Mrs Colleen Finney v St Patrick's College Townsville Limited

[2015] FWC 795

[2015] FWC 795

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

Mrs Colleen Finney
v
St Patrick's College Townsville Limited
(C2014/3735)

Educational services
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 17 FEBRUARY 2015

Alleged dispute about correct classification level.

Introduction

[1] This is an application brought by Mrs Colleen Finney (the Applicant), a Science Laboratory Technician at St Patrick’s College Townsville (the College) seeking resolution of a dispute about the proper level of her position. The Applicant seeks a recommendation or arbitration of the following questions:

(a) What is the work required to be undertaken by the Applicant when employed as a laboratory technician?

(b) What is the level that best describes the work?

The History of the Dispute

[2] The dispute was subject of several conferences at the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). The dispute was not able to be resolved at these conferences. As a result, and as provided for under the Catholic Employing Authorities Single Enterprise Collective Agreement - Diocesan schools of Queensland 2012 (the Agreement), the dispute has now been dealt with by way of arbitration. 1

[3] The parties provided a considerable amount of material, much of it general in nature, and statements of opinion by the parties as to the correct classification. Both parties provided comparative position descriptions to assist answering the question before me.

[4] The parties agreed to the matter being determined on the papers.

[5] The Applicant is the sole science laboratory technician employed by the College. She has worked in that role since January 2011, initially remunerated at Level 2 under the Agreement.

[6] Subclause 8.1 of the Agreement provides for the classification of school officer positions. Schedule 9 of the Agreement states the levels and competencies of various levels, including some specific to laboratory employees, 2 and a process for reclassification.3

[7] The Applicant sought reclassification on 16 September 2013. Mrs Marcia Chock Man, the Principal, subsequently reviewed the material, and by email from the College’s Business Manager, offered to change the pay level to Level 3 with some back pay. The email in question states:

“Marcia has examined the information presented in regard to your pay level query submission.

She indicated that in your discussions, you confirmed that your duties had not changed since you were first appointed. In discussions with your head of department, however, it is clear that your level of responsibility has changed over this time.

I am attaching a Position Description for a Laboratory employee Level 3 for your information. Marcia has assessed that this level is appropriate for a laboratory employee at St Patrick’s College Townsville and meets the needs of the Science Department of the College.

The detailed information you have provided is largely a statement of duties which, when agreed to by Marcia and your HOD, will be taken into account along with your Position Description.

Given that you presented your information at the end of Term 3, 2013, Marcia is suggesting that you be back paid at Level 3, Step 1 from the commencement of Term 4, 2013.” 4

[8] It seems the Applicant neither accepted nor rejected that determination, nor pursued the invitation to settle the statement of duties with the Principal and Head of Department. Instead, she commenced steps to appeal that decision by letter of 3 December 2013.

[9] A review panel consisting of employer and employee representatives considered the application but was divided on the appropriate classification. The College representatives, Mrs Chock Man and Mr Naylor, from the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, concluded the position was unchanged from the initial appointment and should remain at Level 2. The employee representatives, Mr Spriggs and Mrs Saunders agreed the position remained largely unchanged but that it was appropriately Level 4 (and always had been) and that the Applicant should receive back pay accordingly, at least from 16 September 2013 if not from the commencement of her employment.

[10] The Applicant’s evidence is that she was at no time provided a list of duties until the College responded to her request for reclassification. The position description given to her when she first applied for the job 5 is a generic Education Queensland position statement, which she says stated the duties required of her.

[11] A specific role description was first given to her, at her request, in August 2013, leading to her request for reclassification.

[12] The Applicant argues that the duties she was required to perform were those she actually undertook and continues to undertake. She submits that:

“For 99% of the time I perform my duties independently/autonomously and at my own discretion. Consultation with the Science Coordinator is only on broad matters or financial issues.”

[13] The Applicant was given a position description by Mrs Chock Man on 7 March 2014 by way of determination arising from the review process. 6 The qualifications stated in that document are:-

Tertiary qualifications at Certificate level or equivalent qualifications relevant to the position may be required or such knowledge, qualifications and experience that are deemed by the employer as necessary to successfully carry out the duties of the position.

[14] The typical duties are listed in that document as follows:-

3.2.1 Provide science program assistance where some discretion and judgement are involved.

3.2.2 Assist in the design/demonstration of experiments under supervision of an academic staff member(s) with some discretion and judgement are involved.

