Note: An appeal pursuant to s.45 (C2005/3367) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 8 March 2006 [PR969473] for result of appeal.
AW782505CR PR964271
Download Word Document
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.113 application for variation
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union
(C2005/4064)
GRAPHIC ARTS – GENERAL – AWARD 2000
(ODN C No. 22956 of 1995)
[AW782505CR S1716]
Graphic Arts | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT MARSH |
SYDNEY, 26 OCTOBER 2005 |
Classification structure.
DECISION
Introduction
[1] This decision resolves an extremely protracted exercise which commenced sixteen years ago under the auspices of the Structural Efficiency Principle which was introduced by the August 1989 National Wage Case Decision which required the parties to provide “consistent, coherent award structures based on training and skills acquired.” 1 For sixteen years the major parties to what is now the Graphic Arts - General - Award 20002 (the award) have been attempting to reach agreement on a skill based classification structure to be inserted into the award and apply across the industry. Various Members of the Commission, most notably Merriman C and Munro J, have made determinations and given guidance to the parties along the way. The most recent impetus for the award classification structure arises out of award simplification proceedings between 1998 and 2000. The classification structure remained a reserved matter at the time the award was made and the parties have been relatively active since that time in developing and testing classification levels which are capable of practical application throughout the disparate graphic arts industry.
[2] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) has applied, pursuant to s.113 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act), to vary the award to insert into it a classification structure which is agreed in large part by the Printing Industries Association of Australia (PIAA) and The Australian Industry Group (AIG). On one key aspect relating to the problem of classifying an employee without formal qualifications PIAA and AIG do not consent to clauses 5.1.1(b)(vii) and (viii) (and consequential clauses) of the application and an arbitrated outcome is required on this issue. However, in relation to almost all other aspects of the AMWU’s application there is consent.
[3] The matter was listed for hearing on 10 August and 29 and 30 September 2005. Ms S Taylor with Mr S Walsh appeared for the AMWU, Mr S Smith appeared for AIG and Mr G Parkes appeared for PIAA.
Brief history
[4] In response to the August 1989 National Wage Case Decision which required the parties to provide “consistent, coherent award structures based on training and skills acquired”, the then Printing and Kindred Industries Union (PKIU) and the then Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation of Australia (PATEFA) established a “working party” and “negotiating party” process to drive award restructuring.
[5] In 1993, Merriman C granted the “interim” 12 level classification structure for testing and further application regarding amongst other matters:
“(i) Sector specific indicative tasks for Parts 2-9 of this award
(ii) The fine tuning of definitions
(iii) Incorporation of appropriate training requirements.” 3
[6] In 1995, Munro J “urged” the parties to:
“… give constructive consideration to the work that has been done by the AMWU in exhibits T7 and T8. Those documents outline a draft revised classification structure and indicate the methodology whereby it has been prepared. In that context it is obvious that the work being conducted under the aegis of the Australian National Training Authority has a multi-sectoral impact. Ultimately that work has some bearing upon classification structures in the award system. …” 4
[7] In 1997, Munro J recommended that the parties adopt a 9 step process for progressing the classification structure including:
“Step Four A process for linking the competency standards to the classification structure shall be developed and agreed upon. Consideration shall be given to the alignment that was endorsed by the National Printing Industry Training Council. However, the appropriateness of linking the classification structure to particular competency standards will need to be considered by the parties.” 5
[8] In 1999, the Commission, as constituted, observed:
“[120] The wage rates have not been fully adjusted in accordance with the 1989 minimum rates adjustment process. An interim classification structure (5 levels) was inserted by Commissioner Merriman [Print J0152], but definitions have not been developed. It is envisaged the exercise will be completed by December 1999. In these circumstances clause 5.1 is not part of the review at this stage...” 6
[9] A full chronology as contained in the AMWU’s submission is reproduced as Attachment A. Even that chronology masks the many hours of negotiation and conciliation which have continued on and off since 1990. All parties accept that conciliation is at an end and that the remaining issues amongst them require an arbitrated outcome.
Outline Of Submissions
AMWU written submissions
Legislative Context
[10] The AMWU relied on the scheme of the Act to support the granting of the application. They showed the statutory obligation for the Commission to perform its functions in a manner which, inter alia, maintains an effective award safety net of fair minimum wages and conditions. 7
[11] In particular, ss. 88A(d)(ii) and 88B(2) were relied on 8.
[12] Section 88A(d)(ii) states:
“… to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market, to promote youth employment, youth skills and community standards and to assist in reducing youth unemployment.”
[13] Section 88B(2) states:
“(2) In performing its functions under this Part, the Commission must ensure that a safety net of fair minimum wages and conditions of employment is established and maintained, having regard to the following:
(a) the need to provide fair minimum standards for employees in the context of living standards generally prevailing in the Australian community;
(b) economic factors, including levels of productivity and inflation, and the desirability of attaining a high level of employment;
(c) when adjusting the safety net, the needs of the low paid.”
[14] It was submitted that as well as supporting and implementing the objects of the Act, the AMWU application is allowable under s.89A(2)(a) and contains incidental award provisions under s.89A(6).
[15] The AMWU also submitted that its application provides a means for addressing gender based pay discrimination by delivering a transparent and objective classification process. As such it is consistent with the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.
[16] Finally, it was submitted that the application meets the public interest test set out in s.90 of the Act by:
[17] The AMWU submitted that the orders and recommendations referred to above continue to guide the settlement of the dispute in relation to the classification structure.
[18] Clause 5.1.1(b) of the award states:
“5.1.1(b) Interim classification structure
The classifications making up the current five level broad banded structure are in Appendix F and remain in operation. The wage relativities in this award to level 5 (Basic Tradesperson) have been established in accordance with the August 1989 National Wage Case decision [Print H9100] and inserted by Print J0152. The classification structure is subject to further discussion between the award parties pursuant to a recommendation by Munro J. on 13 March 1997 in C Nos 23089 and 22956 of 1995 and a decision and order by Merriman C in Prints L0548 and L0648 which inserted an interim classification structure now contained in Appendix G.”
[19] It is the AMWU’s view that the application now before the Commission is consistent with and complements the above decisions.
[20] It is the AMWU’s contention that varying the award to insert a classification structure which is skilled based will give effect to the objects of the Act, “particularly those objects relating to a maintenance of a safety net of fair minimum wages and conditions and those eschewing discrimination in the workplace.” 9
[21] It is also submitted that the new classification structure will replace the award’s current classification structure which is demonstratively inadequate.
[22] The application effects a resolution of issues outstanding from Merriman C’s decision 10 and settles the outstanding issue from the Item 51 review of the award.
[23] In the AMWU’s view, the evidence supporting the application includes:
[24] The AMWU’s draft order is set out in full at Attachment B. Specific provisions will be reproduced later in this decision.
Outline of the AMWU draft order
[25] The classification structure set out in the draft order is limited to the competency standards that exist as part of the printing industry’s accredited training package. This package is regularly reviewed such that the integration of the package with the classification structure would ensure that the structure remains a relevant tool for both employers and employees. The draft provisions provide for processes for classifying two categories of employees, namely those with formal qualifications and those without on the basis of an objective transparent method of skills and classifications.
[26] Table ‘A’ in clause 5.1.1(a)(ii) sets out the proposed classification structure:
|
TABLE ‘A’ | |||
Column A
|
Column B
|
Column C
|
Column D
|
Level 1 |
467.40 |
Entry level | |
Level 2 |
484.10 |
6 | |
Level 3 |
506.60 |
18 | |
Level 4 |
527.50 |
Certificate II |
28 |
Level 5 |
561.20 |
Trade Certificate/
|
41 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points) |
Level 6 |
582.10 |
51 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 2 units of 4 or more points) | |
Level 7 |
602.90 |
61 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 4 units of 4 or more points) | |
Level 8 |
621.80 |
Certificate IV
|
71 (including at least 6 units of 4 or more points) |
[27] The AMWU submitted:
“32. The proposed clause:
(a) Provides sector specific competencies (5.1.1.(a) and Schedule F);
(b) An objective, transparent method of classifying employees based on the work performed; and
(c) Provides a classification method for employees without formal qualifications equivalent to the standards and rigour applying to employees with formal qualifications.
33. The points assigned at Column D, levels 4, 5 and 8 are based on formal minimum industry training requirements. … The points assigned at Levels 2, 3, 6 and 7 reflect a balanced progression based on the acquisition of additional skills and competencies.
The points for classification purposes system is appropriate and necessary in an industry characterised by low levels of formal training. Progression beyond level 2 (level 1 being entry level) is linked to qualifications and/or the acquisition of additional competencies.
To facilitate pathways, the classification structure provides for career path progression based on achievement of a qualification or the acquisition of competencies or through a combination of two.
34. In both the structure of the training qualification and competency standards a building block approach is used to provide for pathways and flexibility. The points approach enhances flexibility providing greater scope for the recognition of multi-skilling. The points innovation:
[28] Flexibility is provided to the large and disparate industry:
[29] I now turn to the specific clauses of the AMWU draft order.
[30] Clause 5.1.1(a)(iii) excludes certain qualifications contained in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package from Table ‘A’ Column C and reflects coverage issues 14.
[31] It is submitted that clauses 5.1.1(a)(iv) and (v) are consistent with the requirement of the Commission’s Statement of Principles.
[32] Clause 5.1.1(b)(i) provides principles to be applied when an employee is first classified on joining a company or when an existing employee is reclassified.
[33] Clause 5.1.1(b)(ii) provides for absorption into overaward payment of any wage increase arising from the implementation of the new classification structure and clause 5.1.1(b)(iii) provides that no employee’s existing ordinary rate of pay shall be reduced as a result of implementing the new classification structure.
[34] Clause 5.1.1(b)(iv) provides that there is ability for an employee to retain not only their existing ordinary pay rate but also existing classification in circumstances where:
“(i) the employee has been assessed as not meeting the requirements of their existing classification levels and;
(ii) The employee undertakes training, where it is required by the employer to carry out the full range of tasks to be performed at that classification level OR;
(iii) The employer does not require the employee to undertake additional training to meet the requirements of their existing classification level as a result of the implementation of the new classification structure.” 15
[35] Clause 5.1.1(b)(v) provides for appropriate consultation (including the union) to occur in accordance with clause 3.1 of the award regarding the implementation of the new classification structure.
[36] Clause 5.1.1(b)(vi) provides for classification of employees with a formal AQF qualification recognised in the package and at Table ‘A’, and who are utilising that qualification in accordance with the needs of the enterprise. Employees will transfer into the structure, at a minimum, on the basis of the alignment of classifications to qualifications set out in Table ‘A’. Where employees have obtained and utilise skills additional to those acquired through package qualifications, the employee may be classified at a higher level.
[37] Clauses 5.1.1(b)(vii) and (viii) provide for classifications of employees without a formal AQF qualification are opposed by PIAA and are dealt with later in this decision.
[38] Clause 5.1.1(b)(ix) provides a six month period for employer and employee to consult on and implement the new classification structure.
[39] Clause 5.1.1(b)(x) provides a mechanism for dealing with classification disputes.
[40] Clause 5.1.1(b)(xi) establishes the right of employers to seek a phasing-in period from the Commission as a result of any wage increases resulting from implementation of the new classification structure based on evidence of the employer’s incapacity to pay.
[41] Clause 5.1.1(b)(xii) establishes a requirement for the parties to review the implementation and operation of the new classification structure within 18 months of the order being issued 16.
[42] Clause 5.1.1(c) provides classification definitions which are based on the first 8 levels of the 12 level structure inserted by Merriman C in 1992 17. The definitions are included as a facilitative provision subject to clause 5.1.1(b)(vii) and can be used to classify employees where both employers and employees agree. The definitions are general and include indicative tasks of limited scope.
“53. The definitions are included as a classification method in response to the nature of enterprises covered by the award, including many small enterprises. The definitions have limited value in solving classification disputes.
54. The points system as a classification method ‘right’, utilised in conjunction with an alternative approach to classification based on the definitions, provides a comprehensive and flexible classifications solution suitable for the Printing and Graphic Arts industry.” 18
[43] The classification levels and their definitions are in clause 5.1.1(c) of the draft order at Attachment B.
[44] Clause 5.1.1(d) contains definitions to assist in interpretation and disputes avoidance.
[45] Clause 5.1.1(e) is a training provision modelled on the training provision clause provided for in the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998 19 (Metals Award). This provision has been determined to be incidental and necessary for the effective operation of the award20.
[46] Appendix “F” contains the competency units to be selected when classifying employees consistent with the points system contained in the AMWU proposed draft and supported by AIG.
[47] Clause 5.1.1(b)(viii) explains the points system. It states:
“USING THE POINTS SYSTEM TO DETERMINE AN EMPLOYEE’S CLASSIFICATION
(1) The points assessment for an employee’s job is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements from the list appearing in Appendix ‘F’. The competencies set out in Appendix ‘F’ are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) and have been assigned a points rating from ‘1’ – ‘5’, with 1 being a basic unit and 5 being assigned to units requiring a high level of skill.
The competencies and the ‘1’ – ‘5’ ratings are based on the following general guidelines:
(2) An employee’s classification level is determined by adding together the points allocated to each competency selected for the employee’s job. The total number of points determines into which classification level at 5.1.1(a) Table ‘A’ the employee’s job is classified. For example, an employee whose job consisted of competencies whose points when added together totalled 42, would be classified at Level 5 (if at least 5 of the competencies are worth at least 3 points each).
(3) In addition to (1) above, where an employer requires additional competencies to reflect job requirements, up to two additional competency units may be selected, by agreement, from another nationally endorsed Training Package, subject to the following:
[48] The competencies set out in Appendix “F” are lifted from the Package and cover all sectors of the industry. Each competency has been assigned a points rating based on its level of complexity (1-5) derived from Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) and industry testing and endorsement.
[49] The AMWU submitted that the “points” approach set out in clause 5.1.1(b)(viii) of its draft order:
[50] The contentious clauses are set out in Attachment C.
Industry Structure
[51] The AMWU submitted that its application is appropriate given the structure and nature of the printing and allied industries.
[52] The AMWU provided comprehensive documentation in relation to the structure and nature of the industry:
“Larger companies (100 plus employees) however account for 52% of total employment in the industry, pay more than 61% of total industry wages and salaries, and account for more than 64% of total industry turnover.” 26
New South Wales and Victoria combined contain 69% of employees in the industry, Queensland 14%, Western Australia and South Australia 7% each and Tasmania 2%. The AMWU notes that within PIAA it was only the South Australian Regional Council (7% of the printing industry) which did not support the “points” system. 27
[53] The economic forecast for the printing industry is for growth across all sectors with the exception of book printing. Current growth is between 2 - 5.5% and strong growth is expected over the next few years. 28
[54] Industry profitability is at a record high. Between 1991-92 and 2003-04 there has been a 242% increase in profit before tax. 29
[55] The AMWU submitted that the industry is in a strong position to absorb any increase to wages arising from its application. The level of overaward payments and the incapacity to pay provisions enforce the minimal impact of the application on profitability.
[56] The AMWU provided reports showing the issue of skills and training in the printing industry has been extensively researched. The industry has identified that in order to survive and grow, enterprises will have to provide customers with comprehensive print and digital solutions. “Industry has also identified that providing comprehensive solutions requires the ability to acquire and utilise new technology and skills.” 30:
[57] The AMWU submitted:
“The necessity for the industry to promote skills acquisition is a current as well as future requirement. The industry has identified that a shortage of skills is impacting negatively on capacity utilisation and the ability to respond to new technological and market opportunities.” 37
[58] The AMWU submitted that its application is responsive to the factors identified by printing industry as impacting on its viability, namely, skill acquisition, the promotion of training packages, new work processes, technology, related skills and a shift to the provision of services. The AMWU’s application 38:
PIAA Written Submission
[59] Whilst a large measure of the AMWU’s application is agreed to by PIAA, it nevertheless opposes in part the application of the AMWU for a new classification structure and a points based competency assessment system under the award. The principal objections to the AMWU’s application include the following 39:
[60] Section 143(1B) of the Act states:
“The Commission must, if it considers it appropriate, ensure that a decision or determination covered by subsection (1):
(a) does not include matters of detail or process that are more appropriately dealt with by agreement at the workplace or enterprise level; and
(b) does not prescribe work practices or procedures that restrict or hinder the efficient performance of work; and
(c) does not contain provisions that have the effect of restricting or hindering productivity, having regard to fairness to employees.”
[61] In particular, PIAA opposes clause 5.1.1(a)(i) in the AMWU’s draft order on the basis that it makes a mandatory requirement that the classification structure be read in conjunction with proposed Appendix “F” of the award. Clause 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table ‘A’, Column D, proposed by the AMWU is opposed by PIAA in that it makes reference to a “points system” that in PIAA’s view is best dealt with at the workplace or enterprise level where competencies can be aligned to business needs. Column A, Classification Levels, Column B, Minimum Weekly Wage Rates, and Column C, Alignment to Qualification from the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package, are agreed matters and consistent with the settlement in other awards during the structural efficiency exercise.
[62] Clause 5.1.1(b)(vii), Classification of Employees Without a Formal (AQF) Qualification, is opposed by PIAA. This is because the AMWU clause provides the opportunity for employees to chose the points system for classification purposes if there is a dispute. In PIAA’s view:
[63] PIAA also opposes clause 5.1.1(b)(viii) using the points system to determine an employee’s classification as proposed by the AMWU.
[64] In addition, in PIAA’s submission the points system in the AMWU’s application goes much further than the resolution of a new classification structure linked to competency standards as contemplated by Munro J and Merriman C in their respective decisions and orders.
[65] In PIAA’s view, the introduction of a new broadband classification structure with generic classification definitions linked to qualifications from the training package, and without the points system, resolves the structural efficiency and minimum rates adjustment process from the 1989 Safety Net Review. Accordingly, the points system as proposed by the AMWU is best dealt with through collective or individual agreements negotiated at the workplace or enterprise level.
