United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Country Fire Authority
[2013] FWC 5149
•30 JULY 2013
[2013] FWC 5149 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.709 - Application to FWC to have a dispute resolution process conducted (Div 5)
United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
v
Country Fire Authority
(DR2012/210)
COMMISSIONER ROE | MELBOURNE, 30 JULY 2013 |
Alleged dispute regarding the proper classification level for Fire Safety Officers pursuant to Schedule1 and Schedule 3 of the CFA Professional, Technical and Administrative Agreement 2011 (the Agreement) and - Clause 14, Grievance/Dispute Settlement Procedure of the Agreement.
[1] On 25 February 2012 the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia (UFU) notified a dispute concerning the proper classification of Fire Safety Officers (FSOs) pursuant to the CFA Professional, Technical and Administrative Agreement 2007 (the earlier Agreement). The parties agreed that because the dispute was not resolved prior to the new Agreement coming into operation the dispute should be accepted as a dispute under the new Agreement pursuant to Section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The original dispute was notified under Section 709 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The new agreement is the CFA Professional, Technical and Administrative Agreement 2011 (the Agreement). Schedule 1 sets out the table of pay rates and classification levels under the Agreement and Schedule 3 contains the level definitions and descriptors. The descriptors in Schedule 3 are Attachment A to this decision.
[2] The Country Fire Authority (CFA) as the Respondent in these proceedings participated in a conference on 27 March 2012. The parties accepted a Recommendation arising from that conference to further the internal consideration of the Fire Safety Officers’ claim prior to further proceedings at Fair Work Australia as it then was. This did not resolve the dispute and a further conference was held on 31 October 2012. The Recommendation from that conference established a process whereby the CFA would assess the claims with the benefit of the UFU submission. The parties could not agree on the process to be utilised to review the classification so the Recommendation provided for the CFA to utilise the process of its choosing without prejudice to the position of the UFU in any future proceedings under the disputes settlement process. The CFA was to complete its process within six weeks and the FSOs were to provide reasonable and necessary information requested by the CFA during the process. If the outcome was not agreed then the matter would be resolved in accordance with the conciliation and if necessary arbitration steps of the disputes settlement procedure.
[3] The Recommendation noted that “the CFA understand that the UFU would expect that any classification outcome would operate from the date the claim was made. The CFA say that was no earlier than 8 August 2012 whilst the UFU say it was no later than 27 March 2012”.
[4] On 14 December 2012 the CFA advised the UFU that they had undertaken a process in accordance with the 31 October 2012 Recommendation. They advised that a working party had been established including an external Consultant, CFA management and Fire Safety Officers. They developed a list of FSO duties which formed the basis for an updated Position Description which the CFA says reflects the requirements of the role. The UFU submission was considered in this process. An external consultant assessed the FSO role against the CFA classification descriptors from the Agreement. The CFA says that the Position Description, working party discussion and documentation review formed part of this process. The external Consultant and the CFA formed the view that the level 4 classification remained the appropriate classification.
[5] A further conference was held on 8 January 2013 and a Statement and Directions were issued on 9 January 2013. That Statement confirmed my finding that conciliation was exhausted. The Statement noted that:
“The CFA and UFU were unable to reach an agreement on the process to be utilised to determine the FSO classification claim. The Recommendation of 31 October 2012 provided that the CFA should utilise a process that it determined, subject to the points raised in the Recommendation of 31 October 2012 including the ability of the UFU to have any dispute or grievance about the outcomes determined at the conclusion of the CFA process.”
[6] Directions were issued for the arbitration of the matter. The UFU was unable to provide its material in accordance with the Directions which led to the hearing being delayed. Following the completion of the hearing of the evidence the parties requested the opportunity to provide written submissions and a further hearing date for oral submission.
[7] The disputes settlement clause of the Agreement (Clause 14) provides the following scope:
“14.2 Unless otherwise provided for in this agreement, a dispute / grievance about all matters pertaining to the employment relationship, or the NES, must be dealt with by this clause, other than termination of employment.”
[8] I am satisfied that the dispute is one which can be determined pursuant to the disputes settlement clause of the Agreement and that the necessary steps required have been completed to enable the matter to be determined by arbitration.
[9] Mr McCormack for the UFU produced a “labour of love” submission of 129 pages which was then supported by an even larger volume of attachments and the detailed witness evidence of two FSO’s Mr Sacco and Mr Brown.
