P0197 Dec 202/98 M Print P8992
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.131 application for Board of Reference
(B No. 80007 of 1997)
(ODN C No. 30771 of 1989)
[Print J8996 [P0197]]
Administrative employee Northern Territory
COMMISSIONER GAY MELBOURNE, 19 FEBRUARY 1998
Classification level of Ms E Sonsie
The following decision, now edited, was given in transcript at Alice Springs on 2 December 1997.
In this matter Ms E Sonsie has sought, per medium of an application lodged on 22 September 1997 by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union for the constitution of a board of reference to resolve the classification issued raised. Following dealings between the parties the matter comes to the Commission. The issue for decision is whether at any stage within the period of her engagement at the Pitjantjatjara Council Inc (the Council) as it affected her duties with Mr Aidon, Ms Sonsie was classified consistent with the agreement of the parties as set out in the position descriptions attaching to the classification levels in the Pitjantjatjara Council Inc. and Associated Organisations Award 1991 [Print J8996].
While it is unusual to consider appropriate classification in an entirely retrospective sense, that is after the cessation of the employment, the Commission has been aided by evidence from the applicant - Ms Sonsie, the payroll co-ordinator - Ms Thistelton, and the director of the Council - Mr Aidon. While I do not propose to repeat the detailed submissions put, I have paid close regard to the evidence, exhibits and submissions. A difficulty in classification exercises against position descriptions of the present sort is that functions and activities appear at various levels. Given the nature of work, this is entirely unexceptional. This fact can, however, give rise to misunderstandings and misperceptions of a difficult kind, that is, those that are genuinely held and able to be supported by apparently valid argument. Much of the present controversy turns on the extent to which Ms Sonsie accepted responsibilities in her role as providing administrative support for the Director or alternatively was less an initiator of policy and original work and more of secretary and implementor of decided policy.
Of little assistance in an exercise such as this is the break down of administrative or any other tasks to their simple component features in an effort to minimise the true nature of effort, responsibility or skill attaching to their execution. While it is important to focus rigorously on the nature of delegation and referred authority it is also fundamental to a fair workplace to recognise the skills and responsibility which attach in an administrative environment when the task of research, liaison, report preparation and the like, are delegated to an officer who will then be expected to have such work prepared subject to final scrutiny and possibly further alteration. This does not confuse that the focus of policy direction and true authority has resided both nominally and in the final analysis with the delegator.
In this particular case, an argument can be sustained, on the definitions, for complex work to be properly accommodated at level 3 which, it is noted, is the level comprehending supervisory tasks, some complex operational work, planning and co-ordination, and allows for a degree of scope for initiative to be required and for delegation of work. According to one view then, level 3 work can be demanding and have, presumably, all the above characteristics.
It is my view that it is often useful for the parties to give examples of work or classifications which in their joint view fall into such a category to assist in a rather less theoretical way with the difficult task of categorisation of non-agreed classifications and particularly as work changes over time. It is important for the classification structure to properly reflect the work and the skills required to be displayed. Classification structures will only be seen as fair if they can be regarded as even handedly categorising work and work which has different characteristics.
There is a very substantial conflict in the evidence. It goes to Ms Sonsie's capacity and her actual performance of various duties. In some part I have had to choose between the evidence of Ms Sonsie and that of Mr Aidon. I do not doubt the sincerity of the views and perceptions expressed by Ms Sonsie. I am troubled, however, as to the issue of objectivity in gauging the importance and true description properly attaching to some of Ms Sonsie's tasks. In this context the present circumstances of the application, that is with Ms Sonsie having left the employ of the Council, does not assist in the normal way that one might be expected to be assisted, that is, with access to the work and some of the disputed correspondence and the like. Mr Aidon has a very modest view of Ms Sonsie's ability to perform secretarial tasks, let alone the research and project work said by Ms Sonsie to have been performed.
For Ms Sonsie's application to succeed requires me to accept her characterisation of her work. To do this I must reject large part portions of Mr Aidon's evidence. This particularly relates to compilation of the Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual. While I am of the view that Mr Aidon was most disenchanted with Ms Sonsie's method of direct approach to the chairman in the classification exercise, I am unable to look behind his evidence as to Ms Sonsie's inability and failure to have contributed in a substantial way to the manual. Ms Sonsie's contribution to the manual was substantial and, in my view, fully utilised the scope of discretion and initiative and the like to be found within level 3 referred to earlier.
Partly because Ms Sonsie was unable to clearly instance the areas of her own research work and drafting in the document and, I should add, in complex correspondence elsewhere other than in the personnel document, I am fortified in the view I have come to, that a contribution, although substantial, was more of the order described by Mr Aidon than that described by Ms Sonsie. I have accepted Mr Aidon's evidence. As a consequence, I am unable to accept that portion of Ms Sonsie's evidence which conflicts with his and as a result of this finding the application is refused.
BY THE COMMISSION:
Appearances:
L Matarazzo for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
with E Sonsie.
G Borches appearing for the Pitjantjatjara Council Inc.
Hearing details:
1997.
Alice Springs:
December 1, 2.
Decision Summary
Wage rates - classification level - board of reference - administrative employee, Northern Territory - whether individual classified consistent with agreement of parties as set out in position descriptions attaching to classification levels in Pitjantjatjara Council Inc. and Associated Organisations Award 1991 [Print J8996] - extent to which individual initiated policy as opposed to implementing decided policy - substantial conflict in evident - preferred evidence of director of Council - application refused. | ||||
Application by Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union for a Board of Reference under Pitjantjatjara Council Inc and Associated Organisations Award 1991 | ||||
B No. 80007 of 1997 |
Print P8992 | |||
Gay C |
Melbourne |
19 February 1998 | ||
Printed with the authority of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission
<Price code B>
** end of text **