[66] The AMWU’s proposal based on a points system is directly contrary to the objectives of s.3 of the Act and is best dealt with at the workplace or enterprise level where skill levels and training requirements can be tailored to business needs. The “one size fits all” approach 40 to competency assessments also fails to recognise the diversity of the industry where many subsectors come within the scope of the award and all have different requirements for skills and training.
[67] PIAA’s proposal is to determine an employee’s classification level under the award in conjunction with the classification definitions by linking the corresponding level as identified in clause 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table ‘A’, Column C and clause 5.1.1(c) classification definitions.
[68] In PIAA’s view, the AMWU evidence fails to substantiate other than minimal disputation under the interim classification structure or any gender based discrimination.
[69] PIAA submitted that the evidence of industry wide skills shortages is confined to tradespeople (see Mr Tchamkertenian’s evidence).
[70] In PIAA’s view, the cost impact will be greatest on small and medium size businesses that pay award wage rates or small margins above award rates.
[71] PIAA reserves the right to make further changes to the classification structure in line with any Commonwealth Government reforms to the Act or the proposed review of classification structures by the designated taskforce.
[72] Clause 5.1.1(b)(ix), timing of translation into the new classification structure, is an agreed matter. However, PIAA makes clear in its submission that reclassification to a higher level will be operative from the date of appointment by the employer within the six months’ timeframe and no retrospective claim for wages will be facilitated.
[73] Clause 5.1.1(b)(x), dealing with classification disputes with respect to the reference to Appendix “F”, is opposed by PIAA on four grounds:
[74] Clause 5.1.1(c), classification definitions, is opposed by PIAA on the following grounds:
“(a) The reference to “Subject to 5.1.1(b) …” becomes unnecessary in the introduction of each classification level as these provisions apply anyway.
(b) The reference to “The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level” should be replaced with the following reference from the order of Merriman C in Print L0648 which states:
‘Indicative tasks at this level may include’.
(c) The classification definition at Level 4 incorrectly makes reference to trade certificate.
(d) Other subtle changes to the definitions at each level as highlighted in the PIAA draft order.” 42
[75] Appendix “F” is opposed by PIAA in terms of its application by way of the operation of clause 5.1.1(b) on the following grounds:
“(a) Disputes over competency assessments would need to be resolved with the assistance of a certified Assessment and Workplace Trainer resulting in additional costs to employers.
(b) The cost to small and medium size businesses in providing competency assessments by an accredited Workplace Assessor and Trainer has not been factored into the impact this will have on such enterprises.
(c) Without proper knowledge of the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package ICP05 competencies employers may face widespread classification disputes.
(d) The competency modules linked to the points system remain inflexible and fails to address the unique skill requirements of individual workplaces. Such processes are best determined by joint consultative committees at the enterprise level as proposed in subclause 5.1.1(e).
(e) By virtue of the common rule status of the Graphic Arts (General) Award employers in Victoria will be required to implement the new structure and points system without any direct assistance with the assessments guidelines from the training package. This will only exacerbate non compliance with award provisions. It was noted by Her Honour in the Item 51 Review of the Graphic Arts (General) Award that the industry had a poor understanding of award provisions as referred to in paragraph 61 of Print R7898:
‘The evidence before me and the history of the poor understanding of award provisions tells in favour of adopting a definition as part of the provision in the reviewed award.’
(f) Evidence by Mr O’Flaherty in his witness statement:
‘The Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package ICP05 contains Assessment Guidelines which set down procedures for assessment. In the event of a dispute over the competency assessment process a qualified Assessor would need to be engaged to provide an interpretation at additional cost to the employer.
In my opinion many employees who may claim to be competent in the competency unit modules of training packages often need to complete further training via a Registered Training Organisation such as etraining before they could be correctly deemed competent.
Employees who are assessed as competent by their employer will not be entitled to have this recognized as certification under the Australian Qualifications Framework system.
The AMWU competency system may have the unintended impact of giving some employees a false level of competence with ramifications in the workplace.’ ” 43
PIAA draft order
[76] PIAA tendered a draft order which highlighted the differences with the AMWU draft order. The main differences are:
“Employees without a formal (AQF) qualification will be appointed to a classification level contained in sub clause 5.1.1(c) as determined by the employer.
Alternatively, where the employer and the majority of employees at the enterprise agree, the points system as detailed in Appendix F will be used for determining an employee’s classification, which is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements.
Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of an enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.” 44
“(a) The reference to ‘Subject to 5.1.1(b) …’ becomes unnecessary in the introduction of each classification level as these provisions apply anyway.
(b) The reference to ‘The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level’ to be replaced with the following references from the Merriman C Order in Print L0648 which states:
‘Indicative tasks at this level may include’.” 45
The operation of the “points system” under the facilitative provision contained in clause 5.1.1(b)(vii) would satisfy s.143(1B) of the Act as there would need to be agreement at the enterprise level before the competency assessment system is enacted.
PIAA argues this choice provision is a safety mechanism for small business who would otherwise find the implementation of a competency based points system beyond their organisational capability. 46
AIG Written Submission
[77] AIG submitted that proceedings relating to the skill based classification structure in the award have operated for approximately 15 years. Over this period AIG and its predecessor organisations have devoted substantial resources to endeavour to achieve a workable outcome.
[78] AIG agreed in large measure with the AMWU’s application.
[79] AIG tendered a draft order setting out the key differences between its draft order and the draft order of the AMWU. The key differences are 47:
[80] The key difference between AIG’s draft order and PIAA’s draft order is:
“The use of the points system to resolve disputes – Ai Group’s position is that the points system should only be implemented where the employer and employees in the workplace agree – except that the points system should in all circumstances be used to resolve any classification disputes. PIAA’s position is that the points system should in all circumstances only be implemented where the employer and the employees agree.” 48
[81] The AIG submitted that the points system should be used to resolve classification disputes because it enables the issues in dispute to be assessed with more precision than simply applying the wording in the classification definitions in clause 5.1.1(c). The competency standards describe the elements of each competency unit and the standard which is required to be made. They also give guidance on assessment. 49
[82] AIG submits the Commission should adopt AIG’s layout in regard to the points system for the following reasons:
[83] AIG submitted that the wording of its draft order is allowable under the Act, in particular ss.89A(2)(a) and (c) and (6). It noted that any amendments which are made to the Act in the future which result in any provisions of the award classification structure becoming non allowable will require that the award be varied accordingly.
AMWU Witness Evidence
1. Stephen Robert Walsh, Federal Secretary of the AMWU Printing Division
[84] Mr Walsh’s statement evinces his long involvement in training issues both generally and in particular the printing industry. He gave evidence on the development of the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package (ICP05) which in part states, the package inter alia:
“Offers a more diversified range of qualifications that better reflects a complex industry, giving more choice and flexibility to enterprises and individuals.
…
Provides a sound balance between core and elective competencies across the technical and integrated processes.
…
Includes a range of new and revised competencies that are flexible enough to be customised to an enterprise’s specific operations and needs.” 51
[85] Mr Walsh attested that during the review of the package extensive consultation occurred across the printing industry revealing that the traditional role of the printer had changed considerably over the years.
[86] Mr Walsh’s statement outlined the (Infrastructure Growth Fund) IIGF Report “Training and Education Needs of the Printing Industry Now and Into the Future” which inter alia analysed the skill requirements for printers now and into the future 52. Mr Walsh was a member of the project’s steering group.
[87] The Report identified criteria for best practice, education and training which included clear and strong links between industry training and the importance of upskilling. The Report identified areas of concern including:
“a. low awareness of owners/managers of the need for upskilling; and
b. the relatively low attractiveness of upskilling to operatives (workers)” 53
[88] Mr Walsh attested that the variation to the award to include the union’s proposed classification structure which links skills to training and competencies will accelerate the upskilling identified by the IIGF Report. The union’s proposal also responds favourably to the issues identified by Print 21 which is the Action Agenda for the industry developed as a joint government and printing industry initiative. 54
[89] Mr Walsh’s evidence attested to the characterisation of the union’s proposal as being an objective, transparent, effective method of classifying employees; facilitating the identification of skill gap and the development of appropriate training plans; providing an effective industry wide solution for classifying employees and facilitating the uptake of training identified by the industry for its future.
[90] Mr Walsh described the advantage of the points based classification system:
“32. The union’s points based classification system is consistent with the minimum requirements contained in formal qualifications of the ICP05. This approach provides a system which will benefit both employees and employers by providing objectivity and a rigour when assessing workers’ skills and competence and determining classification levels.” 55
[91] In his oral evidence, Mr Walsh outlined his continuous involvement in the printing and graphic arts industry for 36-37 years as a trades compositor and union official. Mr Walsh outlined his involvement in training organisations within the industry at State and national level, including as a member of the working group which oversaw the review of the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) under the auspices of the National Printing Industry Training Council (NPITC) in 2003.
[92] The Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) finally endorsed by the successor to ANTA sets out competencies to be applied across the printing and graphic arts industry.
[93] Mr Walsh outlined the active role he played in the development of the AMWU classification structure, particularly in the last 5 years. Based on his experience in the industry, he outlined advantages:
[94] Mr Walsh gave evidence and outlined the history of the articulation of the printing and graphics arts pre press apprenticeship which the AMWU believes should be at the AQF Level 4 qualification. It was the industry’s view that it was fair and reasonable that given the higher skills the trade level should articulate at the higher Level 4 level. However, the outcome is that it articulates at the AQF Level 3.
[95] Mr Walsh’s evidence was to the effect that the combination of the training package and the classification structure should result in greater incentive for employees to undertake career paths.
[96] In cross-examination by Mr Parkes, Mr Walsh agreed that for the points system to be applied recourse would be required to the new training package. He did not concede that there was a requirement to purchase the training package to access the points system because the award would contain competencies. In his opinion, ICP05 is a vast improvement on ICP99.
[97] Mr Walsh agreed that a qualified assessor (Workplace Training 4) would be required before an employee could seek a formal qualification which required the completion of an established course.
[98] Mr Walsh’s evidence was that SME 56 could use a qualified assessor, someone from a registered organisation or train one of their own staff as an assessor. Cost considerations would need to be balanced against return to the employer and increased productivity.
[99] Mr Walsh’s evidence was that there are skill shortages in a variety of areas. The source of this is anecdotal and from industry reports including the report “Training and Education Needs of the Printing Industry Now and Into the Future” which concluded there is a paucity of tradespeople.
[100] Mr Walsh agreed that the AMWU conceded that in the interest of getting a package finalised that it was in the union’s interest to accept the level of the trades qualification at AQF Level 3 but did not concede that this was the union’s view. He did not agree that alignment at AQF Level 4 would necessarily have resulted in a cost impost because, based on anecdotal evidence, many tradespeople receive higher wages than AQF Level 4 level.
[101] Mr Walsh’s evidence was that the award classification structure would be used as a base for enterprise agreements.
[102] Mr Walsh outlined how clause 5.1.1(b)(vii) would operate in practice for employees without a formal AQF qualification. The employer will determine the level. If the classification is disputed by the employee, the points system will be used by reference to Appendix “F” to identify work performed. This would form the basis of discussion with the employer. The points system would be accessed if agreement cannot be reached via those discussions. In Mr Walsh’s view, this mechanism is fair to both the employer and the employee. The need to resolve a classification in a small business would be via the disputes settlement procedure by either a board of reference or a competent person.
[103] In the first instance, Appendix “F” would be looked at. In the vast number of cases, the words of the appendix e.g. operating equipment, will suffice to demonstrate the skill and the points would be added up. If there is a dispute over holding of the skills, then there would be a need for proper assessment but this would be at the final end of the dispute.
[104] In Mr Walsh’s view, small businesses have greater competence to be able to assess an employee’s skills against competencies because of the nature of small business in the printing industry. His experience since 1979 is that there were 500 classifications and small business undertook a variety of tasks.
[105] In Mr Walsh’s view, a small employer would be equipped to assess whether an employee held an OH&S competency.
[106] In re-examination, Mr Walsh’s evidence was that a small employer could ascertain whether an employee held skills as distinct from being qualified to formally assess the skills of an employee.
2. Daniel Dougherty, Regional Secretary of the Queensland Printing Division of the AMWU
[107] Mr Dougherty attested to the changed role of the tradesperson since he first worked as a Binder and Finisher 18 years ago. His evidence was that the current award classification structure does not adequately meet the needs of the printing industry as it fails to recognise the changing nature of work and skill. He cited PMP at the Wacol site in Queensland which is Australia’s largest printing business employing in excess of 100 employees. It was Mr Dougherty’s evidence that Wacol is a male dominated site with less that 15% women engaged in the production workforce, the majority of which are concentrated in the bindery department. There are no female tradespersons. Mr Dougherty attested that the female employees in bindery position:
[108] Mr Dougherty’s evidence is that PMP fails to recognise and reward the skills 57.
[109] Mr Dougherty attested that more structural training would be available if the award provided for a classification system based on standard industry competencies.
[110] Mr Dougherty attested that a points based classification structure would provide a process for skills that are required and utilized at the workplace to be recognised. It would provide transparency and equity.
[111] Mr Dougherty gave evidence that he has been in the printing industry for 18 years as a tradesperson and subsequently as a union official. His evidence was that employees in binding and finishing trades have taken over work previously undertaken by tradespersons. An example of this is PMP where women perform the role of trades in some respects, for example, guillotining or setting up of saddle stitching. This work was part of apprenticeship training but is not recognised in classifications. The trades role is now usually at the higher end of trades work.
[112] Mr Dougherty’s evidence was that skills are acquired in an ad hoc manner in the absence of formal training. This reflects the classification structure in the current award which does not formally recognise skills of non trades women at PMP.
[113] In Mr Dougherty’s view, the proposed points system would better handle this type of discrepancy by:
[114] Mr Dougherty attested that preference is given to tradespeople rather than to table hands for weekend overtime. This is indirect discrimination against women.
[115] There are no mechanisms at PMP currently available to reclassify employees.
[116] In Mr Dougherty’s evidence, the points system contained in the AMWU application would be a catalyst for getting the parties together to resolve disputes.
[117] Under cross-examination by Mr Parkes, Mr Dougherty stated he had dealt with up to 15 disputes over classification across a range of establishments, predominantly in commercial print shops.
[118] Mr Dougherty reiterated that in his view he is not aware of any female tradespeople being employed in the bindery area at PMP. He acknowledged that females and males were both paid above the award rate but the actual rates of pay were different for tradespeople and table hands (female).
[119] Mr Dougherty acknowledged that the recently certified agreement provided for a review of the site’s approach to competency based classification structures and explored the feasibility of a skill based structure. If the award provided a clear classification structure, then this path would be taken.
[120] Mr Dougherty’s evidence was that small business would be able to quite easily implement the points system in a discussion with the employers, employees and union. In non union sites assistance may be given by an employer organisation such as PIAA if required.
[121] Mr Dougherty gave an example of a certified agreement with a medium size firm where a points system was implemented with assistance from TAFE.
[122] Under cross-examination by Mr Smith, Mr Dougherty agreed that PMP at Wacol was not breaching the existing award classification structure and that the problem he identified with the classification of female employees could be dealt with under the proposed classification structure.
3. Jim Reid, Regional Secretary of the Victorian Printing Division of the AMWU
[123] Mr Reid’s witness statement outlined a recent dispute at Wadepack in Mt Waverly, Victoria, a wholly owned subsidiary of Carter Holt Harvey, which is a printer and manufacturer of cartons. Mr Reid attested that some employees known as “babysitters” are classified at Level 2 when the work they perform is at a higher level. On Mr Reid’s evidence, the only difference between them and an Operator/Trades Level is that “babysitters” do not set up the machine. “Babysitters” received on-the-job training from operators/tradespersons and one-on-one skills transfer occurred.
[124] The matter has been before the Commission for conciliation but remains unresolved.
[125] Mr Reid also gave evidence that Die Cutters Operators (DCOs) are classified at Level 2 by Wadepack but some DCOs earn up to $300 more than other DCOs and more than supervisors. Mr Reid’s evidence was that company documentation shows that some DCOs who can operate all machines are on a lower rate than those who can operate less machines and that Wadepack has no set structure or access to training.
[126] Mr Reid stated in his witness statement that :
“7. A points based classification structure linked to endorsed industry competencies would deliver a transparent package that would reduce disputation and create better workplaces. It would recognise skills and deliver more equitable outcomes than the current system that is left to the discretion of management. A clear cut approach to classifications, as proposed by the Union in its application, will ensure that skills and competencies can be assessed against standards that are consistent across the industry.” 58
[127] In his oral evidence, Mr Reid gave evidence that his experience in the printing industry has been as a compositor since 1967 and as a union official for the past 10 years.
[128] Mr Reid elaborated on the evidence in his witness statement regarding the dispute at Wadepack. He also detailed the discrepancies in the wage structure of up to $300 for die cutters and operators who perform the same work. It was Mr Reid’s evidence that there is insufficient scope in the award classification structure to properly reflect all the levels of skill.
[129] Mr Reid gave evidence of how a classification dispute had been dealt with and the requirement for working towards a proper structure in the next certified agreement and the unsatisfactory, protracted and inconclusive discussions over achieving this.
[130] Under cross-examination, Mr Reid stated that he had dealt with a number of classification disputes of which two (John Sands and The Age) had been referred to the Commission. These were both protracted disputes. Mr Reid acknowledged that he had limited experience with classification disputes at small businesses.
[131] Mr Reid acknowledged that the “babysitters” received overtime payments at Wadepack but other employees were paid higher levels of overtime.
[132] Mr Reid’s evidence was that the points system if applied would enable skills to be properly assessed.