[10] The CFA submission largely relied upon the integrity of the review process I outlined earlier which it had undertaken in November and December 2012. The CFA submission was supported by the witness evidence of Ms Stella, the expert who was responsible for the CFA review, and the reports which were the outcome of that process. The CFA also provided evidence from Mr Andreou, Executive Manager Community Infrastructure, who is the manager responsible for CFA work in land use planning, structural fire safety and dangerous goods. The work performed by the FSOs falls within his areas of responsibility. However, the direct line management of the FSOs is through the Managers Community Safety (MCS).
[11] I have carefully considered all of the submissions and the evidence. I have not attempted to summarise all aspects of that material in this decision.
[12] The UFU did not establish any inaccuracy in the Position Description developed through the CFA review process. I accept it as an accurate description of the duties of the FSOs. 1 I accept that in assessing the value of particular elements of the Position Description the more detailed evidence before me concerning certain aspects of the work requirements are relevant.
[13] The FSOs undertake delivery of a range of regulatory services which include approval and assessment processes to ensure that land and buildings meet the fire safety obligations of the CFA. CFA delegates to the FSOs responsibility to exercise fire authority responsibilities under various Acts and Regulations including the CFA Act, Building Act and Building Regulations, Liquor Control Reform Act, Dangerous Goods and Occupational Safety Regulations, Residential Tenancies Regulations, the Planning and Environment Act and the Subdivision Act. The FSOs in a region report to the Manager Community Safety (MCS), who has accountability for the community safety function and delivery of statutory services in the region. The nature, complexity, range and volume of service requirements will vary across regions and over time. It is expected that all incumbents will carry the necessary delegations to deliver the regulatory requirements.
[14] There are 16 permanent FSOs (one of whom is part time) and they are allocated to one of the CFAs 8 regions. They are currently classified at Level 4 under the Agreement. The UFU argues that they should be classified at Level 5. The Level 4 band has 8 pay points ranging from $68,182 - $78,139, whilst the Level 5 band has 7 pay points ranging from $82,103 - $92,311.
[15] The main Regulatory Services for which the FSOs are responsible are:
Structural Fire Safety which includes:
- Review and assessment of applications for building and occupancy permits and provide a report in accordance with the regulations.
- Monitor and inspect existing buildings, modifications and new projects to ensure construction is in accordance with fire safety requirements and provide response to applicants, building surveyors or Local Government.
- Review fire engineering reports.
- Participate in regional stakeholder meetings relating to the developments of varying complexity to ensure fire safety requirements are met.
Land Use Planning which includes:
- Review and assess land use planning applications and inspect relevant sites and provide a response to Local Government as required.
- Provide a statutory referral response to Council in relation to subdivision and other development including the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO). Different vegetation, access and topography types relate to different bushfire prevention requirements and the process includes identification of the appropriate classification of different sites. This involves assessing the Bushfire Attack Level and corresponding defendable space required on a site.
- Participation in land use planning related meetings with relevant stakeholders.
Other Regulations which includes:
- Responsibilities under the Liquor Licensing Act to inspect licensed premises in conjunction with police and report to the Liquor Licensing Commissioner.
- Inspections of caravan parks and prepare fire reports.
- Inspections of Neighbourhood Safer Places and prepare a written determination to Local Government as to whether they meet the defined criteria.
- Provide bushfire mitigation advice to property owners.
- Undertake fire safety assessments at premises that store or handle dangerous goods and provide advice to the owner occupier.
[16] The FSOs are also responsible for a range of advisory services and functions in conjunction with other CFA employees and volunteers. This includes the provision of information to communities, assisting Local Government in their strategic planning processes, participation in post incident analysis and reporting, promotion of policies and procedures, and technical input into and appearance at proceedings when there are appeals against CFA assessments. The FSOs are expected to develop relationships with stakeholders in their Region and participate in community events and forums.
[17] The FSOs are responsible to manage their own priorities and workload across this diverse range of responsibilities including achieving the mandatory timeframes which are included in the regulations.
[18] The FSO is not required to hold particular tertiary qualifications although such qualifications are regarded as an advantage. The FSO is required to have proven structural environment experience particularly in fire safety and a demonstrated high level of knowledge and experience in the application of the building and planning legislation. An understanding of emergency planning, hazardous materials and fire behaviour is required. Well developed written and verbal communication skills are required.
