|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114J MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:(03) 9672-5608 Fax:(03) 9670-8883
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 7417
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DUNCAN
C No 00346 of 1998
HIGHER EDUCATION GENERAL AND
SALARIED STAFF (INTERIM AWARD) 1989
Review under Section 51, Item 51, Schedule 5,
Transitional WROLA Act 1996 re award
certification
MELBOURNE
10.12 AM, TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2001
Continued from 14.5.01
PN5389
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr McAlpine.
PN5390
MR McALPINE: Yes, there has been a slight change to the arrangements this morning. We propose to call Ms Gooding first.
PN5391
PN5392
MR McALPINE: Could you please give your name, address and occupation to the Commission?---My name is Gabrielle Elizabeth Gooding. I live at 103 Mills Road East in Martin, Western Australia. I'm a Senior Scientific Officer at the University of Western Australia.
PN5393
And have you prepared a statement in these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN5394
Do you have any corrections, or amendments to that statement?---No, I don't.
PN5395
Is that statement true and correct?---It is.
PN5396
And you adopt it as your evidence in these proceedings?---I do.
PN5397
No further questions.
PN5398
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Warburton, I think.
PN5399
MR MOORHOUSE: Your Honour, I do not have an objection to ..... of the statement. Is it an appropriate time to deal with that?
PN5400
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN5401
MR MOORHOUSE: Just to the second sentence of paragraph 7, which is clearly hearsay, while that in itself isn't reason for this Commission to necessarily take it out, we would submit in this case that there is no reference to where the statement came from, who made it, in what context it was made, what the knowledge of that person is and it can have no probative value.
PN5402
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, what do you say, Mr McAlpine?
PN5403
MR McALPINE: I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other. I think it is a statement as to what she has been told, but if Mr Pill's objection is sustainable - - -
PN5404
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it was Mr Moorhouse who objected.
PN5405
MR McALPINE: - - - I mean, if there is an objection taken to it, I don't think much turns upon it.
PN5406
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I do agree. Quite honestly, I think something that the witness says she has been told in a matter of proceedings such as this is acceptable. So I reject - I refuse the objection. There being no other objection I will mark this document.
PN5407
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Warburton.
PN5408
MR WARBURTON: I have no question for this witness, your Honour.
PN5409
PN5410
MR MENDELSSOHN: Ms Gooding, can I ask you to have a look at paragraph 8 of your statement, which is the first paragraph on the second page. You say there in the last sentence that:
PN5411
In your experience most general staff employees are recruited from within the higher education sector.
PN5412
Are you talking there about your own department, or area within the university, or are you talking more generally?---It's certainly true for my own department, but I have found that a significant number of general staff employees are recruited from the higher education sector.
PN5413
When you say, "a significant number", what are we talking about there?---I don't know that I could - I could put a number on it, but in looking at job selection criteria as I do fairly regularly, experience in the higher education sector is more frequently than not an essential selection characteristic.
PN5414
Yes, and are we talking there mainly about middle to upper level employees?---It would apply more to the more skilled employees. It certainly - probably wouldn't apply to the level 1s and 2 trades, yes.
PN5415
Or lower level clerical positions, or administrative positions?---Lower - well, it would actually apply to lower level clerical and administrative positions because the - for example in word processing it is important for word processors to be experienced with the type of formatting that is required in professional publications and higher education system, and also in clerical employees it is often a requirement that they deal with the public and they need to know the higher education system to some extent.
PN5416
But when you talk about employees who need to know formatting for professional publications, that would apply to clerical, or administrative staff working in academic departments, wouldn't it, rather than in say central administrative areas?---Yes, but those in central administration need to know, for example, the system of awards. In the industrial relations section they would need to know about our enterprise agreements. In central administration they might need to know about the funding systems and statistics that are in place.
PN5417
So how does anybody get a job at a university if they haven't had experience in the sector already?---Well, they probably start at the entry level or they have experience in the sector through their own studies. We have a very high level of people who have studied tertiary education who are now general staff employees.
PN5418
Including in lower level, say, in lower level administrative, or clerical positions?---It's not uncommon to have diploma and degree holders in lower level admin positions, no.
PN5419
Generally speaking from your experience, how many of these employees are recruited from outside of Western Australia?---I couldn't - I don't have any experience on how many come from outside of Western Australia. It is not something I have ever asked.
PN5420
Paragraph 17 of your statement, which is at page 3, in the second sentence you say:
PN5421
General staff are taking on more academic teaching.