4. Glenn Wrigley, employed by Leigh Mardon Australasia Pty Ltd as a Production Co-ordinator and elected AMWU delegate and Father of the Chapel representing employees at the Highett site
[133] Mr Wrigley attested in his witness statement that in negotiating the Leigh Mardon Highett Site Enterprise Agreement 2000 59 it was recognised and agreed by the company that a classification structure was required to recognise the skills of workers. It becomes apparent that a points system needs to be established to ensure a fair and transparent system that clearly recognises employees who use many low skills, compared to employees that use fewer high level skills. A points system which clearly defines the company’s requirements and the employees’ pathway to upskilling, multi tasking and wage increases was introduced. In Mr Wrigley’s evidence it was apparent that failure to align a points system to classification levels could potentially disadvantage a multi skilled employee who did not have the opportunity to access high level competencies. The points based on competence were aligned to the relevant levels within a 12 level structure.
[134] In Mr Wrigley’s evidence, the points system introduced at Leigh Mardon:
[135] In his oral evidence, Mr Wrigley gave evidence that he has worked in the printing industry for 30 years. He has been Father of the Chapel at Leigh Mardon for 8 years. His oral evidence elaborated on the development and implementation of a skill based classification system at Leigh Mardon. This was based on a need for multi-skilling of employees reflected in a transparent classification structure which enabled employees to undertake additional tasks. The structure was developed by way of a work organisation committee which sought advice from RMIT and other experts. A 12 level structure replaced the previous 114 or 115 level structure 60. The new structure enabled managers to determine skill mix and provide a career path for employees.
[136] Mr Wrigley’s evidence was that it emerged that some tasks undertaken by an employee were of a higher skill level than reflected in the pay level. The points system enabled recognition of higher skill levels and provided an incentive to employees to obtain higher skills. The points system was introduced in 2001 or 2002 and a system of self management on site has emerged as employees were trained to become trainers and assessors. It became a self serving classification structure enabling the company to determine skills required. The success of the system is seen in the downsizing of the company as employees acquire more skills and it became apparent fewer employees were required in some sectors. This enabled the company to become more competitive. The employees have an incentive to train.
[137] Mr Wrigley trained as an assessor and then undertook internal training of existing employees as assessors. Employees are comfortable being assessed by fellow employees.
[138] Under cross-examination, Mr Wrigley acknowledged that Leigh Mardon has around 550 employees across Australia of which 223 were at the Highett site at the time the classification structure was introduced. The work organisation committee comprises three union and three company representatives and a registered training officer (usually from RMIT). The ICP99 was used as a basis and the committee sought advice from RMIT on how to reconcile competencies under the award with the special requirements of Leigh Mardon. This was able to be recognised under the classification structure. Over a period of 12-18 months, effort was put into educating employees on the differences between machine based competencies and skill based competencies.
[139] It was Mr Wrigley’s evidence that the introduction of the classification structure took four years to implement because Leigh Mardon was in a unique situation with a 24 hour operation requiring considerable security features which have been recognised in the classification structure. The nationally recognised competencies have been capable of adaption to meet Leigh Mardon’s requirements.
[140] In answer to a question about how a small business would cope with a points system, Mr Wrigley’s evidence was that small businesses have multi-skilled employees to meet the needs of their businesses and it should not be difficult to assess their employees’ skills.
[141] The Leigh Mardon experience with outside assessors was widely sourced and resources were put into it. Mr Wrigley did not know the cost of outside assessors or of his own training as an assessor. The cost was borne by Leigh Mardon.
[142] It was Mr Wrigley’s evidence that he assumed a 3-4 day course would have a differential impact on a small business depending on its profitability.
[143] Mr Wrigley’s evidence was that there have not been any disputes at Leigh Mardon associated with the classification structure.
[144] In re-examination, Mr Wrigley stated that the number of employees had fallen from 223 to 176 employees since the classification structure was introduced but production has stayed at the same levels and employees have a clear training path to improve their skills and wages. There has definitely been a financial benefit to the company.
5. Mark West, Organiser AMWU NSW Printing Region since 1998 who has worked in the printing industry for 20 years.
[145] Mr West gave evidence that in his capacity as organiser for the AMWU he has negotiated the following enterprise agreements:
[146] Mr West attested that the impetus for developing new classification structure in those companies was the inadequacy of the current award classification structure, particularly in the trade and post trade areas. It was Mr West’s evidence that negotiations are slow and difficult in the absence of an established and accepted relevant classification structure and method of progression. Such negotiations would not be possible in smaller establishments without such a structure in place.
[147] In his oral evidence, Mr West attested that his duties as an organiser embraced small and large enterprises.
[148] Mr West elaborated on why he considers the current classification system fails to meet the needs of the printing industry:
[149] Mr West gave evidence that in his experience there has been tacit acknowledgement that the award classification system has been seen to be inadequate. For example, at Amcor Botany a constant string of issues arose because there are pay differentials for employees doing the same job. This led to disputation and recognition of the need for a skill based classification structure. Many of the disputes have gone away since pay levels have been aligned to skills. There have not been any new disputes on this issue since parts of the structure have been implemented, and pay levels and setting of career paths have been implemented. The morale at the company is higher. The company has undertaken to train up employees.
[150] Mr West gave evidence that in most cases where negotiations on developing a classification structure have occurred, it has been without outside assistance.
[151] Under cross-examination, Mr West agreed he worked on training packages as a union representative on the committee 65.
[152] Mr West elaborated on the process developed at Amcor to develop a classification structure. This entailed union involvement and negotiations were protracted because there was no accepted standard and it was necessary to develop a structure virtually from scratch. The company and the union have agreed to draw competency standards from the national training package and basically wanted a structure that met the needs of Amcor.
[153] Mr West acknowledged that the cost of implementing the system at Amcor arose out of reclassification of employees who had not been previously classified and where adjustments were necessary to bring them up to the skill level where they were working. The company is still developing assessors through a committee including about 5 employees and 3 management representatives.
[154] Mr West clarified that an in-house classification structure is used by Amcor at Botany. It was not included in the latest certified agreement but the agreement refers to it.
[155] Mr West acknowledged SMEs operate in a diverse range of sectors and require a range of options for the classification structure. He doubted whether small businesses would require any additional competencies outside the national training package acknowledged at Amcor. Other industry packages were drawn on in the stores area.
[156] Mr West conceded he did not have an in-depth understanding of the AMWU’s points system but it was his understanding that people accrue points based on their competencies and the skills they develop and that there are certain levels which require a particular number of points to achieve those levels. It was Mr West’s evidence that he has worked for a lot of small business and that managers and employees understand the work they do. They are able to train people and they are able to assess them. The AMWU proposal will provide a structure which will recognise skills and provide prospects for employers to develop a skill base within their firm. This has been missing up until now.
6. Matthew Lowe, New South Wales Regional Secretary of the Printing Division of the AMWU
[157] Mr Lowe has several years’ experience working in the printing industry on single and multi colour sheet fed presses. He has also been an organiser and Father of the Chapel. Mr Lowe attested that he was familiar with the provisions of the award and has an extensive knowledge of a large range of printing establishments in New South Wales. When he was a delegate and Father of the Chapel at Amcor Fibre Packaging Revesby site he was directly involved in negotiating and implementing a skill based pay system (SBP) which is a ten tier system to which “points” are attached and allocated on a skills basis. It was Mr Lowe’s evidence that the system has worked well, is transparent and not open to discression or manipulation by any party. The “points” system and the associated skills outlined with every point is a clear path for both the employer and the employee to follow and cannot be misconstrued. The only difficulty encountered with the SBP is that it has become outdated as the nature of the job and skills required to do the job have changed. The AMWU and Amcor are currently working on updating the system.
[158] In his oral evidence, Mr Lowe stated that when he worked at Amcor Fibre Packaging, Revesby, it was difficult to move any higher than Level 3. This generated disputes. As a result of ongoing disputes on how the award classification structure should be applied, a skill based pay system was introduced at that site in the late 1990s to address the level of disputation. Mr Lowe’s evidence was that the system has been positive, it was real and it allowed progression which could be followed to attain points. It provided portability between departments. It took away all the hearsay arising out of the generic system which caused disputes.
[159] Current difficulties with the system arise from the diversity of the industry and changed skill needs of employers and the system is being updated to recognise what people actually do.
[160] The system at Revesby was negotiated by the company, employees and the union. Employees are assessed by trained in-house assessors.
[161] Mr Lowe stated that the points system in the AMWU draft order:
[162] The system will be more “alive” and recognise the acquisition of skills. It is a clear structure and able to overcome classification disputes.
[163] Under cross-examination, Mr Lowe outlined his experience with classification disputes at Salmat. He conceded he had never worked for a small business.
[164] Mr Lowe’s evidence was that the points system at Amcor is part of a national enterprise agreement and aligned to Amcor competencies. The employees fully understand the skilled based system.
[165] Mr Lowe’s evidence was that he is a member of the joint consultative committee for the development of the classification structure and skill based pay system. Other employees who were trained in the workplace training and assessor’s course conducted the assessments at Amcor of the competencies of individual employees. He was not aware of the cost of training the assessors.
[166] Mr Lowe’s evidence was that three employees trained as assessors at each site on a three day course.
[167] Mr Lowe was asked by Mr Parkes to interpret the meaning of clause 5.1.1(b)(vii) in the AMWU’s draft order. He was of the view that there would be few disputes over classifications because the level of skill held by an employee would be clearly delineated by reference to the skills used in accordance with the needs of the business. This is clear by reference to Appendix “F”. There would be no scope for the employee to seek to manipulate or impose other skills on the employer for classification purposes.
[168] Mr Lowe disagreed that under the AMWU’s provision an employee could force the company to use the competency based system in Appendix “F” to determine the classification level because the needs of the business would dictate the skills necessary to undertake the work.
[169] Mr Lowe estimated all employees at Amcor would meet the OHS module and be eligible for points and competencies in Appendix “F”. He conceded he did not know what was behind the module in the training package.
PIAA Witness Evidence
1. Alan Desfontaines, Operations Manager for Custom Press Pty Ltd
[170] Mr Desfontaines attested that Custom Press Pty Ltd (Custom Press) employees some 135 employees. The company is involved in the design, making of plates and printing of books, leaflets and cardboard boxes of various kinds using a range of equipment including computers, multiple colour offset press, binding and finishing, and other related equipment. It was Mr Desfontaines’ evidence that he uses the current classification structure under the Graphic Arts – General – Award 2000 and finds it “easy to use” 66 in the workplace.
[171] Mr Desfontaines attested that he was previously employed in the position of Plant Manager for GNB Technologies which employed some 300 people under the federal Metals Award. The implementation of the new competency based structure required extensive resources, was time consuming and expensive. The competency based structure is complex and to assess the units of competency on the job there was a requirement to have a number of competency based assessors available. This required the training of a number of employees.
[172] Mr Desfontaines’ evidence was that he experienced considerable problems in finding people interested in becoming qualified assessors and used internally trained assessors since external assessors were expensive to use.
[173] The majority of employees required reclassification and each assessment took an average of about 3 months. All employees seeking reclassification were back paid where increases were granted. One employee’s assessment took some 9 months to complete and the employee concerned was back paid $11,000. All employees were reclassified upwards by the review panel other than in exceptional circumstances and the effect of the translation and classification was to increase the total cost of the payroll. The competency based classification structure had the effect of increasing the overall level of pay without any increase in skill level.
[174] Mr Desfontaines attested that the company endeavoured to improve productivity by training machine operators to undertake work and free up tookmakers/mechanical fitters for other work. It was found that the points allocated for the additional tasks resulted in such a substantial increase in pay that it was unworkable.
[175] Mr Desfontaines’ evidence was that from personal experience “it was extremely difficult to determine the actual level of competence and the level of competence assessed did not reflect the tasks undertaken”. 67
[176] Internal assessors were unable to be used on some tasks and external assessors were required at additional cost to the business.
[177] Mr Desfontaines’ evidence concluded:
“I found that the whole process of applying a competency based structure resulted in considerable time, money and cost being expended on an ongoing basis and encouraged employees to continually seek ways and means by which they could have an additional competency recognised, resulting in a pay increase.” 68
[178] In his oral evidence, Mr Desfontaines recounted difficulties at GNB Technologies (300 employees) with the points system when he was Plant Manager. The company introduced a competency based system:
[179] At Custom Press a difficulty would be how to find and train assessors, especially given the diverse nature of the business which embraces corrugating, print and packaging.
[180] Under cross-examination, Mr Desfontaines gave evidence that he uses the award in day-to-day running of the business at Custom Press. His employees are classified under five levels under the award. Women are employed in bindery (20) and packaging (5) at Levels 2 and 3. Employees at Custom Press receive overaward payments in accordance with individual skills determined by supervisors or leading hands after the probationary period is completed. The process is not a structured format but is a matter between the employee and the supervisor. Overaward payments are applied consistently according to skill levels.
[181] Mr Desfontaines conceded he was not aware of the interim classification structure contained in Appendix G of the award.
[182] Mr Desfontaines’ evidence was that he could not recall being consulted over the development of the Printing Industry Training Package in 2004 notwithstanding the Submission Documentation for Reviewed Training Package listing him as having been consulted and being recorded as making a positive comment on the training package.
[183] Mr Desfontaines gave evidence that there is varied training undertaken by employees at Custom Press, including quality training in house and via external courses conducted by Frontline Management Training. Existing employees undertake upskilling. A training course has recently been completed for some prepress employees with colour management.
[184] Mr Desfontaines acknowledged that he is an office bearer of PIAA.
[185] Mr Desfontaines outlined his understanding of the AMWU’s proposed points system to determine classifications. Whilst it is very similar in its parameters to that which applies under the Metals Award, one distinction is that the Metals Award mandates trained assessors whereas that is not a requirement under the AMWU’s proposal for the Graphic Arts – General – Award 2000. However, who is to do the assessment remains a concern. Mr Desfontaines’ understanding is that it is a requirement of the AMWU’s application that the assessor must have a detailed knowledge of the competencies used to classify employees is a requirement.
[186] Mr Desfontaines outlined what changes have occurred in the industry, particularly in the prepress area. It was his evidence that the agreed definition in clause 5.1.1(c) would be a guide at Custom Press but he had not examined them in any detail.
[187] Employee turnover at Custom Press is less than 1%, with skills shortages being experienced in bindery 69.
2. John O’Flaherty, Chief Executive Officer of JPM ASIA Pacific Network (trading as etraining)
[188] Mr O’Flaherty attested that etraining provides online vocational, educational and training courses, specialising in information technology, human resource management and occupational health and safety. Etraining provides online courses to the printing industry via an agreement with PIAA.
[189] In his witness statement, Mr O’Flaherty stated:
“4. I note that Appendix F of the AMWU application contains references to numbering of competency unit modules from the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package ICP05.
5. The Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package ICP05 contains Assessment Guidelines which set down procedures for assessment. In the event of a dispute over the competency assessment process a qualified Assessor would need to be engaged to provide an interpretation at additional cost to the employer.
6. In my opinion many employees who may claim to be competent in the competency unit modules of training packages often need to complete further training via a Registered Training Organisation such as etraining before they could be correctly deemed competent.
7. Employees who are assessed as competent by their employer will not be entitled to have this recognized as certification under the Australian Qualifications Framework system.”
[190] Mr O’Flaherty concluded in his witness statement by attesting that the AMWU competency system may have the unintended impact of giving some employees a false level of competence with ramifications in the workplace.
[191] In his oral evidence, Mr O’Flaherty attested that an employer would be required to operate under the rules of the Department of Education, Science and Training which requires competency assessments to be delivered by a qualified assessor, namely a Certificate IV in assessment and training competency along with a certificate of having gained competencies he or she is assessing. Certificates are not issued as to competency in other circumstances.
[192] Mr O’Flaherty recalled that Appendix “F” of the AMWU draft order sets out points to be applied to particular competencies. It is not possible to deem someone competent by simply looking at the competencies in Appendix “F” and adding them up. Mr O’Flaherty’s evidence was that the points system may generate a false level of confidence if an employee thinks he or she has in fact achieved a competency in an unit of competency within the framework of a certificate in circumstances where the competency has been reached through the points system and is not transferable. This may impact beyond the workplace because the competency is not recognised because it was not delivered by a Registered Training Officer.
[193] Under cross-examination, Mr O’Flaherty described his experience of providing trainers, including within the printing and graphic arts industry through PIAA. His company operates delivery of training and requisition training organisations who deliver the competencies and do the assessments. In the printing and graphic arts industry training package the company delivers Certificates at Levels II, III and IV. All competencies are delivered but not all on line. The registered training officer delivery system has been doing this for seven years and a substantial number of people have been assessed.
[194] Mr O’Flaherty’s evidence was that a competency assessment that has not changed since 1992 would not be relevant in 2005, but that the printing industry has a program to update all competencies.
[195] Mr O’Flaherty indicated that if a classification assessment is made by someone unqualified then a qualified assessor would be required to resolve a dispute otherwise it will have no validity under the Act of the Department of Employment, Science and Training.
[196] In Mr O’Flaherty’s evidence, a person could be declared competent in terms of a particular workplace by reference to Appendix “F” but this is not recognition under the Act and no certificate could be issued.
[197] Mr O’Flaherty agreed that if an assessment of employees was undertaken by a registered training officer then the employee’s competency would be formally recognised.
3. Jim Hutchinson, owner and Managing Director of Alto Racordah Printing Service Pty Ltd (Alto)
[198] It was Mr Hutchinson’s evidence that Alto is in the business of general commercial printing and operates multi colour and single colour presses. Mr Hutchinson is a qualified printer who has worked in the printing industry for over thirty years. His role at Alto is hands on and includes job estimation, colour matching, printing and human resource functions.
[199] Mr Hutchinson attested that Alto employs nine people, comprise of two directors, printers, bindery operators, graphic artists and a secretary and most of them are employed pursuant to the award and common law contracts. Alto’s employees have a range of trade based qualifications and perform very specific tasks within the company. Due to the small size of the company, there is limited scope for movement within the current workplace structure at Alto.