3.2.3 Under direction, prepare, maintain, organize, set-up and dismantle equipment and materials for routine experiments or student projects and dispose of waste materials.

3.2.4 Peer assistance and/or guidance may be provided for other assistance in a laboratory.

3.2.5 Under direction and within existing routines, methods and procedures, prepare, maintain and dispense stock solutions, simple chemical mixtures and compounds, cultures or similar materials.

3.2.6 Other duties that may be required from time to time.

[15] These qualifications and typical duties are quoted verbatim from Level 3 in Schedule 9 of the Agreement, 7 with the addition of the other duties as required in 3.2.6. The characteristics in the position description are stated in terms either identical to, or very similar to, statements against Level 3 employees in Schedule 9.8

[16] A statement entitled Typical Duties: Laboratory Technician for the College was also exhibited by Mrs Chock Man. 9 This document is dated 28 August 2014 and signed by Mrs Van Homrigh (Science Coordinator), Mrs Elcoate (previous Science Coordinator) and Mrs Chock Man. This document also draws from, or quotes directly from Level 3 in Schedule 9 of the Agreement.

[17] Relevant material from Schedule 9 is set out in Attachment A to this decision. The differences between various levels set out in the Schedule are qualitative in character.

The Applicant’s Evidence and submissions

[18] The Applicant submits that her role is properly classified at Level 4 or 5 and that the parties agree the duties are unchanged from her commencement in the job. She seeks

(a) determination of the classification of the work since January 2011;

(b) a recommendation as to the future classification; and

(c) a recommendation on back pay.

[19] The reason that the proper classification is Level 4 or 5 is that the work undertaken by the Applicant when performing her role, when viewed against the school officer matrix of the Agreement is at Level 4 or Level 5.

[20] The Applicant provided the Commission with comparative position descriptions classified at Level 5. 10 She also submitted a lengthy table analysing what she says are her duties against the criteria in the Agreement11 and submitted by way of conclusion that the appropriate classification level is Level 4 or Level 5.

[21] She submitted that the tasks undertaken by her at Level 5, which requires self-directed application of knowledge, used independently and non-routinely included using the online software package called RiskAssess, precise formulations and knowledge of chemicals and safe handling disposal and labelling. Reference was also made to the judgement required in the choice of equipment for practicalities, complexity and knowing the outcome sought and general guidance when preparing chemicals. These duties required skills which necessitated a broad knowledge of work health and safety regulations on the use of chemicals. The position is required to initiate an update of the chemical registry.

[22] The Applicant submits that some of her tasks are properly described as Level 4. These require discretion and judgement including the designing, modification, manufacture and trial of equipment and experiments. Also at Level 4 were general time management skills when deciding choice of equipment for practical use and an understanding of the outcome sought with experiments.

[23] A number of routine tasks were described as Level 3, including making decisions on repair and replacement and a familiar understanding of scientific equipment.

[24] The Applicant attached the publication - School Science Laboratory Technician's National Standards (2013) (the Standards Document), submitting that the document describes the minimum standards for technicians serving secondary school science programs and describing a nationally consistent job specifications the various levels of science technicians.

[25] She submits that the Standards Document provides a useful single framework through which to analyse and compare the position descriptions.

[26] The Applicant submits that the Standards Document provide an appropriate benchmark for the Applicant's role. In the Standards Document it is suggested that the minimum employment level for science technician at any school is a senior science technician.

[27] The Applicant submits that the position description outlined by the College is most appropriately described as a Science Technician as defined within the Standards Document.

[28] The Applicant also submitted a number of position descriptions. A number of these positions described sole laboratory positions at a school classified at Level 5. 12

[29] The Applicant submits that these position descriptions, apply to positions classified within the Agreement, that is the same agreement that applies to the Applicant. The combination of the examples given at other schools describes the typical duties of the position and include ‘designing laboratory experiments’, ‘research, design and demonstrate experiments’, and ‘design, modified or construct minor items of equipment’ are most appropriately described as a Senior Science Technician or Science Laboratory Manager.

[30] Supporting statements were provided by Mr McCluskey, a current Teacher and former Science Coordinator at the College. He does not give an opinion of the relevant level for the Laboratory Technician position but describes the reliance placed by him and other teachers in the skills and expertise of the Applicant so that teachers may perform their duties properly.