[19] Most of the work of the FSOs is in the areas of land use planning and structural fire safety
[20] The parties agreed with the following summary of the task before me:
“In aligning FSOs to the correct classification level based on their duties and accountabilities, the UFU states as follows:
a. The descriptors as outlined in the seven classification levels are indicative examples of the type of work value reflected at each level
b. The descriptors cannot be viewed and applied in isolation, they must be looked at holistically, read together and assessed overall to capture the work value they reflect
c. The descriptors cannot be matched to specific duties or accountabilities as not every CFA position at a given classification level will meet every relevant descriptor, and
d. Assessing the correct classification level of FOSs is not an exact science but rather a subjective process requiring the application of interpretation and judgment.” 2
[21] The parties gave some attention to the issue of whether or not the FSO role has changed so that it should be reclassified under work value principles. I can see nothing in the Agreement which restricts reclassification of a job to the circumstance of change which meets work value principles. I accept that evidence of changed circumstance and changed work requirements which add to work value may be a relevant trigger for a reclassification review and may assist in determining a changed classification. The UFU has provided some evidence in support of a finding that such change has occurred and I deal with that shortly. However, there may be circumstances where it can be established that a job has simply been wrongly classified even though it has been at a particular level for a long time.
[22] I also accept that in determining the appropriate classification it may be relevant to consider the classification of other related positions. An inference might be drawn that those positions are correctly classified and if there are impacts on important wage relativities between such positions then this may be a relevant consideration. In this respect the CFA point to the relativity between FSOs and those who may be appointed to work in a FSO team leader role. 3 Mr Sacco occupied such a role for a period of time and was classified at Level 5. The CFA argue that the team leader role has added supervisory or coordination responsibilities which distinguish it from the FSO role.
[23] It is not in contention that the most commonly performed structural fire safety duty is the assessment of applications made under the Building Regulations 2006. These assessments require the FSOs to make an expert determination on alternative solutions that have been proposed for structures that would otherwise fail to meet the Building Code of Australia performance requirements. The FSOs provide their expert determination and report on whether the proposed alternative solutions provide a satisfactory degree of fire safety and further whether any additional conditions need to be imposed on the permit to ensure such safety is guaranteed. It is the FSO who accepts or rejects the permit applications.
[24] I accept the submission of the UFU that some of these assessments involve the consideration of complex requirements and that this can require considerable judgment, discretion and subject matter expertise. 4 The minimum requirements and a number of assessment methods are set out in the codes and regulations but as Mr Sacco said, this “doesn’t tell you whether a particular alternative solution does or does not meet that performance requirement.”5
[25] I accept the CFA submission and evidence that FSOs carry out these duties within the confines of prescriptive statutory criteria and CFA guidance material. I accept that they have access to support from CFA Headquarters should they require it. I accept that it is the minority of cases where the FSO is required to search for complex solutions. 6 However, the work value of the FSOs job is best determined by reference to the requirements for the more complex cases which although they are a minority of cases are not rare.
[26] In respect to land use planning, managing the risk of bushfire attack requires considerable knowledge of fire behaviour and may require the FSO to use alternative methods of assessment which vary from the normal assessment method. The task involves considerable responsibility and discretion. 7
[27] In undertaking their tasks in land use planning and structural fire safety the FSO is informed by extensive guidance material provided by the CFA. 8 The FSOs also assess applications in accordance with the CFA policy position.9
[28] In respect to land use planning Mr Brown accepted that in the majority of cases application of the guidelines and practice notes will provide a prescriptive outcome and that it is only about 5% of his work for which there is no practice note. 10 Mr Sacco seeks guidance from the team at headquarters when it is not clear what the CFA policy position is on a particular matter.11
[29] The fact that many applications are able to be dealt with by following procedures in guidelines and other materials does not in my view undermine the fact that the FSOs are required to have the skills and judgment to be able to deal with much more complex and unusual situations which don’t fit the standard approaches. The evidence is that support is available in these situations if required but the FSO is not required in all such circumstances to seek such assistance. Before seeking such assistance the FSO is expected to have worked through the problem and, to the extent possible, indicate the likely recommendation.