[200] It was Mr Hutchinson’s evidence that the following effects would result if the AMWU’s application is successful 70:
[201] In his oral evidence, Mr Hutchinson explained the way his company operates. The one shift commences at 6am and finishes at around 5.30pm. The owner faces many pressures such as the Business Activity Statement and OH&S. If an employee is absent, alternative arrangements need to be made from outside. The owner is flat out. His wife, who is involved in the office, took a week’s stress leave recently. There is additional pressure these days in relation to meeting deadlines. Mr Hutchinson’s evidence was that he had not experienced any skills shortage.
[202] In respect of the AMWU’s proposed classification structure and in particular the points system, it was Mr Hutchinson’s evidence that he had been too busy to read the full document. Once the system was explained to him, he stated he would need to engage someone from outside and he should not be obliged to do this. His company has never had an industrial dispute.
[203] Under cross-examination, Mr Hutchinson gave evidence that he engaged multi-skilled printers and paid them above the award. There is a tradesperson in binding. A sometime casual is the only non-trades employee doing binding. The casual is paid the award rate.
[204] Mr Hutchinson was asked a question about the agreed definitions above the trades level in clause 5.1.1(c) in the AMWU’s draft order. He agreed that his employees undertook work under these definitions at three levels rolled into one. His view was there was insufficient delineation between the levels.
[205] Mr Hutchinson described changes in the printing industry in the past decade – prepress is the main area of change. The prepress computer system requires continuous upgrades. In the printing area it is much the same. There have been no changes in bindery. The new skills are more easily understood by younger people since computer skills are taught at school and this leads to a prepress qualification.
[206] In Mr Hutchinson’s opinion, any proposal that required a reclassification would be an administrative burden.
[207] Mr Hutchinson was asked to elaborate on his written evidence that the AMWU proposal does not appear to be clear, simple and straightforward. In his evidence, Mr Hutchinson stated he had only read it quickly and was “talking in general” 71. He would not expect to have to classify an employee.
[208] Mr Hutchinson agreed he could approach PIAA for assistance in reclassifying employees. Grievances could be resolved by discussions but there have not been any disputes.
4. Hagop Tchamkertenian, Manager of Industry and Commercial Policy with PIAA
[209] Mr Tchamkertenian attested that his responsibilities within PIAA include lobbying activities, the preparation of economic and statistical reports, preparing submissions to government agencies on industry and other related issues, benchmarking, environmental issues and regular columnist for the PRINT21 management magazine.
[210] Mr Tchamkertenian attested that “there is no evidence that the printing industry is suffering from an across the board skills shortages. The skills shortages seem to be confined largely to trade skilled areas” 72, specifically in the area hire printing press operations and post press operations of binding and finishing.
[211] Mr Tchamkertenian’s evidence was that TAFE Year 1 apprenticeship enrolments for 2005 show an increase in the number of people enrolling in printing industry related areas.
[212] Mr Tchamkertenian’s evidence was that the introduction of competency based remuneration is likely to impact negatively on the small to medium enterprises (establishments employing less than 100 people) which comprise 96% of total companies operating in the printing industry.
[213] Mr Tchamkertenian’s evidence was that PIAA’s industry analysis clearly shows that different segments of the industry are performing economically differently.
[214] The printing industry benchmarking study shows:
[215] In his oral evidence, Mr Tchamkertenian described:
[216] Mr Tchamkertenian’s gave evidence in relation to compliance costs of the points system on small business:
“Our benchmarking study clearly showed that indicators like profit margin and things like capacity utlisation rates and return of assets actually deteriorates as companies get smaller and smaller which indicates that small companies which dominate our industry have less capacity to respond to issues such as the competency based training system and remuneration that is being proposed.” 73
[217] Under cross-examination, Mr Tchamkertenian expanded on his comments made in the February 2005 quarterly survey which alluded to problems with labour availability in the trades area. Mr Tchamkertenian agreed the report stated that enrolments in Year 1 TAFE apprenticeships had risen in 2004. This is still 52% lower than the peak of Year 1 TAFE enrolments in 1995. Mr Tchamkertenian stated that enrolments in Year 1 TAFE apprenticeships have increased 65% in 2005 compared with 2003 which will eventually address the shortage of skilled tradespersons in the industry. Skill shortages will force wages up and impact on margins, given difficult trading conditions. This will impact on small and large companies but small companies will be hurt more as margins are lower and will be squeezed more because there is a lower ratio of labour costs to sales.
[218] In Mr Tchamkertenian’s view, upskilling may not assist if the cost of labour rises and profit margins fall.
[219] Mr Tchamkertenian gave evidence that at face value it is a good idea to adopt definitions which cover the disparate printing industry but the industry is complex in terms of size and sectors.
[220] Mr Tchamkertenian’s evidence was that the benchmark study showed that companies which invest in human capital outperformed the rest of the industry but these tend to be the larger companies. However, smaller enterprises did not invest in training in the same way as large corporations because they did not have the resources and there is also the issue of the relative cost impact on a small business if an employee who is trained leaves the company.
Decision on Consent Provisions
[221] I sought from the parties any views they held on the appropriate provisions of the Act under which I should determine this application bearing in mind this matter in its original form arose out of the Structural Efficiency Principle in the August 1989 National Wage Case Decision but was further considered as part of award simplification and was ultimately a reserved matter. The parties who addressed me on this issue (AIG and the AMWU) were content to have the matter dealt with as an s.113 application or, in the AMWU’s submission, under both the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (the WROLA Act) and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). I note in any event that the requirements of Item 51 of the WROLA Act are replicated in s.143 of the Act to which I am obliged to have regard.
[222] I also note that the Paid Rates Review Principle states, inter alia:
“1. Awards requiring review under item 51(4) will be:
(a) awards containing rates which have not been adjusted in accordance with the minimum rates adjustment principle in the August 1989 National Wage Case decision …” 74
and is consistent with Principle 3 of the Wage Fixing Principles which states:
“3. PREVIOUS NATIONAL WAGE CASE INCREASES
Increases available under previous National Wage Case decisions such as structural efficiency adjustments, minimum rates adjustments and previous arbitrated safety net adjustments will, on application, still be accessible.” 75
[223] Given the effluxion of time and the recent application lodged under s.113 of the Act to vary the award, I have decided that it is simpler to deal with the matter under s.113 and the relevant wage fixing principle set out in the preceding paragraph.
[224] This application is therefore dealt with in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Act and the Structural Efficiency Principle.
[225] I have formed the view that the proposed classification structure and the other consent clauses meet the objects of the Act, in particular s.3 and s.88B(3).
[226] I am also satisfied that the introduction of a competency based classification structure will contribute to career paths for employees, including women who are often employed in lower skilled classifications, and to higher efficiency and productivity throughout the diverse industry. The structure agreed upon by the parties had its genesis in meeting the requirements of the Structural Efficiency Principle set out in the Commission’s August 1989 National Wage Case Decision and subsequent decisions and recommendations of Munro J and Merriman C as set out in the chronology at Attachment A.
Decision on non agreed provisions
[227] I turn next to a consideration of the clauses, in particular clauses 5.1.1(b)(vii) and (viii) which are not agreed.
Jurisdiction
[228] PIAA submitted that the Commission has no jurisdiction to include the points system in the award because it is beyond ambit. I note the AMWU’s submission in reply that this is a curious position to take since the points system is included in the order proposed by PIAA. In response, PIAA made clear that its support for the inclusion of the points system in the award was a fall back position if I did not accept its submissions on jurisdiction and the requirements of s.143. However, it is incumbent upon me to satisfy myself that the proposed clauses 5.1.1(b)(vii) and (viii) are within the ambit of the dispute finding.
[229] In Re Pastoral Industry Award 1988 76, the Full Bench stated:
“[48] It is trite law that in connection with the settlement of a so-called ‘paper dispute’ an award of the Commission cannot extend to matters outside the ambit of the log of claims by which the dispute was initiated. However, whether a given matter is within the ambit of the log of claims is not dependent upon an explicit reference to the matter in the log of claims. It is well established that the WR Act authorises the Commission to make an award in settlement of a dispute if it is ‘relevant’, ‘reasonably incidental’, or ‘appropriate’ to the statement of the differences constituting the interstate dispute or it is has a ‘natural or rational tendency to dispose of the question at issue’. 77”
[230] The log of claims relied on to ground the award (ODN C No. 22956 of 1995) makes reference to a skilled based classification structure:
“An employee shall be classified at a level appropriate to –
(a) the skill requirements of the position.
(b) the level of skill and/or certificated qualifications of the employee.
(c) the on the job experience of the employee.
(d) the conditions under which the work is performed”. 78
[231] Whilst it is true that the log of claims contains no reference to a points system, the proposed system is a mechanism by which the competency of an employee can be assessed under the classification structure. In my view it falls within the ambit of the log of claims as being either “relevant”, “reasonably incidental” or “appropriate” or it has a “natural or rational tendency to dispose of the question at issue”.
[232] The reliance by PIAA on the Parental Leave Test Case Decision 79 is not of direct assistance to PIAA because as I apprehend the logs in question there was no provision at all for parental leave. This is distinguishable in the current circumstances in which a classification structure based on skill levels is a claim in the log.
Legislative requirements
[233] In its oral submissions, PIAA added an additional jurisdictional ground to the requirements of s.143(1C) to the s.143(1B) argument relied on its written submissions.
[234] I have formed the view that the requirements of s.143(1B) would not be offended if the points system advocated by the AMWU is incorporated into the award. However, the reasons I have formed this view are to a large degree dependent on the nature and role of the points system which I determine when dealing with the merits of the method. PIAA’s arguments with respect to workplace flexibility, agreement making and “one size fits all” are dealt with in detail in the next section. I have had regard to all the material on merit which has relevance to my satisfaction that the requirements of ss.143(1B), 143(1C) and 143(2) of the Act have been met.
Merits
[235] The circumstance of the disagreement between the parties of the role the points system should play in classifying employees without formal qualifications must be seen in context. The only mandatory role for using the points system is found in the draft orders of both the AMWU and AIG, namely when a dispute or disagreement arises over the classification of an employee, the points system must be applied to resolve a dispute.
[236] The AMWU draft order provides that the points system is one of two approaches that may be chosen by the employer for the classification of employees. The other is via application of the definitions. Under PIAA and AIG proposed drafts the employers will choose the definitions approach unless it is agreed by the employer and the majority of employees that the points system should be used.
[237] The contentious versions of clause 5.1.1(b)(vii) are reproduced as follows for convenience:
AMWU draft clause 5.1.1(b)(vii)
“5.1.1(b)(vii) CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT A FORMAL (AQF) QUALIFICATION
Subject to 5.1.1(b), employees will have their classification level assigned on the following basis as determined by the employer:
(1) That they meet the requirements of the classification definitions in sub-clauses 5.1.1(c); or
(2) That they meet the points requirements set out in 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table “A” and Appendix “F”;
Provided that should there be any dispute or disagreement in relation to classification or reclassification, method (2) above shall be used.
Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.” 80
PIAA draft clause 5.1.1(b)(vii)
“5.1.1(b)(vii) CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT A FORMAL (AQF) QUALIFICATION
Employees without a formal (AQF) qualification will be appointed to a classification level contained in subclause 5.1.1(c) as determined by the employer.
Alternatively, where the employer and the majority of employees at the enterprise agree, the points system as detailed in Appendix F will be used for determining an employees classification, which is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements.
Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.” 81
[238] AIG supports PIAA draft clause but in addition supports the following AMWU provision:
“Provided that should there be any dispute or disagreement in relation to classification or reclassification, method (2) above shall be used.”
[239] The major difference between the parties which requires determination is the role which the points system is to play in the classification of employees. The critical difference is the manner in which the system is accessed and hence whether it places undue requirements (cost, time, resources) upon individual workplaces, especially small and medium businesses.
[240] By way of background, the points system as derived from the AMWU draft order as I understand it would work in the following way:
First: To classify an employee without formal qualifications under the classification structure access would be made to Column D, Table “A”, in clause 5.1.1(a)(ii) to align the equivalent points which an employee has attained via the acquisition of competencies which are set out in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training’s accredited training package as set out in Appendix “F”. Each competency has been assigned a points rating of 1 – 5 depending on the level of skill required. A second requirement is that at some levels more complex competency units (which attract more points) must be completed. For example, to be classified at Level 6 an employee would need to have attained 51 competency points which include at least five units of three or more points and two units of four or more points. The total number of points determines the employee’s job classification.
Second: The same process is undertaken when there is a dispute over the classification of an employee.
[241] In addition to the primary submissions outlined above, the AMWU filed a written submission in reply. Oral submissions were made at the hearing by all parties particularly in relation to the application of the points system. All this material has been given consideration and is referred to, together with the witness evidence, in my consideration of the matters. I briefly summarise the oral submissions made on the points system.
[242] PIAA’s opposition to the points system being an award provision (other than by facilitation) on the basis of merit falls into a number of categories:
[243] The cost factors are highlighted in the evidence of PIAA’s witness statements.
[244] In PIAA’s submissions, the AMWU and AIG’s dispute settling procedure at clause 5.1.1(b)(x) fails to call on clause 5.1.1(e), Training, as an appropriate process for deciding whether or not the points system should be adopted, especially the need for a consultative clause. Consultation should precede resort to the training package.
[245] AIG also argued that its draft order contains the entirety of the points system in Appendix “F”. This avoids unnecessary detail being contained in the award and is analogous to Schedules attached to the Metals Award arising out of award simplification which reflect particular circumstances and as such are more consistent with the requirements of s.143.
[246] In AIG’s submission, the points system will only be used in limited circumstances.
[247] For its part, the AMWU submitted that:
[248] The AMWU also rejected submissions made by both AIG and PIAA about gender discrimination. The AMWU reiterated that proper classification on a skills basis would assist women who, as seen by the evidence, are under-classified relative to their skills. (See for example Mr Reid’s reference to “babysitters”.) 83 The definitions approach is too general to address gender discrimination.
[249] The AMWU disputed the AIG submission that most employers and employees will utilise the definitions approach because this is easier. It submitted that there is no evidence before the Commission to make such a finding.
[250] The AMWU also opposed the AIG layout which contained the reference to the points system in Appendix “F”. The Commission’s determination on this issue will, to some extent at least, depend upon the decision made with respect to whether or not the points system has a role to play in the award beyond the dispute settling procedure.
[251] Both the AMWU and AIG submitted that the points system was necessary for resolution through the dispute settling procedure because it provides more precision than looking at the classification definitions alone. AIG submitted the training package contained standards which provide guidance on assessments and overcomes potential claims from militant employees.
[252] AIG agreed with the AMWU that the use of external assessors was not a requirement per se in dealing with a dispute over a classification although such an assessor could be utilised, for example, by a Board of Reference set up under the dispute settling procedure.
Consideration of the Points System
[253] I have formed the view that there is sufficient merit in the AMWU’s application under s.113 to vary the award in the manner sought in preference to the facilitative clause favoured by PIAA and AIG.
[254] I have also formed the view that there is merit in adopting a mandatory role for the points system as part of the dispute settling procedure when a disagreement or dispute arises over the classification of an employee.
[255] However, in reaching these conclusions, on the material before me, I am of the view that there should be an explicit step based on consultation between the employer and the employee when a dispute or disagreement arises over the classification of an employee in an endeavour to settle the dispute before recourse is made to the points system.
[256] I have formed this view based on the evidence in particular of Mr Walsh 84 and Mr Hutchinson85, and based on the merit I found in the thrust of the submissions of PIAA that in the provisions favoured by the AMWU and AIG, an employer will be forced into the points system to resolve a dispute in the absence of consultation.
[257] PIAA submitted that there was a “missing link” in the approach taken by the AMWU and AIG to the points system as a mandatory approach to resolving disputes. This is the role of clause 5.1.1(e), Training, which is an agreed provision providing inter alia the establishment of a consultative process for providing training in respect of higher levels of skills. Although PIAA’s draft order itself does not cross-reference clause 5.1.1(e) to the dispute settling provisions, I consider that the intent of PIAA’s submission provides a basis for further discussion between the parties to give effect to my view that there should be an obligation on the employer and the employee to consult before involving the points system to resolve a dispute or disagreement arising out of a definitions classification. The parties may also be assisted in their discussions by the terms of clause 18.4.8 in the Telecommunications Services Industry Award 2002 86 which states:
“18.4.8 Notification of classification
Upon a request being made by an employee, the employee shall be advised of the award classification which the employer considers to be appropriate having regard to the definitions in this award and the duties performed by the employee.
If an employee disputes the classification assigned to him/her by the employer the employee must advise the employer in writing. If the dispute is unable to be resolved by the employer and the employee in a reasonable time it will be dealt with in accordance with Clause 10 - Dispute Resolution Procedure.”
[258] Since this matter was not directly raised with the parties, the matter can be relisted for short submissions if the parties cannot reach agreement on a suitably worded consultative clause.
[259] I am satisfied that there are sufficient checks and balances in the points system to ensure that the points system set out in the AMWU draft order will not be too costly or onerous at the workplace level for the following reasons:
1. A key characteristic of the points system is that it can provide flexible application at the enterprise level.
These characteristics of the points system demonstrate that there is considerable flexibility in the system to address the diversity of skills utilised across the graphic arts and printing industry. This flexibility afforded by the points system is at odds with the proposition advanced by PIAA that the AMWU’s reliance on the points system is posited on a one size fits all basis. I note also that the points system is not based on the specification of competencies such as those found in the Contract Call Centre Industry Award 2003 87 and the Postal Services Industry Award 200388 and is therefore more flexible.