PN5422
Now, are you talking there about your own department? Or more generally?---Certainly, in my own department but also more generally. Probably more so in the technical departments, in science, engineering and medicine.
PN5423
How do you define "academic teaching"?---I define "academic teaching" as "direct teaching to students" either as tutorials, demonstrations, lecturing, those sort of activities.
PN5424
So if for example the point of the lecture or demonstration was how to operate certain equipment, you would see that as academic teaching, would you?---No, I'd see that as technical.
PN5425
How much of what you call "academic teaching" do general staff in your department undertake, say, in a normal year?---How many hours or - - -
PN5426
Yes, well, how many hours, if that is the best way to answer it?---Well, in - I am currently teaching 10 hours per week on an 18-3/4 hour a week employment arrangement. The other people who work in my section - one is teaching 5 hours per week, another is teaching 8, and the third one would be 6 hours per week.
PN5427
In the teaching that you do, what does that consist of?---My principal teaching work is in demonstration in laboratories, which encompasses both the technical demonstration, but also explanation of theory. There is no distinction made between the source of the demonstrators in a laboratory between whether they are academic, or they are general staff. I also give some tutorials and an occasional lecture.
PN5428
When you say "explanation of theory" in relation to demonstrating, a theory of what?---The theory behind whatever it is that the students are currently learning so, for example, I have just completed teaching bacterial physiology for third year science. That involves me both explaining the experiments to them but, also, the theory behind those experiments and why they are doing them.
PN5429
In the next paragraph, paragraph 18, you say that:
PN5430
National Health And Medical Research Council funded positions are classified as academic, while others are classified as general staff.
PN5431
When you say "others", what are the "others"?---"Others" are principally those that are funded from other funding sources, such as the ARC.
PN5432
We are talking about research staff there?---Yes.
PN5433
You are talking there about your own department, I presume?---No, that's across the university.
PN5434
How many positions are in that other category?---Well, there is - the university puts out a publication called "UWA In Brief", which is the statistics for the previous year. Last year there were 183 FTEs that were research only, non-academic and 300 which were research only academics, so it would be in there somewhere but I couldn't tell you exactly the numbers.
PN5435
In paragraph 28 of your statement which is on page 5, you are talking there about attachment D, which you refer in the previous paragraph - in paragraph 27, is that correct?---The material that I refer to in paragraph 28, was material submitted by the individual appellants.
PN5436
Yes. In paragraph 27 you refer to an attachment D?---Yes.
PN5437
And that is a document that you have yourself compiled, is that correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN5438
Now, in paragraph 28 you give the example of a research engineer, which you say has - whom you say has more in common with a research engineer employed as a member of academic staff. How many - and take your time to look through it - how many positions in attachment D would you say are in that category of having more affinity with academic staff, than with general staff?---Well, first of all, I have to say that attachment D is not the complete list of appellants, it was the last working document that I had, but I would say most of the research-based ones would, but I can't - you know, without adding it up - - -
PN5439
Well, can you point to any? I mean, I am not asking you to rush. I am - - - ?---Sure, research engineer, physiology, research assistant, medicine, research officer medicine. Some of the ones which are known as senior scientific officer and senior technician, or senior technician
PN5440
in-charge and also research-based, but don't have the appellation.
PN5441
So you are saying - the ones you are pointing to are towards the bottom of page 5 of attachment D, are they?---Yes, some of those.
PN5442
Why do you say they have more in common with members of academic staff than most other general staff?---Because they are engaged in specialist research, rather than in general administration, or other areas of general staff activity.
PN5443
So that is three positions in attachment D that you can say that about - - - ?---It's three that I can identify at this moment, yes.
PN5444
No further questions.
PN5445
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Britt.
PN5446
MR BRITT: I think it has been agreed that Mr Pill - - -
PN5447
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have got another order.
PN5448
PN5449
MR PILL: Good morning, Ms Gooding. Ms Gooding, are you aware that in Western Australia and in Victoria there is a separate award known as the Universities and Affiliated Institutions Academic Research Salaries (Victoria and Western Australian) Award 1989. Are you familiar with that award?---I'm not familiar with it, no.
PN5450
Are you aware that it exists?---Yes.
PN5451
And you are aware that it applies to staff at your university?---I believe it applies to academic staff at my university, but I'm not sure.
PN5452
Yes, so you are aware that the award regulation, perhaps for academics in the research area, differs in Western Australia and Victoria from other states, such as New South Wales?---No, I wasn't - I hadn't been aware of that distinction, no.