[30] There was considerable evidence and submission about the extent to which expert assistance was available to the FSOs. There was some difference between the evidence of the two UFU witnesses Mr Sacco and Mr Brown in this respect. Mr Sacco is a very experienced FSO and clearly performs his work with a very high degree of autonomy and he rarely requires expert assistance from Head Office or his Manager Community Safety. Mr Brown had greater contact with both Head Office and his Manager Community Safety. He accepted that he would work through an issue with the Manager Community Safety if in doubt about the right answer. 12
[31] I am satisfied that such assistance is available to the FSOs particularly in Mr Andreou’s department at Head Office. The evidence shows that such expertise is regularly utilised by the FSOs. However, it is clear that a big majority of cases are dealt with without reference to such assistance. In the recent past Mr Andreou has issued instructions that certain matters must be referred to Head Office for advice to ensure greater consistency in the way in which the CFA deals with particular issues. This was accepted by Mr Sacco. 13 Mr Brown suggested that there is an encouragement now for some work to be actually pushed out to fire safety officers.14 However, I am satisfied from the more detailed evidence and documentation provided by Mr Andreou that the main trend is to require greater reference to Head Office.
[32] Mr Andreou gave evidence that he monitored the work of the FSOs and that the Managers Community Safety are also expected to play a role in monitoring their work. Mr Sacco gave evidence that the monitoring data did not include a capacity to understand how a particular matter had been handled and the judgments required to be made. I accept that monitoring does not generally go to that level but rather is focused on general performance indications such as timeliness, number of applications dealt with and the reports on the outcome of the applications. Mr Andreou has access to all reports prepared by FSOs.
[33] I accept the submission of the CFA that there is a significant level of interaction between the FSOs and the expert support staff maintained at CFA headquarters. 15
[34] However, I do not accept the submission of the CFA that the evidence is sufficient to draw a conclusion that “in the majority of cases where an alternative method of assessment is required, FSOs seek support and guidance from the team at headquarters.” 16
[35] The UFU argued that there had been changes to the work value of the FSOs. It is accepted that there are some new duties such as the liquor licensing requirements, dangerous and hazardous goods responsibilities, assessment of occupancy permits, assessment of Neighbourhood Safer Places, and caravan park reports. These duties were not reflected in the Position Description prior to the review promoted by the current dispute. However, the evidence does not suggest that these new duties require a significantly higher level of judgment and responsibility than the existing duties.
[36] The June 2011 Value Edge: Country Fire Authority: Review of Fire Safety Services Delivery (Value Edge Report) 17 points to changes in the work over the past few years. In particular they indentified that “Fire Safety Reporting has experienced increased levels of complexity and scrutiny over the past three years.” The Value Edge Report describes it as follows:
- Complexities – many fire safety engineering reports use alternative solutions with the application of continually evolving modelling techniques to help demonstrate that acceptable levels of fire safety will be achieved by their design. Therefore applicants are undertaking steadily increasing levels of technically complex fire engineering analysis within their Fire Engineering Reports. These reports now tend to be larger and more complex in nature, hereby requiring CFA to have an increased and significant skill set to be able to evaluate them. In turn, this increasing level of review will pose growing demands on the time, resources and associated competence that CFA will need to robustly review each project.
- Scrutiny – the bushfires of February 7 2009 has resulted in an increase in community scrutiny of decisions made by the CFA, especially pertaining to Land Use Planning, Wildfire Management Overlay. This scrutiny has required CFA to introduce a peer review process, where decisions are often reviewed, via a HQ/Region partnership. This scrutiny comes from quasi legal forums, VCAT and the Building Appeals Board, Ministerial interests and interest from other agencies, in particular DPCD.” 18
“Fire Safety Reporting has experienced increased levels of complexity and scrutiny over the past three years:
[37] The CFA did not adopt the Value Edge report; however, there was nothing before me which contradicted their independent assessment of the change in the work in the area of fire safety reporting over recent years.
[38] In response to this Mr Andreou argued that the response of the CFA to the increasing scrutiny and other requirements following the Bushfires Royal Commission had been to better codify the requirements for both stakeholders and FSOs to ensure greater consistency in approach and outcomes. Mr Brown gave evidence that he had been involved directly in the development of practice notes and that they had not been changed since 2007. 19 However, Mr Sacco accepted the increase in practice notes to achieve greater consistency.20 The parties provided me with a number of examples of documents used by stakeholders and FSOs in respect to various areas of land use planning and structural fire safety. These documents are consistent with Mr Andreou’s evidence. However, the existence of clearer guidance material does not reduce the level of expert judgment required nor does it undermine the finding of the Value Edge report that the reports now being considered by the FSOs are larger and more complex in nature and that the work of the FSOs is now subject to greater scrutiny. In my view these factors must be regarded as increasing the work value of the FSOs.