2. As the AMWU pointed out, there is a difference in being able to describe a skill utilised (which an employer and employee should be able to identify) and in assessing competency. The evidence revealed that small employers, who usually require multi skilled employees understand the skills that are required to perform the work 89. Clause 5.1.1(b)(vii) which is an agreed provision states:
“… Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.”
It must be the case that an employer can identify skills required. Moreover, the AMWU’s draft order is clear in the approach which can be followed to resolve an individual disagreement or dispute without automatically requiring a trained assessor at the outset.
This material together with the training package itself should provide the rigour and transparency claimed by the AMWU and AIG to prevent manipulative claims being brought by employees.
3. The “definitions” contained in the award apply only to the printing division and are not necessarily updated since the parties agreed to reflect the definitions set down in the decision of Merriman C in 1993 91 with cosmetic changes. The parties would not have agreed to these definitions if they do not have a role to play, but the points system more fully enables and enhances flexibility at the workplace. In this regard, I note for example the difficulty Mr Hutchinson found in applying the definitions to his trade employees.
4. The evidence of Mr Tchamkertenian was not in contention except for economic predictions of a more rosy nature relied on by Ms Taylor arising out of industry reports. The cost implications raised by Mr Tchamkertenian must be viewed in the context of criticism of the whole classification system not only the points system, and also the anticipated benefits accruing to employers arising out of attraction and retention of a more highly skilled workforce with attendant benefits of greater productivity, efficiency and flexibility. 92
The issue of productivity measurement was recognised by the Full Bench 93. It concluded that productivity is more complex than “simply the question of labour costs. One cannot conclude … that changes in labour costs necessarily involve productivity changes in the opposite direction.”94
There is no evidence before me that the points system, even with potential attendant costs such as purchasing the training package or hiring a training assessor, would not have offsetting productivity benefits in the longer term via generally a better skilled workforce, overcoming skill shortages, minimising classification disputes, greater flexibility and efficiency.
This conclusion is relevant to my overall finding that the points system is not contrary to s.143(1B)(c).
5. I am mindful of the potential impacts of direct and indirect costs associated with applying the points system, especially on small businesses if assessors need to be formally trained or external assessors hired. However, as already pointed out, the engagements of such assessors are not a requirement of the award for dispute settling purposes. This is in distinction to the evidence of Mr O’Flaherty where it is accepted that a trained assessor is required to classify an employee for the purpose of having that classification formally recognised under the rules of the Department of Education, Science and Training.
I note that clause 5.1.1(b)(ii) which provides for absorption of overaward payments provides a different circumstance from that outlined by Mr Desfontaines in his evidence whereby he was not able to absorb reclassified wage levels into overawards. In addition clause 5.1.1(b)(xi) provides for incapacity to pay. These provisions should operate to assist in offsetting any cost impact arising out of the classification structure as a whole, including the points system.
6. PIAA’s submissions, at least on the direct cost impact of classifying employees under the points method, appear to proceed on the basis that this method will of itself produce higher cost outcomes than the use of definitions method for classifying an employee. However, since both methods are based on achieving skilled or competency based outcomes, there should be no differentiation in the level to which an employee is classified. The direct cost associated with an employee being assessed or reclassified to a higher level should be of the same order or magnitude.
In my view, PIAA’s argument that s.143(1B)(c) is contravened because of “the impact of the points tally system and competency assessment” 95 must be viewed in the above context and against the additional statutory requirement of “fairness to employees”96. There is no evidence of the economic impact of the points system relative to that of a definitions approach.
7. The evidence before me is that the points system in the award would operate as a base in which enterprise negotiations over a classification structure could be negotiated 97. On this basis, I am of the view that s.143(1B)(a) is not offended. Moreover, I also agree with the AMWU that the points system is a process leading to the assessment of a wage rate. It is not a work practice or a procedure98 and as such s.143(1B)(b) is not offended.
8. AIG and PIAA proposed facilitative clause for accessing the points system to classify an employee by agreement with the majority of employees will not be practicable for individual employee classifications.
9. The form of the classification structure and process will be reviewed after 18 months. The AMWU’s written submissions made it clear that there is nothing to prevent a party from seeking to vary an order earlier than the 18 months review period 99.
10. Finally, I have also had regard to whether the points system is difficult to understand. I have concluded that the witness evidence fell into two categories. The first were witnesses who conceded they had not read the AMWU draft order in full or in part and could not be expected to understand the system. The second were witnesses who, when asked, were able to give a sound understanding of how the points system would operate in practice.
[260] In summary:
1. I have decided that the points system will be a method of choice for the employer in classifying an employee and will be mandatory in resolving disagreements or disputes over a classification. It follows, in my view, that the form and layout of the order I make should clearly reflect this role afforded to the points system. Confusion could arise if the points system is inserted into the dispute settling procedure when it may be accessed in circumstances outside of a dispute or disagreement. The clearest articulation of the points system in an award is set out in the AMWU application. As a consequence, my decision is to adopt the AMWU’s draft order in respect of clauses 5.1.1(a), Table “A”, 5.1.1(b)(viii), 5.1.1(b)(ix) and Appendix “F”. I am satisfied that this format does not offend s.143(1C).
2. The parties are to give consideration including an explicit consultative step before the points system is accessed under clause 5.1.1(b)(viii).
3. In relation to contentious clause 5.1.1(c), there are two differences between the AMWU and PIAA and AIG draft clause which concerns classification definitions.
“The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:”
whereas, PIAA and AIG prefer the following introductory words:
“Indicative tasks at this level may include:”.
“An employee at this level may have completed … or equivalent training qualification.
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee … to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.”
whereas, PIAA and AIG prefer these two sentences to be reversed and in the same paragraph.
I have decided to adopt, in totality, the AIG and PIAA draft clause 5.1.1(c).
4. Nothing has been put to satisfy me that there are “exceptional circumstances” as required by s.146 to warrant a retrospective date of operation as sought by the AMWU. The order when issued will operate from the first pay period commencing on or after 26 October 2005. The order will remain in force for a period of six months. It is noted that all parties have reserved their rights to pursue matters over the life of the award.
5. The AMWU is directed to file an order within 14 days in the terms as provided for in this decision.
Conclusion
[261] I am satisfied for reasons given that the order I propose to issue is consistent with s.3 and s.88A in Part VI – Dispute Prevention and Settlement of the Act. Further, the terms of the order are not contrary to either s.143 or s.89A of the Act.
[262] I am also satisfied that the intent of the Structural Efficiency Principle has been met and that the award once varied will contain properly fixed minimum rates reflected in a skilled based classification structure.
[263] I have found it unnecessary to make particular findings or draw conclusions on issues including gender discrimination, skills shortage and general industry projections which are not directly relevant to considerations of whether the classification structure will result in properly fixed minimum rates of pay but have taken these issues into account in assessing the merits of the points system. I agree with AIG that a skilled based classification structure applied at the enterprise level should resolve disputes which have arisen out of differential pay outcomes including on the basis of gender.
[264] In his decision reviewing the 1997 Graphic Arts Award under the then s.150A review, Munro J stated 100:
“… It does, I think, no justice to anyone to underestimate the difficulties in securing consensus about an award that has almost ubiquitous applications throughout a very disparate range of establishments throughout Australia.”
[265] Almost a decade later, total consensus was almost reached. With the important exception of the role the points system should have in processing classifications and reclassifications, the parties have agreed on all characteristics of a competency based classification structure to apply throughout the industry. Focus on the disputed issues should not detract from the considerable work which has been undertaken to gain acceptance by all parties’ constituents of a structure which should have mutual benefits to employers and employees hence the industry.
BY THE COMMISSION:
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
S Taylor and S Walsh for the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union.
S Smith for The Australian Industry Group.
G Parkes for Printing Industries Association of Australia.
Date and place of hearing:
2005.
Sydney:
August 10
September 29, 30
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J>
Attachment A
CHRONOLOGY 101
THE GRAPHIC ARTS CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
1. October 1990 The PKIU and PATEFA establish a “working pary” and “negotiation party” process to drive award restructuring.
2. January 1991 PATEFA and PKIU agreement to establish a working party to prepare a report for the negotiation committee.
3. March 1991 Working party report tabled. Due to lack of consensus by working party, the report outcome was made by facilitators Ormonde (Union) and Scarf (PATEFA). Deputy President Marsh requires industrial parties to proceed on non-controversial classifications..
4. August 1991 Breakdown in progressing testing of classifications.
5. 30 November 1993 Commissioner Merrriman commences hearings relating to an award classification structure.
6. 17 December 1993 Commissioner Merriman issues a decision varying the Graphic Arts Award 1977 and Country Printing Award 1959 to include the Union’s proposed 12 Level Interim Classifcation Structure. {Print L5048}.
7. 21 December 1993 Commission issues order introducing new clause 16D - Interim Classifications Definitions and Indicative Tasks (Printing). (Print L0648). The order refers to inter alia:
“(a) ....
The interim classification structure will be subject to further applications and amendment regarding:
(i) …
(ii) the fine tuning of definitions
(iii) incorporation of appropriate training requirements.”
8. March 1994 PATEFA, ACM, the Pratt Group and News Ltd commence appeal proceedings against decision and order of Commissioner Merriman.
9. 29 April 1994 Full-Bench refuses PATEFA's leave to Appeal. Commissioner Merriman's classification structure decision and order stand. (Print L3095).
10. 16 May/1 June 1994 Union conducts DACUM workshops in Sydney (May) and Melbourne (June). Twenty-six participants “tested” the Level 12 structure which had been converted into a survey form.
11. 7 July 1994 PATEFA and Union attend Wyatt Consultants regarding joint testing.
12. 11 July 1994 Union met with employer parties who table terms of reference for joint testing of interim structure.
13. 15 July 1994 Union corresponds to PATEFA rejecting Employer's Terms of Reference.
14. 19 August 1994 Union and ACM meet to discuss joint testing. Both organisations table Terms of Reference for joint testing.
15. 30 August 1994 Union and ACM correspond outlining their respective responses to each other's Terms of Reference.
16. 7 February 1995 Union and ContainersGroup meet to discuss joint testing as per agreement with ACM. Agree to trial two sites using Union's document and methodology.
17. February 1995 Testing occurs at various Containers Plants. Testing Group includes Containers Head Office and Containers Local Management, ACM and the Union.
18. March 1995 Containers and Union meet to discuss results of the trial and further testing. Agreement is reached to continue further testing across Containers.
19. March
- December 1995 Union develops a proposed classification structure and implementation methodology. PIAA and the AIGroup reject the Union’s proposal.
20. 22 December 1995 Munro J issues decision urging the industrial parties to “give constructive consideration” to the work done by the AMWU and contained in Exhibits “T7” & “T8”. These exhibits contained a 14 Level award classification structure linked to competency standards and the AQF (Print M8008).
21. 14 March 1997 Munro J issues “nine step” recommendation for a process capturing the “without prejudice” agreement of the industrial parties. The nine steps include identification of competencies required at each level and a process for linking competency standards to the classification structure.
22. 1997-2000 Award Simplification overtakes classification structure issues. The parties and the Commission agree to finish the major process of simplification and return to the classification structure at the end of that activity.
23. 2000-2003 The parties exhange many models of their preferred classification struture and implementation process. In December 2003 there is a without prejuidice agreement to progress a draft classification structure linked to competency based training schemes.
24. Dec 2003-2005 The parties with the assistance of the Commission complete many drafts. In July 2005 the parties agree to refer the proposed classification structure to their decision making bodies.
25. August 2005 The PIAA rejects the proposed classification structure.
26. August 2005 The Commission sets dates for arbitration to finalise the classification structure.
Attachment B
AMWU DRAFT ORDER
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.113 application for Variation
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union
(C1998/561)
(C2005/4064)
GRAPHIC ARTS - GENERAL - AWARD 2000
(ODN C No. 22956 of 1995)
[Print S1716 – AW782505 [G0439]]
Various employees |
Graphic Arts Industry |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT MARSH |
|
Classification Structure
DRAFT ORDER
A. The above award is varied as per Schedule A attached.
B. This order shall come into force from the first pay period on or after 10 August, 2005.
BY THE COMMISSION:
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
“Schedule A”
1. By deleting Clause 5.1 and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
5.1 Wage Rates & Classification Structure
5.1.1(a) CLASSIFICATIONS, WEEKLY WAGE RATES, QUALIFICATIONS AND POINTS
(i) Adult employees must be paid the following minimum weekly wage set out in Table 'A'.
The classifications set out in Table 'A' shall be read in conjunction with Part 5 and Appendix 'F'.
(ii) TABLE 'A'
Column A
|
Column B
|
Column C
|
Column D
|
|
Level 1 |
467.40 |
Entry level | |
Level 2 |
484.10 |
6 | |
Level 3 |
506.60 |
18 | |
Level 4 |
527.50 |
Certificate II |
28 |
Level 5 |
561.20 |
Trade Certificate / Certificate III |
41 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points) |
Level 6 |
582.10 |
51 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 2 units of 4 or more points) | |
Level 7 |
602.90 |
61 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 4 units of 4 or more points) | |
Level 8 |
621.80 |
Certificate IV (except as set out in 5.1.1(a)(iii) |
71 (including at least 6 units of 4 or more points) |
(iii) The following qualifications are excluded from 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table “A”, Column “C” and 5.1.1(b)(iv):
• ICP40704 – Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Management Sales); and
• ICP40804 – Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Process Leadership)
(iv) The rates of pay in this award include the arbitrated safety net adjustment payable under the Safety Net Review - Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005]. This arbitrated safety net adjustment may be offset against any equivalent amount in rates of pay received by employees whose wages and conditions of employment are regulated by this award which are above the wages rates prescribed in the award. Such above-award payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Australian workplace agreements, award variations to give effect to enterprise agreements and overaward arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required.
(v) Increases made under previous National Wage Case principles or under the current Statement of Principles, excepting those resulting from enterprise agreements, are not to be used to offset arbitrated safety net adjustments.
5.1.1(b) CLASSIFICATION / RECLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES
5.1.1(b)(i) ASSIGNMENT / REASSIGNMENT OF CLASSIFICATION
The reassignment and future assignment of an employee's classification and the assignment of a new employee’s classification will be in accordance with the principles set out in 5.1.1(b).
5.1.1(b)(ii) ABSORPTION
Wage increases arising from the implementation of the classification structure are subject to absorption into existing overaward payments.
5.1.1(b)(iii) NO LOSS OF PAY
No employee's ordinary rate of pay shall be reduced as a result of the introduction of the new industry classification structure.
5.1.1(b)(iv) NO LOSS OF CLASSIFICATION IF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET
No employee’s existing classification shall be reduced as a result of the implementation of the new classification structure. This is subject to the employee undertaking training, where required by the employer, to enable the employee to carry out the full range of tasks to be performed at that classification level.
5.1.1(b)(v) CONSULTATION
The parties at each plant or enterprise shall undertake appropriate consultation in accordance with Clause 3.1 - Consultative Mechanisms and Procedures regarding the implementation of the new classification structure.
5.1.1(b)(vi) CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WITH A FORMAL (AQF) QUALIFICATION
As from _________________ (insert date of end of transition period), where employees have completed a qualification recognised in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package and in Table A, and are using the skills and knowledge gained from that qualification in accordance with the needs of the enterprise, then they must, as a minimum be classified at the level specified in table “A”.
This also applies to a qualification which has been recognised by an Industry Skills Council or a Federal or State Training Authority which is equivalent to a qualification recognised in the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package and in Table ‘A’.
Employees can receive a qualification through recognition of prior learning and/or overseas qualifications where that prior learning and/or overseas qualification is recognised by an Industry Skills Council or a Federal or State Training Authority as being equivalent to a qualification in the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package and in Table ‘A’.
Employees will transfer into the classification structure on the basis of the alignment of classifications to qualifications, as set out in Table ‘A’.
For example, a printing apprentice passes their final year and qualifies as a Printing Tradesperson with a Certificate III in Printing and Graphic Arts. This places the newly qualified printer at a minimum of Level 5 in the classification structure. If the printer is required to perform additional tasks or more complex tasks they may be performing a job which falls into a higher level of the classification structure .
5.1.1(b)(vii) CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT A FORMAL (AQF) QUALIFICATION
Subject to 5.1.1(b), employees will have their classification level assigned on the following basis as determined by the employer:
(1) That they meet the requirements of the classification definitions in sub-clauses 5.1.1(c); or
(2) That they meet the points requirements set out in 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table “A” and Appendix “F”;
Provided that should there be any dispute or disagreement in relation to classification or reclassification, method (2) above shall be used.
Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.
5.1.1(b)(viii) USING THE POINTS SYSTEM TO DETERMINE AN EMPLOYEE'S CLASSIFICATION
(1) The points assessment for an employee’s job is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements from the list appearing in Appendix "F". The competencies set out in Appendix "F" are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) and have been assigned a points rating from "1" - "5", with 1 being a basic unit and 5 being assigned to units requiring a high level of skill .
The competencies and the "1" - "5" ratings are based on the following general guidelines:
• "1" graded competencies are skills needed to function in the workplace;
• "2" graded competencies are basic production skills;
• "3" graded competencies are basic trade level or equivalent skills;
• "4" graded competencies are advanced trade level skills; and
• "5" graded competencies are post trade, technical and/or supervisory skills.
(2) An employee’s classification level is determined by adding together the points allocated to each competency selected for the employees job. The total number of points determines into which classification level at 5.1.1(a) Table A, the employee’s job is classified. For example, an employee whose job consisted of competencies whose points when added together totalled 42, would be classified at Level 5 (if at least 5 of the competencies are worth at least 3 points each).
(3) In addition to (1) above, where an employer requires additional competencies to reflect job requirements, up to two additional competency units may be selected, by agreement, from another nationally endorsed Training Package, subject to the following:
• The unit(s) selected must be equivalent to a “3” graded competency or higher.
• The recognition of additional points under 5.1.1(b)(viii)(2) shall not be an award requirement. It shall only occur where the employer and the employee agrees to such recognition.