[31] Mrs Lambert, a former Head of the Science Department at the College gave evidence that the Applicant exercised considerable judgement and discretion in performing her role.

The Respondent’s evidence and Submissions
[32] The College is a secondary girls school within the Catholic education system. It has three designated science laboratories and a student body in the order of 280. Some composite science classes are run for senior students because of small enrolments.

[33] Mrs Chock Man and other employees of the College, Mrs Elcoate and Mrs Van Homrigh provided unsworn statements.

[34] Mrs Chock Man states that the position description for the laboratory technician was determined by her and the current and previous science coordinators based on a range of relevant factors including:

(a) the number of students enrolled at the school;

(b) the number of sciences classes;

(c) the number of students enrolled in science classes;

(d) the science facilities at the school;

(e) the responsibilities of the Science Coordinator;

(f) the role and responsibilities of the Science Teachers; and

(g) the part-time, term-time nature of the position.

[35] She also asserts as follows:

14. St Pats requires the LT to perform only the substantive duties at a level no higher than a Level 3. To my knowledge, Colleen Finney has never been required to perform duties higher than Level 3.

[36] Mrs Elcoate supervised the Applicant for a time. She states that the Applicant:

... is very knowledgeable about some areas of science, such as botany and enjoys sharing her knowledge. … She is very efficient and professional in performance of her duties and very generous with her time.

[37] In her opinion, the appropriate level is Level 3, based, among other things, on the duties, a low level of discretion, and the risk assessment process employed by the College that reduces the Laboratory Technician’s discretion.

[38] Mrs Van Homrigh’s evidence is consistent, both in terms of a high regard for the Applicant and in her opinion of the appropriate level and the reasons for that opinion.

[39] The College, in submissions dated 24 April 2014, sheds no light on the position description the Applicant says was given to her in applying for her initial role. The College cannot explain the notations on the copy exhibited by the Applicant. It submits that no weight should be put on that document and that the Commission should prefer the document provided by the College to the Applicant, in particular the position description headed “School Officer – Laboratory Employee – Level 3”. 13 The College also submitted that the position description and Schedule 9 of the Agreement are the only relevant role descriptions for the position.14

[40] The College submitted that it had warned the Applicant’s representatives at the review panel meeting on 11 February 2014 of:-   

... the possibility of an outcome that should the position be reclassified as Level 4, the position may need to be made redundant… If this eventuated, the position of a Level 3 Laboratory Technician, which the College required, would be re-advertised in the future. The employee, along with other suitable candidates, would then be able to re-apply for the Level 3 position. 15

[41] In response to my directions, the College prepared an additional document said to describe the typical duties of the position. 16

[42] A document dated 7 March 2014, signed by Mrs Chock Man recites the history of the matter briefly and then states:-

It has now been decided that the Applicant’s position will be reclassified to Level 3, Step 1, and the increase shall be effective from the date of her appeal request, namely 3 December 2013. 17

[43] The document was given to the Applicant along with a position description headed “School Officer Laboratory Employee – Level 3”. 18 The document is the culmination of the review process, but does not explain the reason for the increase of remuneration from Level 2 to Level 3.

[44] The College criticises the comparative position descriptions submitted for the Applicant as not being properly comparable, citing differences between the various schools. It denies that the analysis of duties put forward for the Applicant “is an accurate description of the Applicant’s role and/or duties” and repeats its reliance on its earlier submissions and evidence.

[45] Mrs Chock Man’s evidence in her statement dated 29 August 2014 is that she carefully considered and analysed the requirements of the College and the Applicant’s asserted duties, and concluded that Level 3 was a correct assessment of the position. She says that some of the duties performed by the Applicant are more appropriately Level 2 but that on balance, given the mix of duties at Levels 2 and 3, the position is substantively Level 3. She also advances reasons why the position is not higher than Level 3, including:-

(a) there is no responsibility for staff training or supervision;

(b) there is no requirement to design and demonstrate experiments, those being teachers’ duties;

(c) the position is merely required to prepare experiments and dispose of materials;

(d) there is no requirement to demonstrate complexity or to exercise judgement or discretion. Rather, “almost all duties are performed within established routines and procedures”. 19

[46] Her statement does not press that the position has changed over time.