[39] The parties provided their analysis of the job requirements against the descriptors at Level 4 and Level 5. The CFA of course relied upon the analysis produced by Ms Stella. The UFU argued that Ms Stella had undervalued some of the important work of the FSOs including for example in respect to their level of engagement with stakeholders.
[40] There was considerable evidence and submission concerning the Level 4 requirement “subject matter experts make decisions and/or recommendations based on their professional knowledge and provide authoritative advice that may be relied upon in the field” read in conjunction with “functional or professional oversight is provided or available as required” and “problems faced may be complex, yet solutions can generally be found in documented precedents, rules, guidelines, procedures or instructions, though these will require interpretation and the application of judgment.” The corresponding descriptors at Level 5 are “positions at this level would be fully accountable for all aspects of projects, programs or functions managed, services delivered and outcomes achieved” read in conjunction with “positions at this level require a well-developed knowledge and understanding of professional principles, techniques and methods and their application to complex issues and problem management”.
[41] In my judgment the CFA overstated the extent to which the FSOs were subject to professional and functional oversight. The evidence satisfied me that the FSOs had a relatively high level of responsibility and autonomy within their areas of expertise. The most frequent method of oversight and support is via email and it is generally at the initiative of the FSO. 21 Nevertheless, it is clear that “functional or professional oversight is provided or available as required.”
[42] I do not accept that the term in the Level 4 descriptor “problems faced may be complex, yet solutions can generally be found” in various documents means that the solution is specified in the form of a simple instruction. The words “though these will require interpretation and the application of judgment” imply not only that the decision as to what path is appropriate will require judgement and interpretation but also that the solution may be in the form of a methodology rather than a specific outcome. In this sense the UFU have overstated the extent to which the discretion and judgment of the FSOs falls outside this descriptor. However, I do accept the submission of the UFU that the practice notes and guidance do not cover all aspects of the work of the FSOs. I also accept the submission about the high volume of complex regulations and other material which the FSOs have to be on top of. I consider that this descriptor understates the work value of the FSOs in respect to the complexity of the problems and the level and importance of the required judgments and decisions.
[43] I accept that there is no requirement for a professional qualification to satisfy the Level 5 descriptor “positions at this level require a well-developed knowledge and understanding of professional principles, techniques and methods and their application to complex issues and problem management.” However, the level implied by this descriptor is understood in the context of how it is distinguishable from the Level 4 descriptors about level of expertise, complexity, knowledge and judgment and also by the surrounding Level 5 descriptors which go to these factors. The evidence supports a conclusion that FSOs must have a level of understanding of fire engineering and an understanding of planning and other engineering disciplines. However, the evidence does not strongly support a conclusion that this is at the level which could be described as “a well-developed knowledge and understanding.” This is not to underestimate or undervalue the level of experience, general knowledge and specific knowledge required to make the judgments required by the FSOs. The FSOs have a demonstrated high level of knowledge and experience in the application of building and planning legislation particularly as it relates to fire risk.
[44] The term professional read in this context is not comparable to terms such as “to act professionally” or “high level of professionalism.” The FSOs in the main apply their professional knowledge and experience to interpret and apply a range of statutory provisions rather than to utilise a well developed knowledge and understanding of professional principles, techniques and methods to solve complex issues or in problem management. In this sense I concur with the judgment of Ms Stella. 22 This is not to underestimate the level of experience required and the complexity and judgement involved in applying the statutory provisions.
[45] I am satisfied that the work of the FSOs does meet the Level 5 descriptor” “positions will build partnerships with relevant internal and external stakeholders that will directly support the delivery of required position outcomes.” The CFA suggested that the work of the FSOs in this respect was adequately covered by the Level 3 descriptor: “positions at this level would be required to develop and maintain working relationships with internal and external stakeholders and clients of CFA.” The evidence of Mr Brown and Mr Sacco, when read in conjunction with the Position Description, strongly suggest a requirement to build partnerships which directly support the delivery of the position outcomes. I am satisfied that the work required in this respect goes beyond the development and maintenance of working relationships.