5.1.1(b)(ix) TIMING OF TRANSLATION INTO THE NEW CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
Translation into the new structure will occur within a period of six months from _________________ (insert date of award variation).
5.1.1(b)(x) DEALING WITH CLASSIFICATION DISPUTES
A. The competencies set out in Appendix “F” are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05). In the event of a dispute over the meaning of the competencies, the relevant competency standard from ICP05 will be used for interpretation.
B. Any disputes in relation to classification or reclassification shall be handled in accordance with the dispute-settling procedure in clause 3.2 of the award. If any of the parties involved in the dispute wish to have the dispute resolved by a Board of Reference, a Board of Reference will be established by the Commission in accordance with s.131 of the Workplace Relations Act. The Board will contain a representative of the union, a representative of the employer and an independent Chairperson who must be a member of the Commission.
C. In dealing with disputes over such issues, the Board may:
- request State and National Officials of the relevant industry parties to meet immediately to resolve the concerns;
- make arrangements for an assessment and report by experts representing the relevant industry parties. The Board would then consider the report and determine a course of action.
5.1.1(b)(xi) INCAPACITY TO PAY
An employer may apply to the Commission to phase in wage increases arising from the implementation of the new classification structure, on the basis of the employer's incapacity to pay.
5.1.1(b)(xii) REVIEW OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
The parties will review the classification structure and its implementation 18 months after its insertion into the award. This is not intended to detract from a parties right to pursue changes to the classification structure at an earlier time.
5.1.1(c) CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS
The definitions for the classification levels are as follows:
Employee Level 1
An employee at this level is undertaking up to 38 hours of induction training. This does not restrict or limit the employment of new employees at a higher level should they be accepted as possessing experience or skills appropriate to a higher level.
An employee at this level:
• Performs elementary routine duties of a repetitive nature;
• Works under direct supervision;
• Is aware of the tasks required at Level 2;
• Observes safe work practices;
• Undertakes literacy and numeracy training (if required) to perform tasks functionally;
• Is undertaking training so as to enable them to work at level 2.
On the completion of the required training, the employee shall be reclassified to Level 2.
Employee Level 2
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 1 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this Level will be capable of:
• having an orientation to machinery and equipment;
• assisting with make ready of basic machines;
• operating materials handling equipment;
• undertaking housekeeping and routine maintenance cleaning;
• having a basic knowledge of computer - controlled systems as it relates to their work;
• understanding and applying occupational health and safety practices and existing procedures applying in their work at their level of training;
• understanding and applying existing work procedures applying in work area to their level of training;
• following instructions;
• understanding quality standards of enterprise applying in their work area;
• working under direct supervision to the level of training or skills held;
• being a member of and understanding operating guidelines of workgroup/team;
• possibly assisting in on-the-job training of others in their area by way of explanation and demonstration.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• assisting with make ready of basic machines;
• repetition work on automatic, semi-automatic or single purpose machines or equipment;
• repetitive work of a basic nature such as maintaining simple records and single purpose functions as in manual folding, perforating, stacking, inserting, paging;
• housekeeping and routine maintenance cleaning.
Employee Level 3
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 2 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this level will be capable of:
• following written or verbal instructions;
• having knowledge of computer-controlled system as it relates to their work area;
• understanding and applying existing work procedures applying in their area;
• performing housekeeping functions within immediate area. This may include lubricating equipment under direction;
• assisting in forward planning materials and equipment for next job;
• identifying quality variations;
• recognising when problems arise and referring appropriately in own work area;
• being a member of and understanding the operating guidelines of work group/team;
• undertaking work prescribed on a task basis through written and verbal instructions and continuous presence of a skilled operative;
• working under direct supervision;
• assisting in the on-the-job training of others up to this level by way of explanation and demonstration in conjunction with skilled operators and supervisor.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• routine setting, adjustment and operation of basic similar pieces of equipment such as plastic laminating machine;
• assisting with basic duties on a printing machine under direct supervision by cleaning, washing up of ink ducts, blankets and impression cylinders, stacking and removing delivery, stack on sheet fed press;
• applying OH&S practices and environmental protection procedures;
• operating computer controlled systems using basic keyboard skills as it relates to their work area;
• operating non-licensed materials handling equipment;
• matching of product against quality standards within own work area;
• operating an envelope cutter and/or dye cutter, marking and laying out;
• storing and packing of goods and materials in accordance with appropriate procedures and/or regulations, preparation and receipt of appropriate documentation, allocating and retrieving goods from specific warehouse areas, basic VDU operation, periodic housekeeping and stock checks;
• assisting in the on-the-job training of others up to this level in conjunction with skilled operators and supervisor.
Employee Level 4
An employee at this level may have completed AQF Certificate Level II or equivalent training qualification.
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 3 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this Level will be capable of:
• working to written instructions and issuing verbal instructions;
• forward planning materials and equipment required for next job;
• identifying quality variation by matching product against quality standard within own work area;
• understanding of routine and preventive maintenance procedures and applies them in their work;
• participating in and contributing to work group/team decision making, problem solving and team operating;
• understanding the enterprise’s production processes and products and the administrative and organisational procedures as they relate to the immediate work area.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• machine setting, adjustment and operation on a variety of equipment;
• applying OH&S practices, environmental protection procedures;
• assisting in on-the-job training of others up to this level in conjunction with skilled adults and supervisors;
• lubricating production machinery equipment;
• inventory and store/warehouse control including licensed operation of all appropriate materials handling equipment; use of tools and equipment within the warehouse, basic non-trades maintenance; VDU operation;
• operating computer controlled system using intermediate keyboard skills as it relates to their work area;
• maintaining established paper based filing/records system in accordance with set procedures including creating and indexing new files, distributing files within the organisation as requested, monitoring file locations.
Employee Level 5
An employee at this level may have completed a trade certificate/AQF certificate Level III or equivalent training qualification.
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 4 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this Level will be capable of:
• understanding the enterprise’s production process & products & administrataive & organisational procedures as they relate to the work area;
• providing informal on-the-job training to the level of their training and skill;
• identifying quality variations of products and/or materials in the production process for conformity with established production standards; making adjustments to maintain quality standards;
• having a working knowledge of the routine and preventative maintenance procedures;
• solving straight forward problems based on set procedures or factual information;
• operating a computer-controlled system as an integral aspect of work to their level of training and accredited skill;
• working under minimal supervision;
• exercising discretion. Work is guided by general work processess and procedures;
• being responsible for the work of others under their supervision;
• being a member of and understanding operating guidelines of a work group/team;
• working to written instructions and working to and issuing of verbal instructions;
• understanding, and applying occupational health and safety and safe working practices and environmental protection in their own work area.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• setting, adjusting and operating a range of equipment in one of either pre-press, press or post-press areas;
• having a sound knowledge of the employer’s operations as they relate to the production process;
• understanding and applying computer techniques as they relate to production process operations;
• making adjustments to maintain quality standards;
• forwarding plans material and equipment for next job;
• undertaking maintenance to the level of their training and accredited skill including lubrication, elementary diagnosis of faults, routine adjustments and reporting on worn or damaged parts;
• high level stores and inventory responsibility beyond the requirements of an employee at level 4;
• formatting complex documents including technical data, technical language, tables, graphics, design variable type face, produce documents requiring specific form or to comply with regulations or standards;
• undertaking basic art and design to their level of training and accredited skill.
Employee Level 6
An employee at this level may have completed a trade certificate/AQF Certificate Level III or equivalent training qualification.
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 5 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this level will be capable of:
• having a general knowledge of enterprise processes and procedures then impacting on their own area;
• providing on-the-job training to the level of their training and accredited skill;
• having knowledge of problem-solving techniques and procedures in their own area;
• identifying quality variations of products and/or materials in the production process for conformity with established production standards;
• making adjustments to maintain quality standards;
• exercising limited discretion. Work is guided by general work processes and procedures;
• having a working knowledge of routine and preventive maintenance procedures;
• undertaking maintenance procedures;
• participating in, developing and implementing appropriate occupational health, safety and environmental protection practices in their area of work;
• participating in and contributing to work/group team decision making, problem solving and team operation;
• being responsible for the work of others under their supervision;
• working under minimal supervision.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• set up and operation of machines of a complex nature in one of either the pre-press, press or post-press area;
• forward planning materials and equipment for next job;
• making adjustments to maintain quality standards;
• providing trade guidance and assistance as part of a work team;
• operating a computer controlled system as an integral aspect of work to their level of training and accredited skill;
• undertaking maintenance procedures to the level of their training and skill including lubrication, elementary diagnosis of faults, routine adjustments and assists with the replacement of parts and equipment;
• applying knowledge of desk-top publishing to integrate complex documents;
• maintaining control registers including inventory control and being responsible for the preparation and reconciliation of regular reports and stock movement;
• undertaking immediate art and design to their level of training and accredited skill.
Employee Level 7
An employee at this level may have completed a trade certificate/AQF Certificate Level III or equivalent training qualification.
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 6 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this level will be capable of:
• having the skills and knowledge to set up and operate machines of a complex nature in one of either pre-press, press or post press areas. May have general knowledge of other functional areas impacting on their own;
• having a thorough knowledge of enterprise’s processes and procedures impacting on own area;
• working under minimal supervision either individually or in a team;
• operating a computer controlled system as an integral aspect of work to their level of training and accredited skill;
• undertaking routine and preventive maintenance to the level of their training and accredited skill;
• participating in, developing and implementing appropriate occupational health and safety and environmental protection practices in their area of work;
• co-ordinating work in a team environment;
• identifying quality variations of products and/or materials in the production process for conformity with established production standards. Contributing to diagnosis of quality variations and making adjustments to maintain quality standards;
• being responsible for the work of others under their supervision.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• set up, adjustment and operating of machines of a complex nature in one of either pre-press, press or post-press areas;
• providing trade guidance and assisting as part of a work team;
• assisting in the provision of training in conjunction with supervisors and trainers;
• removing and replacing specific assemblies in immediate work area;
• allocating tasks to team members in order to meet planned production requirement and being responsible for the work of others under their supervision;
• evaluating usefulness or applicability of software programs (using existing software programs) and recommending solutions to meet new or different application requirements;
• undertaking complex art and design to their level of training and accredited skill.
Employee Level 8
An employee at this level may have completed a trade certificate AQF Certificate Level IV or equivalent training qualification.
An employee at this level performs work above the skills of an employee at Level 7 to the level of his/her competence, skill and training.
An employee at this level will be capable of:
• having a thorough knowledge of production processes and procedures in own area and general knowledge of downline processes;
• working under minimal supervision and demonstrating a high level of proficiency;
• undertaking routine production scheduling and materials handling within the scope of their area of work to maintain planned production requirements;
• monitoring, evaluating and reporting quality variations within a broad work area;
• having a knowledge of process problem solving techniques and procedures and exercising initiative and judgement in solving day to day operational problems;
• exercising considerable discretion. Work is guided by a company precedents and policies. Work procedures may be adopted to meet production requirements;
• operating a computer controlled system as an integral aspect of routine work to their level of training and accredited skill;
• undertaking routine and preventative maintenance to the level of their training and accredited skill.
• removing and replacing assemblies/sub assemblies to carry out cleaning and inspection of parts;
• participating in, developing and implementing appropriate occupational health and safety practices in the area of work. Encouraging staff under their supervision to accept and enforce safety requirements;
• providing technical guidance and assistance to work teams;
• providing on-the-job training in conjunction with supervisors and/or trainers;
• being responsible for the work of others under their supervision and has undertaken supervisory training.
The duties listed below are illustrative of those which may be undertaken at this level:
• exercising high precision trade skills;
• exercising intermediate CAD/CAM skills in the performance of routine modifications to programs;
• creating or producing original design roughs or finished artwork from employer or clients’ instructions, either manually or by computer;
• liaising and advising internal customers and employees outside the work team;
• operating/co-ordinating a group of computers such as a small multi-user system or a large group of personal computers which may include operating a help desk;
• participating in problem solving techniques and procedures and exercising initiative and judgement in solving day to day operational problems.
5.1.1(d) DEFINITIONS :
The following definitions apply for the purposes of Part 5 of the Award.
5.1.1(d)(i) “Or equivalent” means a qualification which has been recognised by an Industry Skills Council or a Federal or State Training Authority which is genuinely equivalent to a qualification within the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package (ICP05).
5.1.1(d)(ii) “AQF” means the Australian Qualifications Framework.
5.1.1(d)(iii) “Training Package” means the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05).
5.1.1(d)(iv) “Another nationally endorsed training package” means Training Packages other than the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package (ICP05) that are endorsed by an Industry Skills Council or a Federal or State Training Authority.
5.1.1(e) TRAINING
5.1.1(e)(i) The parties to this award recognise that in order to increase the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of industry, a greater commitment to training and skill development is required. Accordingly, the parties commit themselves to :
(A) developing a more highly skilled and flexible workforce;
(B) providing employees with career opportunities through appropriate training to acquire additional skills; and
(C) removing barriers to the utilisation of skill acquired.
5.1.1(e)(ii) Following proper consultation in accordance with clause 3.1 which may include the establishment of a training committee, an employer shall develop a training programme consistent with :
(A) the current and future skills needs of the enterprise;
(B) the size, structure and nature of the operations of the enterprise;
(C) the need to develop vocational skills relevant to the enterprise and the printing industry which include courses conducted by accredited educational institutions and providers.
5.1.1(e)(iii) Where it is agreed a training committee be established, that training committee should be constituted by equal numbers of employer and employee representatives and have a charter which clearly states its role and responsibilities, for example:
(A) formulation of a training programme and availability of training courses and career opportunities to employees;
(B) dissemination of information on the training programme and availability of training courses and career opportunities to employees;
(C) the recommending of individual employees for training and reclassification;
(D) monitoring and advising management and employees on the ongoing effectiveness of the training.
5.1.1(e)(iv) (A) Where, as a result of consultation in accordance with Clause 3.1 and with the employee concerned, it is agreed that additional training in accordance with the programme developed pursuant to sub-clause (e)(ii) herein should be undertaken by an employee, that training may be undertaken either on or off the job. If the training is undertaken during ordinary working hours the employee concerned shall not suffer any loss of pay. This shall not prevent the employer and employee(s) agreeing to paid leave for other relevant training.
(B) Where an employee does not meet the requirements for their current classification level they must undertake training, where required by the employer, to enable him or her to carry out the full range of required tasks at their classification. The training may be undertaken either on or off the job. If the training is undertaken during ordinary working hours the employee concerned shall not suffer any loss of pay.
(C) Any costs associated with standard fees for prescribed courses and prescribed textbooks (excluding those textbooks which are available in the employer's technical library) incurred in connection with the undertaking of training shall be reimbursed by the employer upon production of evidence of such expenditure. Provided that reimbursement shall also be on an annual basis subject to the presentation of reports of satisfactory progress.
(D) Travel costs incurred by an employee undertaking training in accordance with this clause which exceed those normally incurred in travelling to and from work shall be reimbursed by the employer.
5.1.1(e)(v) Any disputes arising in relation to these subclauses are subject to the provisions of Clause 3.2 - Dispute Settlement, of Part 3 of this award.
"APPENDIX F"
Important Notes:
1. This appendix contains two parts: Part A sets out the sectors of the industry in which employees are generally employed. Part B sets out support competencies which may be relevant to employees working in various sectors of the industry.
2. The following competencies are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) as at (insert date of award variation). In the event of a dispute over the meaning of the competencies, the relevant competency standard from ICP05 as at (insert date of award variation) will be used for interpretation.
3. Any amendments made to the competency units in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) after (insert date of award variation) will not apply as a term of this award without further award variation/s. Should such an application be made, all parties have the right to support or oppose the variation.
4. There shall be no double-counting of competencies which an employee possesses. In some cases, two or more competency units deal with relatively similar competencies and it would be inappropriate to take into account the points for each competency for classification purposes. Any dispute regarding the allocation of units will be dealt with through clause 5.1.1(b)(x) - Dealing with Classification Disputes and reference to the rules contained within the Training Package.
5. The inclusion of particular competencies within Appendix “F” or the recognition of particular qualifications within the Award, shall not vary the scope of the Award beyond that set out in clause 1.6.