[47] Position descriptions were provided by the College for six positions, each at Level 3, said to be comparable to the Laboratory Technician position at the College.

[48] The College submitted that the position descriptions, said by the Applicant to be comparable, are not comparable for a variety of reasons, but in particular that they include duties not required of her, or are located in schools with different characteristics such as larger enrolments, more laboratories or more than one laboratory technician.

[49] As to the use of the Standards Document, the College denies that the document has any relevance because it is submitted that the Agreement covers the Applicant’s employment and the only relevant classifications are those in Schedule 9 of the Agreement.

[50] Additionally the Standards Document is an aspirational document not formally adopted into Queensland Catholic secondary schools. In particular that the Senior Science Technician classification is not a role within the Catholic secondary schools in accordance with the Agreement. It therefore has no basis on which to determine corresponding classifications between the Agreement and the standard document.

Consideration

Recommendation or Arbitration?

[51] The College asked 20 that a recommendation be made rather than an arbitrated decision. In final submissions, the College asserted that the Commission has no jurisdiction to make a determination and is limited at this stage to expressing an opinion or making a recommendation.

[52] Clause 2.3.7 of the Agreement is typical of Enterprise Agreement clauses that deal with settling disputes at the Commission. It provides as follows:-

2.3.7 Fair Work Australia may deal with a dispute in 2 stages:

a Fair Work Australia will first attempt to resolve the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, expressing an opinion or making a recommendation; and

b If Fair Work Australia is unable to resolve the dispute at the first stage, Fair Work Australia may then:

i Arbitrate the dispute; and

ii Make a determination that is binding on the parties. 21

[53] In final submissions the College states:

41. … the Respondent has determined that the duties required to be performed by the laboratory technician at St Patricks College are consistent with those of a Level 3 classification.

42. In doing so, the Respondent has exercised its right to determine the duties which are required to be performed by its employees.

[54] I interpret those submissions to mean that the College, while asserting its managerial discretion in determining the level of the position, is none-the-less submitting itself to the jurisdiction given to the Commission under the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and subclause 2.3.7 of the Agreement.

[55] As to whether this decision should be by way of recommendation or arbitration, where a matter has been the subject of conciliation, and in this case more than one conciliation, and the dispute was unable to be resolved at this first stage, then subclause 2.3.7(b) is enlivened. That is, the Commission may arbitrate the dispute or make a binding determination. The Commission is not limited, once the matter is not resolved to making a recommendation and it is appropriate to finalise the matter for this dispute by arbitration pursuant to subclause 2.3.7(b)( ii).

What is the appropriate classification for the position?

[56] The parties appear to differ on the question of classification in three ways. The first is the characterisation of the duties as against the levels described in the Agreement and the role if any of the Standards Document. Secondly, the specific issue of the level of discretion and judgement required of the position. The third revolves around what it means to be required to perform duties.

Characterising the duties, the Agreement and the Standards Document

[57] Both parties, correctly in my view, asserted the assessment of level of the duties should be referrable to the descriptors and characteristics stated in the Agreement. 22

[58] The parties disagree however on the role of the Standards, with the Applicant asserting that the Standards Document provides a proper basis on which to classify the position. The College disagrees, characterising the Standards Document as aspirational and not relevant as it has not been formally adopted into Queensland Catholic secondary schools. The relevant document for the purposes of assessing the classification of the Applicant is the Agreement, in particular Schedule 9.

[59] In my view the assessment of level of duties is solely by reference to the Agreement. It may be in the future that the Standards Document will become a proper basis upon which to classify the position. However that is not the case at present.

[60] As to the characterisation of the duties, an important starting point is that it is the duties required to be undertaken by the employer. It is not work done but not required, or additional work undertaken voluntarily by the employee, even if at the request of colleagues. 23

[61] It is the work that is required by the employer that is assessed. How that work is “required” is a question of fact.

[62] The position description may or may not be the correct statement of what is “required” of the employee at a point in time. This is because what is required may change while the position description stays the same, or because the position description does not, as a matter of fact, reflect what is actually “required”.

[63] It is for the College to determine what is required of their employees. That is, it is for the employer to decide the work required of its Laboratory Technician.