[46] Taking into account the evidence and submissions before me I have made the following broad assessments:
DESCRIPTOR LEVEL 4 | WHERE DOES THE FSO SIT | DESCRIPTOR LEVEL 5 | WHERE DOES THE FSO SIT |
Positions at this level work under general direction and there is scope for exercising initiative in the application of established work practices and procedures. | Requirement of FSO position | Positions at this level would be fully accountable for all aspects of projects, programs or functions managed, services delivered and outcomes achieved. | FSO not at this level of responsibility and accountability. |
Administrative positions at this level would require the ability to interpret legislation, regulations and other guideline materials. | FSO position not administrative but otherwise a requirement of FSO position. | Positions at this level would begin to demonstrate leadership and influence across the organisation within their area of accountability or expertise. | FSO not at this level of responsibility and accountability or organisational impact. |
Functional or professional oversight is provided or available as required. | Accurate description of level of autonomy of FSO position. However, level of oversight is limited. May understate work value. | ||
Problems faced may be complex, yet solutions can generally be found in documented precedents, rules, guidelines, procedures or instructions, though these will require interpretation and the application of judgment. | Description of level of expertise and complexity of FSO position. Negotiation and initiative are also required. May understate work value. | Positions at this level require a well-developed knowledge and understanding of professional principles, techniques and methods and their application to complex issues and problem management. | Reasonable descriptor of the work of the FSOs when dealing with non-routine applications. May overstate level of professional knowledge required. |
Subject matter experts make decisions and/or recommendations based on their professional knowledge and provide authoritative advice that may be relied upon in the field. | Accurate description of level of autonomy of FSO role. Accurate description of level of expertise. | Position accountabilities at this level may reflect implementation of broader strategic objectives of the organisation. | FSO not at this level of responsibility and accountability |
Positions may prepare high level written advice and reports requiring research, a well-constructed argument, and recommendations. | Not main element of FSO role but some requirement at this level. Reporting work may not be “high level” but otherwise at level of descriptor. | Positions may provide high level research, analysis and assessment that informs program and planning development being undertaken by the Division/organisation | FSO is not at this level of expertise |
Positions will build partnerships with relevant internal and external stakeholders that will directly support the delivery of required position outcomes. | FSO is required to work at this level in respect to work with external stakeholders | ||
Supervisory positions will be responsible for coordinating resources to achieve agreed outcomes. | Not relevant. FSO is at comparable level of responsibility. | ||
Positions with supervisory responsibilities will undertake complex operational work and may assist with or review the work undertaken by team members. | Not relevant. FSO is at comparable level of complexity, responsibility & organisational impact. | Positions at this level independently manage staff and activities, with the planning and monitoring of work programs a key requirement. | Not applicable to FSO. FSO is not at this level of responsibility or organisational impact |
Level Definition | Level Definition | ||
Technical/professional roles with specialist knowledge and experience. | Requirement of FSO position. | Experienced, specialist professionals providing authoritative advice within a defined strategic context. | May describe FSO position. |
Roles coordinating and supervising implementation of elements of a plan or program. | Not applicable to role of FSO. FSO is at a comparable level of responsibility and organisational impact. | ||
Supervisory positions where extensive professional, technical or administrative knowledge, experience, skills and training is required. | Not applicable to role of FSO | Managers accountable for the local management and implementation of a function, program or project | Not applicable to role of FSO. FSO not at this level of responsibility or accountability. |
[47] The above analysis in my judgment puts the position at the high end of Level 4 but the position does not quite meet the work value of Level 5.
[48] The evidence does suggest that there are some FSOs who have greater experience and operate with greater autonomy. I would recommend that the CFA consider how this greater experience and autonomy could be recognised, perhaps combined with other specific responsibilities, in a redefined job role which might then be assessed at Level 5.
[49] The dispute is resolved by my finding that Level 4 is the appropriate classification level for the FSOs.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms A. Forsyth of Counsel, and Mr Sean McCormack on behalf of the UFU.
Mr C O’Grady and Ms Bella Stagoll of Counsel on behalf of the CFA.