PART A – COMPETENCIES RELATING TO THE SECTORS
OF THE INDUSTRY IN WHICH EMPLOYEES ARE GENERALLY EMPLOYED
UNIT |
POINTS |
PRINTING (PR)
Apply knowledge and requirements of printing machining |
KN12A |
3 |
Apply knowledge and requirements of the screen printing sector |
KN14A |
3 |
Apply knowledge and requirements of paper and printing processes |
KN16A |
3 |
Apply knowledge and requirements of information technology systems in the printing industry |
KN20A |
3 |
Sell products and services |
WRRS1B |
2 |
Advise on products and services |
WRRS2B |
2 |
Mount and proof flexographic plates for basic printing |
PR211A |
2 |
Produce basic flexographic printed product |
PR214A |
2 |
Produce basic gravure printed product |
PR222A |
2 |
Produce basic lithographic printed product |
PR232A |
2 |
Produce basic pad printed product |
PR242A |
2 |
Produce basic relief printed product |
PR252A |
2 |
Set up for foil stamping |
PR261A |
2 |
Produce foil stamped product |
PR262A |
2 |
Set up for basic coating |
PR271A |
2 |
Produce basic coated product |
PR272A |
2 |
Set up and produce basic digital print |
PR281A |
2 |
Produce and manage digital print (Basic) |
PR282A |
2 |
Research business opportunities |
BSBSBM301A |
3 |
Identify sales prospects |
BSBSLS302A |
3 |
Set up for basic flexographic printing |
PR313A |
3 |
Produce complex flexographic printed product |
PR314A |
3 |
Set up for basic gravure printing |
PR321A |
3 |
Produce complex gravure printed product |
PR322A |
3 |
Set up for basic lithographic printing |
PR331A |
3 |
Produce complex lithographic printed product |
PR332A |
3 |
Set up for basic pad printing |
PR341A |
3 |
Produce complex pad printed product |
PR342A |
3 |
Set up for basic relief printing |
PR351A |
3 |
Produce complex relief printed product |
PR352A |
3 |
Produce and manage complex digital print |
PR382A |
3 |
Prepare for personalised digital printing |
PR383A |
3 |
Undertake financial planning |
BSBSBM402A |
4 |
Undertake business planning |
BSBSBM404A |
4 |
Mount and proof flexographic plates for complex printing |
PR411A |
4 |
Set up for complex flexographic printing |
PR413A |
4 |
Produce specialist flexographic printed product |
PR414A |
4 |
Set up for complex gravure printing |
PR421A |
4 |
Produce specialist gravure printed product |
PR422A |
4 |
Set up for complex lithographic printing |
PR431A |
4 |
Produce specialist lithographic printed product |
PR432A |
4 |
Set up for complex pad printing |
PR441A |
4 |
Produce specialist pad printed product |
PR442A |
4 |
Set up for complex relief printing |
PR451A |
4 |
Produce specialist relief printed product |
PR452A |
4 |
Set up for complex coating |
PR471A |
4 |
Produce complex coated product |
PR472A |
4 |
Set up and produce complex digital print |
PR481A |
4 |
Prepare for variable data printing |
PR484A |
4 |
Use on press monitoring of print quality |
PR491A |
4 |
Use on-press print control devices |
PR492A |
4 |
Set up and monitor in-line printing operations |
PR493A |
4 |
Set up for specialised flexographic printing |
PR513A |
5 |
Set up for specialised gravure printing |
PR521A |
5 |
Set up for specialised lithographic printing |
PR531A |
5 |
Set up for secialised pad printing |
PR541A |
5 |
Set up for specialised relief printing |
PR551A |
5 |
PRE PRESS (PP)
Apply knowledge and requirements of graphic
|
KN11A |
3 |
Develop a basic design concept |
PP211A |
2 |
Select and apply type |
PP221A |
2 |
Scan a line image |
PP222A |
2 |
Photograph a line image |
PP223A |
2 |
Produce pages using a page layout application |
PP224A |
2 |
Produce graphics using a graphics application |
PP225A |
2 |
Produce interactive PDF files |
PP226A |
2 |
Produce online PDF files |
PP227A |
2 |
Manually combine spot colour and basic four colour images |
PP231A |
2 |
Electronically combine and assemble data |
PP232A |
2 |
Output images |
PP252A |
2 |
Proof images |
PP260A |
2 |
Produce relief plates |
PP266A |
2 |
Produce offset lithographic plates |
PP267A |
2 |
Make photopolymer plates (flexographic) |
PP268A |
2 |
Produce photopolymer plates for pad printing |
PP269A |
2 |
Make gravure cylinders manually |
PP272A |
2 |
Design basic carton |
PP281A |
2 |
Prepare artwork for screen printing |
PP283A |
2 |
Use drawing techniques to represent the object or idea |
CUVCOR07A |
2 |
Develop a detailed design concept |
PP311A |
3 |
Produce a typographic image |
PP321A |
3 |
Digitise images for reproduction |
PP322A |
3 |
Photograph and produce halftone images |
PP323A |
3 |
Create pages using a page layout application |
PP324A |
3 |
Create graphics using a graphics application |
PP325A |
3 |
Generate high-end PDF files |
PP328A |
3 |
Manually combine complex four colour images |
PP331A |
3 |
Electronically combine complex images |
PP333A |
3 |
Prepare an imposition format for printing processes |
PP334A |
3 |
Output complex images |
PP352A |
3 |
Undertake special colour proofing |
PP360A |
3 |
Produce multiple image plates |
PP370A |
3 |
Make gravure cylinders electronically |
PP372A |
3 |
Produce computer image for screen printing |
PP382A |
3 |
Operate a database for digital printing |
PP385A |
3 |
Undertake digital proofing |
PP386A |
3 |
Transfer digital files |
PP395A |
3 |
Create 2D digital animation |
CUFIMA03A |
3 |
Apply the design process to 2-dimensional work in response to a brief |
CUVDES02A |
3 |
Integrate colour theory and design processes in response to a brief |
CUVDES04A |
3 |
Create a simple markup langugate document to specification |
ICAITB135A |
3 |
Make a presentation |
BSBMKG407A |
4 |
Undertake a complex design brief |
PP411A |
4 |
Compose and evaluate typography |
PP421A |
4 |
Digitise complex images for reproduction |
PP422A |
4 |
Apply colour to design brief |
PP423A |
4 |
Manage Colour |
PP430A |
4 |
Generate complex imposition |
PP435A |
4 |
Output complex images direct to plate or press |
PP452A |
4 |
Design complex carton |
PP481A |
4 |
Set up and operate automated workflow |
PP484A |
4 |
Develop a digital data template |
PP485A |
4 |
Develop document information structure |
PP494A |
4 |
Use typography techniques for design work |
CUVCRS05A |
4 |
Apply a web authoring tool to convert client data |
ICAITU207A |
4 |
MULTI MEDIA (MM)
Apply knowledge and requirements of the multimedia sector |
KN15A |
3 |
Access and use the internet |
MM263A |
2 |
Create and test a CD Rom/DVD |
MM296A |
2 |
Use an authoring tool to create an interactive sequence |
CUFMEM01A |
2 |
Capture a digital image |
MM321A |
3 |
Edit a digital image |
MM322A |
3 |
Manipulate and incorporate audio into multimedia presentations |
MM344A |
3 |
Incorporate video into multimedia presentations |
MM346A |
3 |
Create 2D digital animation |
CUFIMA03A |
3 |
Update web pages |
CUFMEM12A |
3 |
Apply the design process to 2-dimensional work in response to a brief |
CUVDES02A |
3 |
Create a simple markup langugate document to specification |
ICAITB135A |
3 |
Build client relationships |
BSBMKG406A |
4 |
Create an extensible document |
MM491A |
4 |
Create an extensible style sheet |
MM492A |
4 |
Address copyright |
CUFADM02A |
4 |
Create 3D digital animation |
CUFIMA04A |
4 |
Integrate and use scripting language in authoring a multimedia product |
CUFMEM03A |
4 |
Apply principles of visual design and communication to the development of a multimedia product |
CUFMEM07A |
4 |
Create dynamic pages |
ICAITB165A |
4 |
Use development software and IT tools to build a basic website to specification |
ICAITB169A |
4 |
Develop cascading style sheets (CSS) |
ICAITB171A |
4 |
Ensure website content meets appropriate technical protocols and standards |
ICAITI189A |
4 |
Apply a web authoring tool to convert client data |
ICAITU207A |
4 |
Manage multimedia production |
MM581A |
5 |
Manage multimedia projects |
MM582A |
5 |
Manage personal work priorities and professional development |
BSBFLM401B |
5 |
Create 3D digital models and images |
CUFIMA05A |
5 |
Create titles for screen production |
CUFIMA07A |
5 |
Author a multimedia product |
CUFMEM02A |
5 |
Test a multimedia product |
CUFMEM04A |
5 |
Apply principles of instructional design to a multimedia product |
CUFMEM08A |
5 |
Design and create a multimedia interface |
CUFMEM10A |
5 |
Design the navigation for a multimedia product |
CUFMEM11A |
5 |
Analyse and describe material |
CULLB505A |
5 |
Integrate a database with a website |
ICAITB180A |
5 |
Analyse information and assign meta-tags |
ICAITB210A |
5 |
Develop and implement visual effects designs |
CUFIMA06A |
6 |
Apply principles of game design to a multimedia product |
CUFMEM09A |
6 |
CONVERTING FINISHING (CF)
Apply knowledge and requirements of mail house operations |
KN18A |
3 |
Apply knowledge and processes of converting paper-based products |
KN19A |
3 |
Apply knowledge and requirements of the converting, binding and finishing sector |
KN13A |
3 |
Operate inline mail machine |
CF105A |
1 |
Handline mail |
CF202A |
2 |
Collate and insert mail manually |
CF203A |
2 |
Operate addressing machine |
CF204A |
2 |
Set up and operate a cheque mailer machine |
CF208A |
2 |
Set up and operate in-line mail machine |
CF209A |
2 |
Set up and run machine for sewing |
CF2101A |
2 |
Set up single faced web |
CF2104A |
2 |
Set up double faced web |
CF2106A |
2 |
Produce basic converted or finished product |
CF220A |
2 |
Set up and produce basic guillotined product |
CF221A |
2 |
Set up and operate inline cutter |
CF222A |
2 |
Set up machine for cutting (trimming) |
CF223A |
2 |
Produce cut (trimmed) product |
CF224A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic flat bed die cutting or embossing |
CF225A |
2 |
Produce basic flat bed die cut or embossed product |
CF226A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic rotary die cutting or embossing |
CF227A |
2 |
Produce basic rotary die cut or embossed product |
CF228A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic flat-bed cutting |
CF231A |
2 |
Produce basic flat-bed cut product |
CF232A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic rotary cutting |
CF235A |
2 |
Produce basic rotary cut rotary product |
CF236A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic single or continuous folding |
CF241A |
2 |
Produce basic single or continuous folded product |
CF242A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic collating or inserting (sheet/section) |
CF243A |
2 |
Produce basic collated or inserted (sheet/section) product |
CF244A |
2 |
Set up and produce hand collated or inserted product |
CF245A |
2 |
Set up machine for basic adhesive, mechanical or thermal fastening |
CF261A |
2 |
Produce basic adhesive, mechanical or thermal fastened product |
CF262A |
2 |
Set up and produce hand fastened product |
CF263A |
2 |
Set up machine for laminating |
CF281A |
2 |
Produce basic laminated product |
CF282A |
2 |
Set up profile cutting for envelope manufacture |
CF294A |
2 |
Clean sack and bag machines |
CF297A |
2 |
Run and monitor sack and bag machines |
CF298A |
2 |
Manually sort mail and or parcels |
TDTA4101A |
2 |
Consolidate mail |
TDTA4301A |
2 |
Stream mail |
TDTA4701A |
2 |
Organise personal work priorities and development |
BSBCMN302A |
3 |
Run and monitor in-line tube making for sack or bag manufacture |
CF3100A |
3 |
Run and monitor in-line bottom making machine for sack or bag manufacture |
CF3101A |
3 |
Set up and monitor in-line scoring, folding and gluing for sack or bag manufacture |
CF3102A |
3 |
Run and monitor envelope manufacturing machines |
CF3103A |
3 |
Produce single faced web |
CF3105A |
3 |
Produce double faced web |
CF3107A |
3 |
Prepare for cutting forme and stripper making |
CF311A |
3 |
Set cutting forme and strippers |
CF312A |
3 |
Produce complex converted or finished product |
CF320A |
3 |
Set up and produce complex guillotined product |
CF321A |
3 |
Undertake pre make-ready for die cutting |
CF326A |
3 |
Set up machine for complex rotary die cutting or embossing |
CF327A |
3 |
Produce complex rotary die cut or embossed product |
CF328A |
3 |
Set up machine for complex sequenced or multiple folding |
CF341A |
3 |
Produce complex sequenced or multiple folded product |
CF342A |
3 |
Set up machine for complex collating or inserting
|
CF343A |
3 |
Produce complex collated or inserted (sheet/section/reel) product |
CF344A |
3 |
Set up machine for complex adhesive, mechanical or sewn fastening |
CF361A |
3 |
Produce complex adhesive, mechanical or sewn fastened product |
CF362A |
3 |
Set up and produce hand-made box |
CF369A |
3 |
Decorate paper |
CF371A |
3 |
Set up machine for complex laminating |
CF381A |
3 |
Produce complex laminated product |
CF382A |
3 |
Use electronic monitoring systems (converting and finishing) |
CF391A |
3 |
Produce product on window gluer |
CF392A |
3 |
Set up machine for envelope manufacture |
CF393A |
3 |
Set up and operate folder gluer machine |
CF395A |
3 |
Set up in-line scoring, folding and gluing for envelope manufacture |
CF396A |
3 |
Set up in-line bottom making machine for sack or bag manufacture |
CF398A |
3 |
Set up in-line tube making machine for sack or bag manufacture |
CF399A |
3 |
Operate computerised mail and parcels sorting equipment |
TDTW601A |
3 |
Set up and load in-line smart card machine |
CF406A |
4 |
Operate smart card machine and pack product |
CF407A |
4 |
Set up machine for complex flat bed die cutting or embossing |
CF425A |
4 |
Produce complex flat bed die cut or embossed product |
CF426A |
4 |
Set up and produce hand bound book |
CF465A |
4 |
Restore books |
CF467B |
4 |
SCREEN PRINTING (SP)
Reclaim screen automatically |
SP211A |
2 |
Prepare screen |
SP215A |
2 |
Prepare substrate |
SP221A |
2 |
Prepare and cut screen print substrate |
SP222A |
2 |
Prepare film for screen printing |
SP223A |
|
Prepare stencil using computer or hand-cut method |
SP231A |
2 |
Manually prepare direct emulsion stencil |
SP233A |
2 |
Prepare stencil using photographic indirect method |
SP235A |
2 |
Manually prepare and produce screen prints |
SP270A |
2 |
Manually produce basic screen prints |
SP271A |
2 |
Semi-automatically produce basic screen prints |
SP273A |
2 |
Automatically produce basic screen prints |
SP275A |
2 |
Finish screen print products |
SP281A |
2 |
Reclaim screen manually |
SP311A |
3 |
Automatically prepare direct emulsion stencil |
SP333A |
3 |
Prepare stencil using photographic capillary method |
SP337A |
3 |
Prepare stencil using direct projection method |
SP339A |
3 |
Prepare stencil using direct electronic imaging method |
SP341A |
3 |
Prepare machine and drying/curing unit |
SP351A |
3 |
Manually produce complex screen prints |
SP371A |
3 |
Semi-automatically produce complex screen prints |
SP373A |
3 |
Operate a semi-automatic screen printing machine |
SP374A |
3 |
Automatically produce complex screen prints |
SP375A |
3 |
Operate an automatic screen printing machine |
SP376A |
3 |
Produce computer image for screen printing |
SP382A |
3 |
INK MANUFACTURE (IM)
Select and prepare materials for production |
IM211A |
2 |
Blend chemicals |
IM221A |
2 |
Filter and pack product |
IM251A |
2 |
Manufacture inks and coatings |
IM331A |
3 |
Manufacture varnish and resin |
IM335A |
3 |
Maintain the laboratory fit for purpose |
PMLMAIN300B |
3 |
Perform basic tests |
PMLTEST300B |
3 |
Prepare work solutions |
PMLTEST303B |
3 |
Obtain representative samples in accordance with sampling plan |
PMLSAMP400B |
4 |
Prepare, standardise and use solutions |
PMLTEST402A |
4 |
PART B – SUPPORT COMPETENCIES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO EMPLOYEES WORKING IN VARIOUS SECTORS OF THE
INDUSTRY
Prepare, load and unload reels and cores on and off machine |
SU201A |
2 |
|
Prepare, load and unload product on and off machine |
SU202A |
2 | |
Prepare and maintain the work area |
SU203A |
2 | |
Prepare machine for operation (basic) |
SU207A |
2 | |
Operate and monitor machines (basic) |
SU208A |
2 | |
Prepare ink and additives |
SU211A |
2 | |
Prepare coatings and adhesives |
SU212A |
2 | |
Inspect quality against required standards |
SU216A |
2 | |
Pack and dispatch product |
SU221A |
2 | |
Pack and dispatch solid waste |
SU222A |
2 | |
Perform basic machine maintenance |
SU224A |
2 | |
Perform small machine maintenance |
SU225A |
2 | |
Lift loads mechanically |
SU235A |
2 | |
Shift loads mechanically |
SU236A |
2 | |
Undertake warehouse or stores materials processing |
SU241A |
2 | |
Reconcile process outputs |
SU243A |
2 | |
Maintain a safe work environment |
SU260A |
2 | |
Follow OHS practices and identify environmental hazards |
SU261A |
2 | |
Communicate in the workplace |
SU262A |
2 | |
Perform basic industry calculations |
SU263A |
2 | |
Provide basic instruction for a task |
SU271A |
2 | |
Enter data into electronic system |
SU280A |
2 | |
Use computer systems |
SU281A |
2 | |
Deliver a service to customers |
BSBCMN208A |
2 | |
Prepare ink & additives (advanced) |
SU311A |
3 | |
Pack and dispatch (advanced) |
SU321A |
3 | |
Dispose of waste |
SU323A |
3 | |
Undertake inventory procedures |
SU342A |
3 | |
Purchase materials and schedule deliveries |
SU345A |
3 | |
Undertake basic production scheduling |
SU351A |
3 | |
Plan operational processes |
SU352A |
3 | |
Apply quick changeover procedures |
SU357A |
3 | |
Communicate as part of a work team |
SU362A |
3 | |
Operate and maintain computer resources |
SU381A |
3 | |
Undertake basic root cause analysis |
SU389A |
3 | |
Deliver and monitor a service to customers |
BSBCMN310A |
3 | |
Support innovation and change |
BSBCMN312A |
3 | |
Support continuous improvement systems and processes |
BSBFLM309B |
3 | |
Perform laboratory quality tests of materials and finished product |
SU417A |
4 | |
Supervise and schedule work of others |
SU455A |
4 | |
Control Production |
SU456A |
4 |
|
Monitor production workflow |
SU458A |
4 | |
Provide customer service and education |
SU464A |
4 | |
Troubleshoot and optimise materials and machinery |
SU482A |
4 | |
Implement a Just in Time (JIT) system |
SU485A |
4 | |
Mistake proof a production process |
SU486A |
4 | |
Analyse manual handling processes |
SU487A |
4 | |
Ensure process improvements are sustained |
SU488A |
4 | |
Apply quality assurance techniques – Advanced |
AUM2402A |
4 | |
Profile a target audience |
BSBADV401A |
4 | |
Develop work priorities |
BSBCMN402A |
4 | |
Co-ordinate implementation of customer service strategies |
BSBCMN410A |
4 | |
Promote innovation and change |
BSBCMN412A |
4 | |
Implement operational plan |
BSBFLM405B |
4 | |
Implement continuous improvement |
BSBFLM409B |
4 | |
Promote team effectiveness |
BSBFLM412A |
4 | |
Profile the market |
BSBMKG401A |
4 | |
Plan assessment |
BSZ401A |
4 | |
Conduct assessment |
BSZ402A |
4 | |
Review assessment |
BSZ403A |
4 | |
Train small groups |
BSZ404A |
4 | |
Plan and promote a training program |
BSZ405A |
4 | |
Plan a series of training sessions |
BSZ406A |
4 | |
Deliver training sessions |
BSZ407A |
4 | |
Review training |
BSZ408A |
4 | |
Manage sales and service delivery |
WRR02B |
4 | |
Set and apply quality standards |
SU506A |
5 |
|
Prepare production costing estimates |
SU553A |
5 | |
Manage teams |
SU554A |
5 | |
Implement and monitor OHS |
SU561A |
5 | |
Troubleshoot and optimise production processes |
SU583A |
5 | |
Determine and improve process capability |
SU584A |
6 | |
Attachment C
MAJOR CONTENTIOUS CLAUSES
AMWU draft clause 5.1.1(a)
5.1.1(a) CLASSIFICATIONS, WEEKLY WAGE RATES, QUALIFICATIONS AND POINTS
(i) Adult employees must be paid the following minimum weekly wage set out in Table 'A'.
