Jeany Roelofsen v Mercy Community Services SEQ Limited

[2024] FWC 1373

[2024] FWC 1373

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

Jeany Roelofsen
v

Mercy Community Services SEQ Limited

(C2024/333)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE BRISBANE, 27 MAY 2024

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the award – classification dispute – the Applicant is correctly classified – opinion issued.

1. Ms Jeany Roelofsen (the Applicant) seeks a determination from the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) regarding her classification in the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award). The Applicant is currently paid and administered as a Level 3 and asserts that she should be paid and administered as a Level 4 as a Social and Community services employee. Mercy Community Services SEQ Limited (the Respondent) contends that the Applicant is correctly paid and administered as a level 4.

1. The Award provides for consent arbitration which the Respondent did not agree to. However, the parties sought an opinion or recommendation under clause 9.6 of the SCHADS from myself regarding the Applicant’s classification given the Applicant’s insistence. I have provided my views below to resolve the dispute.

1. The Applicant accepted a secondment as a Foster and Kinship care practitioner in May 2022 to cover for a maternity leave position and following was appointed permanently into the role. Years for Mercy Community Services SEQ Limited.  Prior to the secondment the Applicant was employed as a Youth and Family Support Worker, at classification level 3 and pay point 2. The Respondent determined that the Applicant would maintain the level as it was a same level role and was awarded a pay point 3.

1. In August 2023 the Applicant wrote to the Respondent requestion a review of her classification and requesting that she be considered for Level 4 in the Award.

1. The Applicant identified that the Award required the following under the requirements for:

•Relevant four-year degree with one year’s relevant experience;

•three-year degree with two years of relevant experience;

•associate diploma with relevant experience;

•lesser formal qualifications with substantial years of relevant experience; or

•attained through previous appointments, service and/or study. An equivalent level of expertise and experience to undertake a range of activities

1. The Applicant states that she had the equivalent amount of experience as  she has supported vulnerable people and children for 17 years in a variety of roles including 11 years as a youth worker, 5 years in disability employment services and her current role for 16 months. Furthermore, the Applicant had a Cert 3 in Community Services (Recreation) a Cert 4 in Child Youth and Family intervention. She is also currently undertaking a Bachelor of Psychology (Honours)

1. The Applicant also states the work she was undertaking was at Level 4 in the Award. The Applicant states that as a result of the incorrect classification, there have been errors in her pay.

1. The Respondent notes that one of the key duties which are integral to the role at level 4 and above are the assessment and approval of foster and kinship carer applicants. This assessment process is governed by the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld), the Child Protection Regulation 2023 (Qld), and the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

1. These assessments are critical in determining the suitability of an applicant and ensuring that the person does not pose a risk to a child’s safety and is able to meet the standards of care in the statement of standards as outlined in s.122 of the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld); and determining that the applicant is committed to relevant principles of the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld).

1. The Respondent highlights that these assessments are administrative decisions and subject to appeal in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Given the criticality of the assessments in the protection of children, the assessments need to be carried out/conducted by a suitably qualified individual which requires a 3-to-4-year degree qualification with some experience. The Respondent states the Applicant does not have the requisite qualifications.

1. As a result, the Applicant does not undertake work without supervision of a manager when performing assessments. The Respondent has confirmed with the relevant line manager that the Applicant has completed her first renewal assessment which has been under Supervision and the Applicant had not conducted any initial assessments as of October 2023.

1. I am of the view that the Applicant is correctly classified as a level 3 in the SCHADS Award given that she has not conducted any initial assessments without supervision which is a key component of the level 4 classification. I note that she is undertaking a 4-year qualification and will by the time she has completed the qualification at least one years’ experience which will fulfil the requirements for a level 4 in the structure where she may be tasked with doing initial assessments without supervision.  This dispute should be considered resolved.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR775342>