[64] However the College can make that decision in many ways other than through the position description. On the College’s own evidence there was no position description at all for the Applicant for some considerable time. Until a position description of what was required of her came, presumably, by some combination of oral instructions, established practice, and requests from coordinators, heads of department, and individual teachers.

[65] There is no doubt in this case that on 7 March 2014 the College produced a definitive position description, developed in the process of assessing the Applicant’s request, intentionally reflecting the duties at Level 3. 24

[66] On the evidence, the College, in providing that position description, stated the duties required of the Applicant. There can be little doubt that the position description falls squarely within Level 3: it is designed to do so, and quotes or closely paraphrases the content of Level 3.

[67] While I note the implied threat that classification to a level higher than Level 3 may result in the position being declared vacant, 25 I place no weight on that threat.

[68] However while the position description may describe what is required by the College, it is the Applicant's case that in fact her discretion and levels of responsibility are inconsistent with Level 3 and are more properly described as Level 4 or Level 5.

Level of discretion and responsibilities of the position

[69] The Applicant has provided a table of the duties she says are required of her. 26 The description allocates a level from the classification scheme to the stated duties, approximately 1/3 each at Levels 3, 4 and 5.

[70] Additionally, she submits that there are a number of positions in similar schools where sole science technicians are either classified at Levels 4 or 5 and that her responsibilities of the position are similar to other schools. This supports an appropriate classification that is the Level 4 or 5.

[71] The College submitted that the responsibilities of the position are largely routine, and when discretion or judgement is required, that it is consistent with Level 3, and not of the order or nature required for Level 4 or 5. Further, Mrs Chock Man asserts that:-

(a) The Applicant is not involved in training of other staff; 27

(b) The Applicant is not required to design or demonstrate experiments (that being required of teachers);

(c) Almost all of the Applicant’s duties are performed under established routines and procedures, meaning little or no discretion or judgement is required.

[72] While it is clear that the Applicant is an exemplary employee, demonstrating both knowledge and competence, the task of assessing the position is an objective one which depends on the requirements of the position and the tasks undertaken as part of that role.

Does the position description describe the duties actually required of the Applicant?
[73] The College’s evidence from Mrs Chock Man, Mrs Elcoate and Mrs Van Homrigh sets out specifically the role and the requirements of the College against the classification scheme.

[74] Both parties agree that an important task for a laboratory assistant is the application of the RiskAssess. Both parties made specific submissions about RiskAssess. The Applicant views the use of RiskAssess is at Level 5, whereas the College is clear that her responsibilities are not more than those expected of a Level 3. This is because of the nature of RiskAssess and the overall responsibility of the teacher for the risk assessment.

[75] In my view the Applicant’s responsibility in relation to RiskAssess is more properly at the lower end of responsibility, given the role and responsibility of a teacher in risk assessment. On that basis, in relation to this part of the work to be assessed the Applicant’s responsibilities are more likely to be categorised as Level 3 rather than Level 5.

[76] Overall, the College denies that the Applicant’s list accurately describes its requirements of her position and argues that the position descriptions issued by the College are the definitive statements. Further, Mrs Chock Man’s statement clearly positions the requirements of the College at Level 3, and not higher. Additionally I note that Mrs Elcoate who supervised the Applicant for a time, while noting her considerable knowledge in the areas of science, her generosity of her time and professionalism in performance of her duties nevertheless considered the appropriate level is Level 3 based on the low level of discretion and the risk assessment process.

[77] On the responsibilities of the position, I prefer the evidence of the College. It is clear that the Applicant is not involved in the training of staff, and the use of tools such as the risk assessment do not demand a high level of discretion or judgement.

[78] The comparative position statements provided by both parties were also instructive as to the language employed and the relativities within the classification scheme. The College submits that the position descriptions provided by the Applicant are not, in fact, comparable because:-

(a) the school context for each differs from that of the College; 28

(b) the duties required of those positions are beyond those required by the College;

(c) the required discretion and judgement are higher than that required by the College;

(d) the other positions require staff supervision.

[79] Finally, the Applicant’s submissions were that the duties and their mapping in the classification scheme do not accurately reflect the College’s requirements of the Laboratory Technician and the level of responsibility and autonomy expected.

[80] However, for reasons outlined above, I find that both the requirements of the position and the duties as undertaken are described in the position description determined by the College on 7 March 2014. It is an accurate statement of the duties required of the Applicant by the College.

