Sydney Water Corporation v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia,

[2023] FWC 2594

[2023] FWC 2594

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.240 - Application to deal with a bargaining dispute

Sydney Water Corporation
v

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The-Pharmacists Division

(B2023/939)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2023

Application to deal with a bargaining dispute – Recommendation.

1. The parties have appeared before me on a number of occasions in relation to the current Enterprise Agreement negotiations. Following these negotiations, I am prepared to recommend the following outcome to the parties:

a)Wages

If the proposed package is endorsed, wages will increase by:          4% - 1.10.23  
  4% - 1.10.24
  3% - 1.7.25

The Agreement will expire 3 years after the date of approval.

b)Cost of Living Adjustment

I recommended to Sydney Water that they offer $2000 to each employee covered by the Enterprise Agreement to compensate them for the high cost of living that we are all currently experiencing. After some discussion, Sydney Water have agreed to the one-off “cost of living payment” of $2000.

I have been advised that an employee has referred to this $2,000 one-off payment as a bribe. Clearly the person who has made such a claim has no understanding of contemporary industrial relations practices. Sign on bonuses, one off payments, cost of living adjustments, call them whatever you want, are common in enterprise agreements these days. The $2,000 is not a bribe but simply a further incentive for the employees to support the Agreement.

c)Span of Hours

Sydney Water has requested an extension of the span of hours in order to meet the demands of customers and regulators. I have recommended that the ordinary hours now commence at 6am. This new spread of hours (6am – 6pm), brings the Agreement in line with any number of other Awards and Agreements, including:

·the Water Industry Award, 6am – 6pm;

·the Building and Construction General On-Site Award, 6am – 6pm;

·the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award, 6am – 6pm;

·the Ausgrid Enterprise Agreement 2021, 6am – 6pm;

·the Clerks – Private Sector Award, 7am – 7pm; and

·the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award, 6am – 8pm.

d)Allowances

If agreed, all allowances will increase by 4% from 1.10.23. No further general increase will apply for the life of the Agreement.

e)Electrical License Allowance

An Electrical License Allowance of $35.82 per week will be paid for electrical personnel who hold the Qualified Supervisors Certificate – Electrical. This allowance is to be paid for “all purposes” of the Agreement to those employees who utilise their license.

f)Engineer Registration Fee

Sydney Water has agreed to expand the criteria to allow for those employees that utilise their Engineering Degree at work to claim the $1000 on an annual basis.

g)Stand-by Allowance

Sydney Water has agreed to equalise all stand-by allowances to the highest rate for all employees.

h)Shift Allowances

Sydney Water has agreed to equalise the afternoon and night shift allowances to the highest percentage for all employees. 

1. Skills and Competency Framework

   A major point of frustration has been the outdated classification structure which has resulted in many employees being stuck at a glass ceiling, with no progression for years and even decades. The Union’s proposal to grant everyone an automatic hard pay point would have been a quick fix to the issue but would have created long term problems in relation to relativity and potentially individual job security. In my view, putting to one side the ongoing recurrent cost of such a proposition, it would be unfair to promote an employee to a grade for which they do not possess the necessary skills or competency. Such a scenario could lead to a disciplinary process down the track if an employee cannot obtain the necessary skills and cannot perform the inherent requirements of a role simply because they received a pay point increase from this exercise. Such a scenario would be unfair to that employee.

   A much better solution is the creation of a specific committee, whose members have been appropriately trained and includes full time union officials, to develop a new skills-based framework. My personal view is that this framework should encapsulate nationally accredited training to ensure that competencies obtained are portable to other employers and industries, to prevent employees being restricted to a career with Sydney Water only. However, the structure of this framework is a matter for the parties. Progression through the framework should be readily achievable and not only obtainable by an employee changing their core conditions of employment. This committee should finalise their deliberations within 18 months.

   Sydney Water has costed the Unions’ proposed salary point increase to be $7.7 million in the first year. The Unions have adopted this figure and claimed that it is only a one-off cost. Such an analysis is illogical and wrong. Every employee will continue to receive that pay point increase for the life of the Agreement, therefore, the cost of the Unions’ proposal is approximately $23 million. I am not aware of any NSW government entity which has not required quantifiable offsets for any increase above 4%.

j)Other Award Provisions

Whilst Sydney Water had previously proposed other changes to the Agreement – those issues have been withdrawn and the status quo will continue to operate for the life of the new Agreement.

Employees who are currently covered by the Agreement will have the option to stay on the Agreement if they obtain a promotion to a role of level 15 or below. The only exception to this scenario will be if the promoted employee’s roster cycle does not allow for the employee to provide appropriate supervision to employees under their control.

1. I am satisfied that the proposed Agreement is a good deal for both parties. It provides employees with a generous up-front payment to recognise the difficult economic times in which we now live. It provides for wage increases in the second and third year which are above the State Government’s policy setting. Importantly, the commitment to introduce a new classification framework, which recognises the ongoing skills and competency acquisition of employees, will provide employees with a real opportunity for salary progression into the future.

1. I recommend the Agreement to both parties.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR766973>