PN5453
At paragraph 3 of your statement you have indicated your current position and you are currently classified as an HEO7?---Yes.
PN5454
In accordance with the University of Western Australian General Staff Agreement 1999. The university has just reached a new agreement, is that right?---That's correct, yes.
PN5455
Yes, it has not been certified yet though, has it?---No.
PN5456
Right. Is it envisaged that your classification would change as a result of that new agreement?---Not that I'm aware of, no.
PN5457
Have you been provided with a copy of the witness statement of Professor Geoffrey Stewart, the head of your department?---Yes, I have - yes, I have.
PN5458
Are you familiar with its contents? As I understand it - or at least at the time your statement was prepared - you had returned from maternity leave in recent times?---I returned from maternity leave in 1998.
PN5459
Sorry, in 1998, and at that stage you sought to come back on a part-time basis, is that right?---That's correct, yes.
PN5460
And the university was able to accommodate that and you are currently working 2_ days a week, although there is some flexibility in that as well as I understand it?---That's correct, yes.
PN5461
That return on a part-time basis, that had some impact on the duties that you were previously performing on a full-time basis, compared with the duties that you were performing when you came back from maternity leave?---Only to the extent that it eliminated me teaching, or preparing courses on the days that I wasn't working.
PN5462
Yes, and you had agreed that there was, for example, in your department a number of experiments which might require setting up over more than one day?---Yes, although I'm currently working on experiments that require setting up over more than one day, they are just handed on to someone else for the other half of the week.
PN5463
Yes, but you would agree that when you describe there being a change in focus and a move towards perhaps more demonstrating than the physical preparation of experiments, one factor in there was your return from - well, let me express it this way - one factor in that was the fact that are now part-time rather than full-time?---Yes, but my observation is that people in my section have had a trend towards more academic teaching and that would apply to the others who remained at full-time as well.
PN5464
Yes. If I can start with the university - if we exclude research staff, both externally funded and other - you would agree with me that generally speaking there is a clear distinction between academic staff and general staff?---No, I wouldn't, no.
PN5465
So there is not a clear distinction between a gardener and a lecturer?---It would depend on the two situations that you were comparing and certainly between a gardener and a professor there would be a clear distinction, but in many places there are not clear distinctions.
PN5466
Well, the question I asked you was whether, generally speaking, putting aside research staff there is generally a clear distinction between academic staff and general staff?---I can probably best answer that by saying that in 1997 the university conducted a wide ranging view of general staff women on campus and one of their principal findings was that the single identifying characteristic of general staff was their diversity and a number of the points made in that report go to the fact that it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between "general" and "academic" staff. And also that there is an increasing blurring between those roles and that is probably the best way to answer that.
PN5467
I am not questioning that there might be specific examples that you could point to where there might be a blurring, or it might be difficult, but generally speaking. Let me express it this way. How many general staff are you aware of who have applied to become academics, or have their position re-classified as an academic position? There aren't any, are there?---Yes, there are, I'm just trying to think through the number. Three or four that I know of and I know there is considerable debate amongst a considerable number of others who may wish to transfer to academic staff, but for some they would rather remain at general staff.
PN5468
Right, can I ask you to turn to your position description?---Yes.
PN5469
Which is the first attachment to your document. Is it a description of the duties that you are currently performing?---Yes, it is.
PN5470
This position description stamped at the bottom of the second page was approved in November 1994?---That's correct, yes.
PN5471
So other than for example the shift towards perhaps a greater demonstrating component, you would agree that there has been no fundamental change in your duties since 1994?---No, this encompasses the broad range of my duties.
PN5472
Yes, and there has been no substantial change to those duties, has there?---No, there has been change in the emphasis, but that is all.
PN5473
Yes. Each year there is a review process, as I understand it - perhaps I need to be very specific - - - ?---A review of duties, or a review of performance or - - -
PN5474
You sit down for example with the head of department and review the scope of your role?---Yes.
PN5475
Yes, and that has occurred for you?---Yes.
PN5476
Yes, how many times has that occurred for you since 1994?---Twice.
PN5477
And in both of those you didn't put that in your view the function of senior scientific officer had fundamentally changed?---No.
PN5478
Because indeed your position is that it has not fundamentally changed?---No, because in that 70 per cent which is teaching it has not changed. It's just a question of which one takes up more of the 70 per cent.
PN5479
Yes, and there is a decrease for example in some of the other duties with the take up of perhaps more of the demonstrating duties?---Yes, there would be.