Hearing details:
2013
Melbourne
7 May, 28 June and 19 July
ATTACHMENT A
SCHEDULE THREE PTA LEVEL DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTORS
1 LEVEL 1 DESCRIPTORS
1.1 Level Definition
Technical, clerical or administrative support roles requiring supervision and instruction.
1.2 Work Requirements
This level is usually the commencement point for new Employees in the administrative, technical and general service fields and is the entry level for CFA trainees and apprentices.
Following initial induction and on the job training, incumbents at this level would be expected to be capable of operating relevant equipment and performing tasks without regular reference to a supervisor.
Work is typically of a routine and/or straightforward nature, requiring initial on the job training and instruction in equipment and work procedures.
Instructions, standard processes and procedures are in place to define the majority of work at this level.
Positions work under direct supervision, or may involve the performance of tasks not under direct supervision, where the nature of the task is automatic.
Assistance is readily available if problems arise.
Positions are required to provide standard information in response to internal and external customer enquiries.
2 LEVEL 2 DESCRIPTORS
2.1 Level Definition
Technical and administrative support roles requiring operational knowledge, capability and independence.
Customer service and liaison is a feature of work at this level.
2.2 Work Requirements
Positions at this level may require coordination and implementation of small projects where the project and process requirements are defined.
Positions require the ability to prioritise multiple tasks and activities within agreed expectations.
Work is undertaken independently within the requirements of guidelines, parameters, standards and expectations.
Positions at this level typically involve defined processes and activities.
Supervision, guidance and support are readily available, and incumbents are expected to escalate issues outside agreed parameters.
Problems can usually be solved by reference to procedures, well documented methods and instructions.
Straightforward communication requirements (information exchange and customer service) with a diverse range of internal and external stakeholders are typically a feature of positions at this level.
Positions at this level typically require the ability to locate information and record, report or convey it accurately in the required manner.
3 LEVEL 3 DESCRIPTORS
3.1 Level Definition
Specialist operational, technical and administrative roles requiring knowledge, experience and proficiency in a particular area.
3.2 Work Requirements
Positions at this level may have local ownership of and accountability for implementation of a defined process or project, requiring the application of specialised knowledge.
Positions at this level may have ongoing responsibility for the facilitation and coordination of projects or events.
Work at this level is usually performed under limited supervision and may require the interpretation and application of rules, guidelines, instructions and/or procedures.
Positions at this level are expected to act independently within the requirements of their role and to make informed decisions as to when an issue or problem may have broader impact and requires escalation.
Problem solving at this level requires judgment and the ability to apply relevant knowledge to the resolution of straightforward problems arising outside of standard operating parameters.
Positions at this level would be required to develop and maintain working relationships with internal and external stakeholders and clients of CFA.
Positions at this level may supervise others, including the allocation of work and the deployment of resources.
4 LEVEL 4 DESCRIPTORS
4.1 Level Definition
Supervisory positions where extensive professional, technical or administrative knowledge, experience, skills and training is required.
Roles coordinating and supervising implementation of elements of a plan or program.
Technical/professional roles with specialist knowledge and experience.
4.2 Work Requirements
Positions at this level work under general direction and there is scope for exercising initiative in the application of established work practices and procedures.
Subject matter experts make decisions and/or recommendations based on their professional knowledge and provide authoritative advice that may be relied upon in the field.
Subject matter experts make decisions and/or recommendations based on their professional knowledge and provide authoritative advice that may be relied upon in the field.
Administrative positions at this level would require the ability to interpret legislation, regulations and other guideline materials.
Problems faced may be complex, yet solutions can generally be found in documented precedents, rules, guidelines, procedures or instructions, though these will require interpretation and the application of judgment.
Functional or professional oversight is provided or available as required.
5 LEVEL 5 DESCRIPTORS
5.1 Level Definition
Experienced, specialist professionals providing authoritative advice within a defined strategic context.
Managers accountable for the local management and implementation of a function, program or project.
5.2 Work Requirements
Positions at this level would be fully accountable for all aspects of projects, programs or functions managed, services delivered and outcomes achieved.
Position accountabilities at this level may reflect implementation of broader strategic objectives of the organisation.
Positions at this level would begin to demonstrate leadership and influence across the organisation within their area of accountability or expertise.
Positions at this level require a well-developed knowledge and understanding of professional principles, techniques and methods and their application to complex issues and problem management.
Positions at this level independently manage staff and activities, with the planning and monitoring of work programs a key requirement.
