiently.

[56] Accordingly, in regards to the claim by the Evaporators for any movement arising out of work value increase, that claim is rejected by the Tribunal.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR511216>