PN5480
If you turn back to paragraph 7 of your statement. You say that your department has well qualified staff. And you give in evidence that:
PN5481
One has a PhD and two have Masters Degrees in the relevant fields.
PN5482
Now, it wasn't a necessary condition for those - for the positions that they hold that they actually hold a PhD?---No, it was a requirement that they have a Science Degree with Honours, or extensive experience.
PN5483
Yes, and it wasn't a requirement that indeed you have a Masters Degree?---No, no.
PN5484
It was Honours with experience. In paragraph 11 part of your evidence is that you are involved in course design?---Yes.
PN5485
Now, there is academic course coordinators in your department?---There are, yes.
PN5486
And part of their role is a responsibility for course design?---Yes, overall course design, that would be right.
PN5487
Yes, and you would work with them in relation to establishing for example a new course?---Yes.
PN5488
And you would sit down and discuss the requirements and the academic course coordinator would ultimately sign off on what was in the course and what was not in the course?---Ultimately, yes.
PN5489
Yes. Indeed, your evidence is that you liaise with the course coordinator on a daily basis?---Is that my evidence, that it's daily?
PN5490
If you turn to paragraph 23?---No, I say: I work with them on a daily basis. I didn't mean that I liaised with them on a daily basis. I mean I work with them every day.
PN5491
Meaning that you work alongside them?---Yes.
PN5492
And communicate with them, talk to them?---Yes, but not in the sense of - I'm sorry, I linked it to your previous question about course design, not about course design.
PN5493
But about matters to do with your work, you discuss matters of microbiology amongst other things I would imagine?---Yes.
PN5494
Yes. Ms Gooding, in your position are you required to supervise other staff?---No, I'm not.
PN5495
Your role in managing poor students - your evidence at paragraph 12 is that you:
PN5496
Would be responsible for maintaining the ongoing student results for the unit.
PN5497
?---That's correct.
PN5498
Now, that is essentially an administrative function?---Yes.
PN5499
And you may determine as part of that administrative function that someone's grades are a bit low and notify the course coordinator if you felt the student wasn't achieving adequate results?---That's correct, yes.
PN5500
And then your evidence is at the last sentence there:
PN5501
A discussion would usually ensue as to the best course of action to take.
PN5502
And that would be a discussion with the course coordinator?---That would be correct, yes.
PN5503
Yes, and the course coordinator would ultimately determine whether, for example, corrective or remedial action would be taken with respect to that student?---No, that would usually be a joint decision, because often the person who was most closely associated with the students have the most knowledge of them would be the general staff member.
PN5504
And if the academic course coordinator had a different view from you, let's say the academic course coordinator decided that they wanted the student to undertake some remedial work, or that they wanted the student to be involved in extra tutoring, then that would occur, wouldn't it?---That would occur unless the general staff member had a violent, or vehement objection, in which case, it would probably be referred to the head of the department, but that has not happened on many occasions.
PN5505
Then the head of the department would make the decision?---That would be correct, yes.
PN5506
Yes. Professor Stewart gives evidence that:
PN5507
There is a large degree of stability in courses and experiments in your department from year to year with only minor variations.
PN5508
You would agree with that?---No, well, many of our courses will be stable from year to year, but in any given year we will be developing new courses, or making amendments. It may just be that each unit isn't amended each year.
PN5509
Yes, and in respect of those that are not new courses, there would be a large degree of commonality between, for example, the course materials from 2000 and the course materials in 1999?---Yes, but they would have to be prepared again, obviously. In other words, we don't have carryover. We can't just make things and put them on a shelf and pull them off the next time. We have to make them new each time.
PN5510
No, sorry, I understand that, but in terms of for example the lab manual, if it relates to the same experiment, it may not have to be changed at all?---Well, some experiments it wouldn't be. Other experiments it would.
PN5511
Yes, and in respect of those new experiments, is it fair to say that the academic course coordinator has a greater role in respect of new matters, new courses and including new experiments than they would in respect of those that had carried over from the previous year?---I'm not quite sure what you mean in terms of "a greater role". In preparing them, or in writing them or - - -
PN5512
Well, a greater role in determining for example the content of the course? If it is a new course, presumably, the academic course coordinator will have input into what is in that course?---Absolutely, and even if it's not a new course the academic course coordinator will have input, but it's more collaborative than a distinct delineation.
PN5513
Yes, and if we look at your department, as distinct from the university - and if I can put aside the question of externally funded research staff - you would agree that there are at least some points of distinction between academic staff and general staff in your department?---Absolutely, yes.
PN5514
Yes, there are several points of distinction?---Yes.