[81] I answer the questions put to me by way of determination as follows:-

What is the work required to be undertaken by the Applicant when employed as a laboratory technician?

Answer: The work required to be undertaken by the Applicant is the work stated in the position description given to her on 7 March 2014.

What is the level that best describes the work?

Answer: Level 3.

Back pay

[82] As to back pay, there is evidence from both parties that the duties of the position are unchanged from the Applicant’s original appointment.

[83] The email of 23 November 2013 appears to justify Mrs Chock Man’s shift from Level 2 to Level 3 on the basis of increased responsibility over time. However the College provides no particular evidence in support of that proposition. In final submissions and Mrs Chock Man’s evidence, the College does not press the point, instead stressing that the College is entitled to determine the level of the position as a matter of managerial prerogative 29 and that the requirement of the position is for limited responsibility and autonomy.30
[84] The evidence of the Applicant is that the position remains largely unchanged over the term of her appointment, corroborated by her witnesses and supported by the statements of the review panel members.

[85] In my view, on the evidence of both parties, the duties and responsibilities remain largely as they were when the Applicant was appointed. The position’s appropriate level was Level 3 from that date and accordingly I recommend that she be paid back pay from the date of her commencement at Level 3 Step 1.

Future classification

[86] On future classification, I recommend that the parties monitor the duties actually required of the Applicant for conformity with the expectation of the position description, and note carefully whether the “other duties” requirement includes work at a higher level, and if so, the provisions in the Agreement for reclassification may be utilised accordingly.

Orders

[87] Orders will issue accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

 1   See paragraph 51 and following as to the College’s Submissions on arbitration.

 2   Table at pp. 210-211.

 3   Subclauses 8.1.2 – 8.1.3 and 9.2.

 4   Email dated 29 November 2013, Mrs Carr to the Applicant, Attachment 4 to the Application.

 5   Exhibited as Attachment 3 to the Applicant’s Submissions dated 25 July 2014 and to the Application.

 6   Exhibited to the application as Attachment 7 and to the Statement of Mrs Chock Man as MCM-5.

 7   Qualifications Matrix and table headed Laboratory Employees respectively – see Attachment A to this decision.

 8   Table headed “CHARACTERISTICS AND QUALIFICATIONS Competency of Employee” at Schedule 9 of the Agreement.

 9   Exhibit MCM-6 to Statement of Mrs Chock Man dated 29 August 2014.

 10   Applicant’s Outline of Submissions dated 31 October 2014, Attachments 2-5.

 11   Applicant’s Outline of Submissions dated 31 October 2014 Attachment 6.

 12   Applicant’s Outline of Submissions dated 31 October 2014 Attachment 2, 4 & 5

 13   Attachment 7 to the Application.

 14   Exhibit MCM-5 to Statement of Mrs Chock Man dated 29 August 2014.

 15   Exhibit MCM-1 to Statement of Mrs Chock Man dated 29 August 2014, at page 6.

 16   Exhibit MCM-6 to Statement of Mrs Chock Man dated 29 August 2014.

 17   Attachment 6 to the Application.

 18   Attachment 7 to the Application.

 19   Statement of Mrs Chock Man dated 29 August 2014 at paragraph 22.

 20   The College’s Outline of Submissions dated 12 November 2014 at paragraphs 34-35.

 21   Fair Work Australia was later renamed the Fair Work Commission: Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 (Cth).

 22   See Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Redland Shire Council[2005] AIRC 11.

 23   Compare eg QIEU v Diocesan Catholic Education Office of Rockhampton [2007] QIRComm 1, one of a series of similar decisions made by Vice President Linnane in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

 24   Attachments 6 and 7 to the Application and see “the College’s Submissions”: Attachment MCM-1 to Statement of Mrs Chock Man at page 4.

 25   See paragraph [40] above.

 26   Applicant’s Submissions dated 31 October 2014, Attachment 6.

 27   The criteria in Schedule 9 do not require training of others for any of the relevant levels: see Typical Duties/Skills.

 28   See also the factors enumerated by Mrs Chock Man at paragraph [34] above.

 29   The College’s Submissions dated 12 November 2014 at paragraphs 41-42.

 30   Statement of Mrs Chock Man at paragraphs 17-22.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, AE898833  PR560648>