Crowhurst v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

[2014] QIRC 183

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:  James Crowhurst v State of Queensland

(Queensland Health) [2014] QIRC 183

PARTIES:	Crowhurst, James
(Applicant)
v
State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
(Respondent)
CASE NO:	HP/2013/29
PROCEEDING:	Action on industrial dispute
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2014
HEARING DATE:	9 December 2013
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Black
ORDERS :	Proposal for reclassification refused
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - ACTION ON INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Classification of position - New classification structure - Employees engaged as health practitioners - Job descriptions, roles and responsibilities evaluated against new work level statements - Appeal process unsuccessful - Evidence
CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 230
Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No 1) 2007
APPEARANCES:	Mr G. Butler for James Crowhurst, the Applicant. Mr K. Ryalls for the State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the Respondent.

Supplementary Decision

[1]     The applicant, James Crowhurst, filed a Notice of Industrial Dispute on 30 April 2012 concerning the classification of his position as Radiographer Assistant Director Cardiology MI, HP5, Metro North Health District, The Prince Charles Hospital, Queensland Health (QH). Mr Crowhurst contended that his position should have been classified at the HP6 level rather than HP5. As the dispute failed to settle at the conciliation stage, it was referred to arbitration and was subject to a hearing before the Commission on 9 December 2013.

[2]      The Commission issued an interim decision on 10 September 2014. In that decision I sought further information from the parties before issuing a final decision in the matter. Further information was sought because of a significant conflict in the evidence. The conflict arose between information provided by Mr Hamilton which was canvassed in paragraph 49 of the decision and attachment JC4 to Exhibit 2 which was part of the material provided by Mr Crowhurst.

[3]      The request for information was expressed in paragraph 54 of the decision in the following terms:

"Consequently, prior to issuing a final decision, I have determined that QH
should review the relevant organisational chart or charts and any related
information in question and inform me in writing prior to 30 September 2014
whether it accepts that the information provided by, or on behalf of, the
applicant is correct. This request relates to paragraphs 45, 48, 49, 50, and 51 of
this decision."

[4]      The request for further information arose in a context where a finding had been made that Mr Crowhurst's application could not be sustained on most of the grounds relied on, but that it might succeed if he could "successfully prosecute an argument that a classification level of HP6 was justified by the fact that all other consultants in the medical imaging area of Prince Charles Hospital were graded HP6." (Paragraph 48 of decision).

[5]      Attachment JC4 to Exhibit 2 contained a copy of a Work Unit Organisational Chart for the Medical Imaging Department of Prince Charles Hospital. The chart included five Consultant Senior positions viz Consultant Senior CT, Consultant Senior Cardiac Radiography (Mr Crowhurst), Consultant Senior MRI, Consultant Senior Ultrasound, and a Consultant Senior Nuclear Medicine. The submission was that all the positions were ultimately given a level of HP6 except for Mr Crowhurst. This submission was contrasted with Mr Hamilton's evidence that, at the end of the process, two consultant senior positions were classified HP6, but that the other consultant positions remained at the HP5 level.

[6]      It was for the purpose of resolving the apparent conflict in this evidence that I sought further information from Queensland Health. The information was provided in the following form:

Position Translation WUP WLEP WLET Appeal

Phase 1 Step 1 Step 2 Step 4 Panel

Consultant	HP5	HP6	HP6	HP5	HP5
Senior - Cardiac
Radiography

[7]      The table shows that all five positions translated to HP5 under the new structure. Subsequently, under the Work Unit Proposal (WUP), two positions were classified at HP7 and the remaining three position were classified at the HP6 level. This structure was confirmed at the WLEP stage but moderated at the WLET stage. The effect of the moderation was to reduce all positions by one grade. Hence in terms of relativities between the five consultant senior positions, both the WLEP and WLET stages elevated the Consultant Senior-MRI and the Consultant Senior-Ultrasound positions to a higher grade than that allocated to the other three consultant senior positions. Ultimately the Appeal Panel disturbed this situation by increasing the classification of the Consultant Senior-Nuclear Medicine to HP6.

[8]      In the context in which further information was sought, this table does not support Mr Crowhurst's position. In the first instance he is not the only Consultant Senior to be graded HP5. Secondly, in terms of relativities, both the WUP process and the WLET process graded Mr Crowhurst one level lower than the Consultant Senior- MRI and the Consultant Senior-Ultrasound. Finally the effect of the Appeal Panel process was to make a decision to elevate the Consultant Senior-Nuclear Science position to HP6 but to decline to similarly elevate the Consultant Senior-CT or the Consultant Senior-Cardiac Radiography (Mr Crowhurst). In the circumstances, the further information does not sustain Mr Crowhurst's claim of a serious inequity in terms of his position relative to other consultant senior positions in the medical imaging department.

[9]      Mr Crowhurst also argued that any consideration of equity should take into account the fact that he reported to both the Director of Medical Imaging and the Director of Cardiology. It followed that any relativity or consistency review should take into account both cardiology professionals and medical imaging professionals. QH however submitted that the role description relied on by Mr Crowhurst in the classification process and included in his evidence as attachment JC4 to Exhibit 2, referred only to the "Medical Imaging Department", not to the Medical Imaging Department and the Cardiac Investigations Unit. QH also drew attention to the fact that Mr Crowhurst included in his supplementary submission a chart covering the

TPCH Cardiology Program Organisation Reporting Structure 2010 – 2012. QH

challenged the relevance of this chart because it constituted new material which fell outside the request made in the 10 December 2014 decision. Further the material may not be relevant in that the reclassification process is limited to an assessment of factors prevailing in 2008.

[10]   I decline to extend my consideration in the manner sought by Mr Crowhurst. My concern in inviting supplementary submissions was to address the information relevant to the medical imaging department. It would involve a step too far, given my substantive decision, to include in my review of the appeal panel's decision, a consideration of the results of the classification process for health professionals engaged in disciplines outside of medical imaging. I acknowledge that this may have been Mr Crowhurst's intent, at least in part, when he drafted paragraph 30 of his affidavit, however the concern that I expressed at paragraph 48 of my 10 September 2014 decision was directed at consultants in the medical imaging department.

[11]   The effect of this supplementary decision, when read in conjunction with my decision dated 10 September 2010, is to decline to settle the industrial dispute by re- classifying Mr Crowhurst from HP5 to HP6.

[12] Order accordingly.

Consultant	HP5	HP7	HP7	HP6	-
Senior - MRI
Consultant	HP5	HP7	HP7	HP6	-
Senior -
Ultrasound
Consultant	HP5	HP6	HP6	HP5	HP6
Senior - Nuclear
Medicine
Consultant	HP5	HP6	HP6	HP5	HP5
Senior - CT