The classifications set out in Table 'A' shall be read in conjunction with Part 5 and Appendix 'F'.
(ii) TABLE 'A'
Column A
|
Column B
|
Column C
|
Column D
|
|
Level 1 |
467.40 |
Entry level | |
Level 2 |
484.10 |
6 | |
Level 3 |
506.60 |
18 | |
Level 4 |
527.50 |
Certificate II |
28 |
Level 5 |
561.20 |
Trade Certificate / Certificate III |
41 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points) |
Level 6 |
582.10 |
51 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 2 units of 4 or more points) | |
Level 7 |
602.90 |
61 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 4 units of 4 or more points) | |
Level 8 |
621.80 |
Certificate IV (except as set out in 5.1.1(a)(iii) |
71 (including at least 6 units of 4 or more points) |
(iii) The following qualifications are excluded from 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table “A”, Column “C” and 5.1.1(b)(iv):
• ICP40704 – Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Management Sales); and
• ICP40804 – Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Process Leadership)
(iv) The rates of pay in this award include the arbitrated safety net adjustment payable under the Safety Net Review - Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005]. This arbitrated safety net adjustment may be offset against any equivalent amount in rates of pay received by employees whose wages and conditions of employment are regulated by this award which are above the wages rates prescribed in the award. Such above-award payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Australian workplace agreements, award variations to give effect to enterprise agreements and overaward arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required.
(v) Increases made under previous National Wage Case principles or under the current Statement of Principles, excepting those resulting from enterprise agreements, are not to be used to offset arbitrated safety net adjustments.
PIAA and AIG draft clause 5.1.1(a)
5.1.1(a) CLASSIFICATIONS LEVELS AND WEEKLY WAGE RATES
(i) Adult employees must be paid the following minimum weekly wage set out in Table 'A'.
The classifications set out in Table 'A' shall be read in conjunction with Part 5.
(ii) TABLE 'A'
Column A
|
Column B
|
Column C
|
|
Level 1 |
467.40 |
|
Level 2 |
484.10 |
|
Level 3 |
506.60 |
|
Level 4 |
527.50 |
Certificate II |
Level 5 |
561.20 |
Trade Certificate / Certificate III |
Level 6 |
582.10 |
|
Level 7 |
602.90 |
|
Level 8 |
621.80 |
Certificate IV (except as set out in 5.1.1(a)(iii) |
(iii) The following qualifications are excluded from 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table “A”, Column “C” and 5.1.1(b)(iv):
a. ICP40704 – Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Management Sales); and
b. ICP40804 – Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Process Leadership)
(iv) The rates of pay in this award include the arbitrated safety net adjustment payable under the Safety Net Review - Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005]. This arbitrated safety net adjustment may be offset against any equivalent amount in rates of pay received by employees whose wages and conditions of employment are regulated by this award which are above the wages rates prescribed in the award. Such above-award payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Australian workplace agreements, award variations to give effect to enterprise agreements and overaward arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required.
(v) Increases made under previous National Wage Case principles or under the current Statement of Principles, excepting those resulting from enterprise agreements, are not to be used to offset arbitrated safety net adjustments.
AMWU draft clause 5.1.1(b)(vii)
5.1.1(b)(vii) CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT A FORMAL (AQF) QUALIFICATION
Subject to 5.1.1(b), employees will have their classification level assigned on the following basis as determined by the employer:
(1) That they meet the requirements of the classification definitions in sub-clauses 5.1.1(c); or
(2) That they meet the points requirements set out in 5.1.1(a)(ii), Table “A” and Appendix “F”;
Provided that should there be any dispute or disagreement in relation to classification or reclassification, method (2) above shall be used.
Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.
PIAA and AIG draft clause 5.1.1(vii)
5.1.1(b)(vii) CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT A FORMAL (AQF) QUALIFICATION
Employees without a formal (AQF) qualification will be appointed to a classification level contained in subclause 5.1.1(c) as determined by the employer.
Alternatively, where the employer and the majority of employees at the enterprise agree, the points system as detailed in Appendix F will be used for determining an employees classification, which is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements.
Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.
AMWU draft clause 5.1.1(b)(viii)
5.1.1(b)(viii) USING THE POINTS SYSTEM TO DETERMINE AN EMPLOYEE'S CLASSIFICATION
(1) The points assessment for an employee’s job is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements from the list appearing in Appendix "F". The competencies set out in Appendix "F" are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) and have been assigned a points rating from "1" - "5", with 1 being a basic unit and 5 being assigned to units requiring a high level of skill.
The competencies and the "1" - "5" ratings are based on the following general guidelines:
• "1" graded competencies are skills needed to function in the workplace;
• "2" graded competencies are basic production skills;
• "3" graded competencies are basic trade level or equivalent skills;
• "4" graded competencies are advanced trade level skills; and
• "5" graded competencies are post trade, technical and/or supervisory skills.
(2) An employee’s classification level is determined by adding together the points allocated to each competency selected for the employees job. The total number of points determines into which classification level at 5.1.1(a) Table A, the employee’s job is classified. For example, an employee whose job consisted of competencies whose points when added together totalled 42, would be classified at Level 5 (if at least 5 of the competencies are worth at least 3 points each).
(3) In addition to (1) above, where an employer requires additional competencies to reflect job requirements, up to two additional competency units may be selected, by agreement, from another nationally endorsed Training Package, subject to the following:
• The unit(s) selected must be equivalent to a “3” graded competency or higher;
• The recognition of additional points under 5.1.1(b)(viii)(2) shall not be an award requirement. It shall only occur where the employer and the employee agrees to such recognition.
PIAA and AIG draft clause 5.1.1(b)(viii)
5.1.1(b)(viii) TIMING OF TRANSLATION INTO THE NEW CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
Translation into the new structure will occur within a period of six months from …………………. (insert date of award variation).
AMWU draft Appendix “F:
APPENDIX “F”
Important Notes:
1. This appendix contains two parts: Part A sets out the sectors of the industry in which employees are generally employed. Part B sets out support competencies which may be relevant to employees working in various sectors of the industry.
2. The following competencies are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) as at (insert date of award variation). In the event of a dispute over the meaning of the competencies, the relevant competency standard from ICP05 as at (insert date of award variation) will be used for interpretation.
3. Any amendments made to the competency units in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) after (insert date of award variation) will not apply as a term of this award without further award variation/s. Should such an application be made, all parties have the right to support or oppose the variation.
4. There shall be no double-counting of competencies which an employee possesses. In some cases, two or more competency units deal with relatively similar competencies and it would be inappropriate to take into account the points for each competency for classification purposes. Any dispute regarding the allocation of units will be dealt with through clause 5.1.1(b)(x) - Dealing with Classification Disputes and reference to the rules contained within the Training Package.
5. The inclusion of particular competencies within Appendix “F” or the recognition of particular qualifications within the Award, shall not vary the scope of the Award beyond that set out in clause 1.6.
NOTE: PARTS A AND B OF APPENDIX “F”ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE PIAA AND AIG DRAFTS
PIAA and AIG draft Appendix “F”
APPENDIX “F”
Important Notes:
1. This appendix contains three parts: Part A sets out the sectors of the industry in which employees are generally employed. Part B sets out support competencies which may be relevant to employees working in various sectors of the industry. Part C explains the points system, sets out the points required for each classification level and sets out various rules which apply.
2. The following competencies are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) as at (insert date of award variation). In the event of a dispute over the meaning of the competencies, the relevant competency standard from ICP05 as at (insert date of award variation) will be used for interpretation.
3. Any amendments made to the competency units in the Printing and Graphic Arts Industry Training Package (ICP05) after (insert date of award variation) will not apply as a term of this award without further award variation/s. Should such an application be made, all parties have the right to support or oppose the variation.
4. There shall be no double-counting of competencies which an employee possesses. In some cases, two or more competency units deal with relatively similar competencies and it would be inappropriate to take into account the points for each competency for classification purposes. Any dispute regarding the allocation of units will be dealt with through clause 5.1.1(b)(ix) - Dealing with Classification Disputes and reference to the rules contained within the Training Package.
5. The inclusion of particular competencies within Appendix “F” or the recognition of particular qualifications within the Award, shall not vary the scope of the Award beyond that set out in clause 1.6.
NOTE: PARTS A AND B OF APPENDIX “F”ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE AMWU DRAFT
PART C – POINTS SYSTEM
Column A
|
Column B
|
Level 1 |
Entry level |
Level 2 |
6 |
Level 3 |
18 |
Level 4 |
28 |
Level 5 |
41 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points) |
Level 6 |
51 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 2 units of 4 or more points) |
Level 7 |
61 (including at least 5 units of 3 or more points and 4 units of 4 or more points) |
Level 8 |
71 (including at least 6 units of 4 or more points) |
USING THE POINTS SYSTEM TO DETERMINE
AN EMPLOYEES CLASSIFICATION
(1) The points assessment for an employee’s job is based on selecting competencies that reflect job requirements from the list appearing in Part A and B of Appendix “F”. The competencies set out in Part A and B have been assigned a points rating from “1” – “5”, with 1 being a basic unit and 5 being assigned to units requiring a high level of skill.
The competencies and the “1” – “5” ratings are based on the following general guidelines:
(2) In addition to (1) above, where an employer requires additional competencies to reflect job requirements, up to two additional competency units may be selected, by agreement, from another nationally endorsed Training Package, subject to the following:
1 Print H9100, Maddern J, Ludeke J, Keogh DP, Peterson J, Johnson C, Nolan C, Laing C, Re Safety Net Review 1989, 7 August 1989 at p.2
2 AW782505CR S1716
3 AMWU written submission at p.8, para. 7; Merriman C, 21 December 1993, Print L0648
4 Munro J, 22 December 1995, Print M8008
5 AMWU written submission at p. 9, para. 7; Munro J, 14 March 1997, Recommendation
6 Marsh SDP, 5 August 1999, Print R7898; AMWU written submission at p. 9, para 7
7 Reliance was also placed on ss. 3(d)(ii), (a) and (aa), d(i) and (j); 88A(a), (b) and (d); 88B(3) and 90 of the Act
8 AMWU written submission at para.11
9 AMWU written submission at para. 1
10 Print L0548, Merriman C, 17 December 1993 (Upheld on Appeal, Print L3095, Munro J, MacBean SDP and Hodder C, 29 April 1994)
11 AMWU written submission at p. 8, para. 5
12 AMWU written submission at pp. 15-16
13 AMWU Book B tab 2
14 AMWU reserves its position regarding a future award variation to remove the exclusion of the qualifications.
15 AMWU written submission at para. 41
16 AMWU reserves its right to pursue variations inserting higher levels into the classification structure
17 Print L0648
18 AMWU written submission at pp.20-21
19 AW789529CRV
20 Marsh SDP, 11 March 1998, Print P9311
21 Note 3 to Appendix F specifies that variations made to competency units contained in the package do not automatically apply as a term of the award. Package variations made subsequent to the date of the award is varied, may be subject to future applications. The parties rights are reserved in any such application.
22 See Print L0648
23 AMWU written submission at para.81 and NPITC Report at p.3
24 AMWU written submission at para.82
25 AMWU written submission at para.83 and VET Report at p.17, PIAA Report and p.33
26 PIAA Report at p.9; AMWU written submission at para.84
27 AMWU written submission at para.85 and Exhibit PIAA 1
28 AMWU written submission at para.86 and Deloitte Report at p.4
29 AMWU written submission at para.88 and PIAA Report at p.36
30 AMWU written submission at para.91
31 AMWU written submission at p.32
32 The Print 21 Report consolidated the findings of three working groups who were tasked with formulating the Printing Industry Action Agenda
33 AMWU written submission at p.32
34 Apis Business services were contracted through the PIAA under Government grant to report on the Training and Education Needs of the Printing Industry Now and Into the Future; AMWU written submission at pp.32-33
35 The National Printing Industry Training Council had until 2005 the responsibility for developing and reviewing the printing industry’s training package. In August 2003 the Council reported on the National Vet Plan 2003-05. The report is consistent with the Forum Report, Print 21 and the Apis Report; AMWU written submission at p.33
36 Exhibit AMWU5, Book C tab 13; AMWU written submission at pp.33-34
37 AMWU written submission at para.95
38 AMWU written submission at para.97
39 PIAA written submission at p.3
40 PIAA written submission at p.7
41 PIAA written submission at p.13
42 PIAA written submission at p.14
43 PIAA written submission at pp.14-16
44 PIAA written submission at p.18
45 PIAA written submission at p.20
46 PIAA written submission at p.20
47 AIG submission at p.2
48 AIG submission at p.3
49 AIG submission at p.3
50 AIG submission at p.4
51 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 2, witness statement at para.13
52 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 2, witness statement at para.22
53 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 2, witness statement at para.25
54 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 2, witness statement at para.28
55 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 2, witness statement at p.5
56 Small Medium Enterprise
57 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 3, witness statement at para.8
58 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 4, witness statement at para.7
59 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 5, Witness Statement at para. 5. Certified American Banknote Australasia Highett Site Agreement 2000 [AG804939]
60 Transcript PN229
61 AG841610
62 Exhibit AMWU6, Book D, tab 6, witness Statement at para.7.4
63 AG841657
64 AG835912
65 New South Wales Communications Industries Training Advisory Board, Transcript PN299
66 Statement of Mr Desfontaines at para.6
67 Statement of Mr Desfontaines at para.25
68 Statement of Mr Desfontaines at para.28
69 Transcript PN696-PN698
70 Statement of Mr Hutchinson at paras. 10-13
71 Transcript PN490
72 Statement of Mr Tchamkertenian at para.4
73 Transcript PN526
74 Print Q7661, Giudice J, Marsh SDP, MacBean SDP, Smith C, Larkin C, 20 October 1998 at pp.17-18
75 PR002005, Giudice J, Ross VP, Lawler VP, Marsh SDP, Kaufman SDP, Hingley C, Grainger C, 7 June 2005, at p.124
76 PR930781, Ross VP, Lawler VP and Mansfield C, 30 April 2003
77 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Kirsch (1938), 60 CLR 507, at p 538; Reg v Galvin; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union, Australian Section (1952), 86 CLR 34, at p 40; Reg v Holmes; Ex parte Victorian Employers' Federation (1980) 145 CLR 68, at p 76; R v Ludeke, Ex parte Queensland Electricity Commission (1985) 159 CLR 178, at p 183; Re Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia; Ex parte Wooldumpers (Vic) Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 311 at pp 317, 334; Re Boyne Smelters Ltd; Ex parte Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees of Australia (1993) 177 CLR 446, at pp 451-452; Re Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Ex parte Vista Paper Products Pty Ltd (1993), 67 ALJR 604, at p 612; 113 ALR 421, at pp 431-432; Re Finance Sector Union of Australia; Ex parte Financial Clinic (Vic) Pty Ltd (1993), 178 CLR 352, at pp 366-367
78 Exhibit PIAA4 at p.2
79 Print J3596, Cohen J, Moore DP, Polites DP, Griffin C, Turbet C, 26 July 1990
80 Exhibit AMWU7
81 Exhibit PIAA3
82 See Munro J, 22 December 1995, Print M8008 at p.4
83 Transcript PN205, PN932-PN933
84 Transcript PN77, PN80
85 Transcript PN498
86 AW819699
87 AW827785
88 AW830245CRV
89 Transcript PN334
90 Exhibit AMWU5, Book C, tab 2
91 Print L0548
92 See Award Simplification decision relied on by Ms Taylor, Print P7500, Giudice J, Ross VP, McInityre VP, MacBean SDP, McDonald C, 23 December 1997
93 Print P9677 Giudice J, Ross VP, McIntyre VP, MacBean SDP, McDonald C, 27 March 1998
95 PIAA written submission at p.3
96 s.143(1B)(c)
97 Transcript PN74-PN75, PN118, PN228-229, PN247, PN303, PN319, PN368
98 Marsh SDP, 5 August 1999, R7898 at p.12
99 See AMWU written submissions at para.51
100 Print M8008 at p.3
101 Exhibit AMWU3, Book A, tab 6