Positions will build partnerships with relevant internal and external stakeholders that will directly support the delivery of required position outcomes.
Positions may provide high level research, analysis and assessment that informs program and planning development being undertaken by the Division/organisation.
6 LEVEL 6 DESCRIPTORS
6.1 Level Definition
Senior Advisers providing authoritative expertise, professional, technical or project leadership, requiring significant professional expertise and extensive experience.
Functional Managers accountable for service delivery, professional and functional outputs and outcomes, with business impact.
6.2 Work Requirements
Managers at this level have significant resource management responsibilities and would be required to develop and deliver services within budget to meet organisational and community needs.
Positions at this level would be a member of the management team and would contribute with authority to strategic planning and development.
Positions at this level have a breadth of knowledge, understanding, involvement and strategic influence across the business.
Specialist professionals and/or managers are involved in the planning, direction, leadership and control of a function or professional service.
Senior advisers at this level would provide professional leadership, oversight and direction to other experienced professionals.
Advice provided in the area of expertise would be regarded as authoritative and positions would represent the organisation in their field of expertise.
Positions would be required to monitor developments in their field of expertise and advise on strategic and operational implications.
Positions would be responsible for the development of policy and standards in their field of expertise or functional management.
Positions would develop and manage alliances and partnerships with key stakeholders on behalf of the organisation, requiring professional credibility and a strong knowledge of business priorities.
7 LEVEL 7 DESCRIPTORS
7.1 Level Definition
Senior Managers leading functional units or departments, with organisational and strategic scope, influence and impact.
Specialist advisers providing expert advice on complex organisational issues.
7.2 Work Requirements
Positions at this level require strong management and leadership skills and abilities necessary to undertake the allocation and management of significant resources, and to contribute to the development of policy initiatives or corporate strategies.
Positions provide leadership and influence across the whole organization, demonstrating conceptual and strategic thinking beyond their area of accountability.
Positions require well developed conceptual, analytical and interpersonal skills with the ability to effectively represent and preserve the interests of CFA.
Advice would be regarded as authoritative across the organisation in that discipline or business activity and therefore influential in setting organisational direction.
Positions provide advice at the most senior level, which takes account of organisation wide strategic and functional impact or regarding issues with high risk/impact for the organisation.
7 LEVEL 7 DESCRIPTORS
7.1 Level Definition
Senior Managers leading functional units or departments, with organisational and strategic scope, influence and impact.
Specialist advisers providing expert advice on complex organisational issues.
7.2 Work Requirements
Positions at this level require strong management and leadership skills and abilities necessary to undertake the allocation and management of significant resources, and to contribute to the development of policy initiatives or corporate strategies.
Positions provide leadership and influence across the whole organization, demonstrating conceptual and strategic thinking beyond their area of accountability.
Positions require well developed conceptual, analytical and interpersonal skills with the ability to effectively represent and preserve the interests of CFA.
Advice would be regarded as authoritative across the organisation in that discipline or business activity and therefore influential in setting organisational direction.
Positions provide advice at the most senior level, which takes account of organisation wide strategic and functional impact or regarding issues with high risk/impact for the organisation.
1 Exhibit CFA2, Attachment 6.
2 UFU final submissions of 12 July 2013, at para 21.
3 See CFA2, at para 33.
4 PN1035 to PN1036 and PN1436.
5 PN1036.
6 CFA final submissions, at para 20.
7 PN665, PN670, PN712 and PN1429.
8 Exhibit CFA1, at para 14, evidence of Brown at PN109 to PN110, PN114, PN148, PN150, and PN296 to PN299, and evidence of Sacco at PN682 and PN700.
9 Exhibit CFA1, at para 15, and evidence of Sacco at PN579 to PN580 and PN582 to PN584.
10 PN439.
11 PN958.
12 PN240 and PN241.
13 Exhibit UFU3 and PN968 to PN969, PN978 and PN1138.
14 PN336.
15 The evidence for this is summarised in the CFA final submission of 18 July 2013, at point 3(c).
16 Final submission of CFA, at para 16.
17 Exhibit UFU4, Attachment U11.
18 Exhibit UFU4, Attachment U11, p.12.
19 PN298 to PN301.
20 PN959.
21 PN1209 and PN1215.
22 PN1949.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR539510>
0
0
0