PN5515
Many points of distinction?---Well, yes. My evidence is not that we are the same, but we increasingly exercise similar skills.
PN5516
Yes, and what would some of those points of distinction between academic and general staff be?---Employment conditions.
PN5517
Yes?---The lack of a clear demonstrable hierarchy amongst the academic staff, as opposed to a more line hierarchical system in the general staff.
PN5518
Any other points of distinction?---Off the top of my head, probably more administrative accountability to academic staff than to general staff.
PN5519
And academic staff would be involved significantly more in lecturing to students, as distinct from demonstrating?---Yes.
PN5520
Yes. Academic advancement for example may be linked to publication of works in authorised journals?---That's correct, yes, yes.
PN5521
It is, and that is not true of for example your position? Your advancement is not dependent upon external obligations?---No.
PN5522
Are academic staff involved in the physical setting up of experiments?---Yes, they are.
PN5523
They are not involved to the same extent, for example, as your position as senior scientific officer?---No.
PN5524
So you agree with Professor Stewart's assessment that taken in the broad, there is a conceptional difference between academic staff and general staff in your department?---Yes, I would.
PN5525
Your evidence is that at paragraph 17, which you have been taken to already, that:
PN5526
There's an increase in the overlap of academic and general staff work with the department since 1986 when I commenced employment at UWA.
PN5527
Do I take it then that it has been to the extent there has been an increase, that there has been a gradual increase since that time?---That's correct, yes.
PN5528
Professor Stewart's evidence is that in recent years, and bearing in mind he has been in the department since 19 - the first day of 1998. In recent years there has not been any significant increase in the level of overlap. Do you agree with that?---There hasn't been a seismic shift if you like but there's been part of the ongoing trend that I've observed since 1986.
PN5529
Yes. In paragraph 18 we get to this question of externally funded research staff. The thrust of your evidence is that they are classified as an academic staff member of a general staff member depending on the source of funding, is that fair?---Yes.
PN5530
For example, NH and MRC funding - sorry, what does NH and MRC stand for?---National Health and Medical Research Counsel.
PN5531
What does ARC stand for?---Australian Research Counsel.
PN5532
You would be aware that the requirement that - for example they would be paid academic salaries comes from the rules of the NH and MRC?---Yes.
PN5533
There's - sorry?---Can I just go back and distinguish too, that would apply to the research staff sub the level of senior research fellow or someone who would in most case if not all of them be academic staff.
PN5534
All right. In respect of those, I'm loathe to call them lower level, but lower level research staff, it is the rules of the funding body that dictate or place restrictions upon the titles and salaries that are attributed to those roles?---Yes.
PN5535
Yes, and indeed those staff who hold a position that is fund by, for example, the NH and MRC to the extent that there's advancement, they actually effectively undergo promotion through the NH and MRC rules, is that right?---I've not actually seen anybody undergo advance or promotion while on NH and MRC funded positions.
PN5536
Are you aware that there is a working party at your university on research staff?---Yes.
PN5537
Are you aware now that the rules or the funding arrangements with NH and MRC have changed such that the funds are now provided generally to the university who can then use those funds for positions and appoint staff for example in accordance with your enterprise bargaining agreement?---I was vaguely aware of that but I've not ever been formally told that, no.
PN5538
Yes. So you wouldn't be aware for example that there are recommendations that have been made by that working party that in appointing staff funded by NH and MRC heads of departments or the authorised officer to determine the duties to be performed by the incumbent of the position and whether the duties are more appropriately performed by academic or general staff?---I'm not aware of the recommendations of the working party.
PN5539
Yes, and there's a further recommendation that the appointment of the staff member be determined by the duties to be performed and not the funding source:
PN5540
The Department not be allowed to alternate staff between academic and general conditions on the basis of funding.
PN5541
?---As I said, I'm not aware of the recommendations of the working party.
PN5542
Have there been any staff - externally funded research staff recently appointed to your department?---I imagine there would have been.
PN5543
But you don't - you are not in a position to give specific example?---I don't know, no. No.
PN5544
So you are not aware that departments who are appointing new staff consistent with those recommendations are being asked to determine whether the new appointees are more appropriately general staff or academic staff?---No. I wasn't aware of the recommendations. I did however have a discussion with my departmental manager before producing this witness statement when - I know this is hearsay, but he commented on this paragraph here.
PN5545
So when did you prepare your witness statement, that was back in October, November?---Last year.
PN5546
Last year. So that is 6, 7 months ago?---Yes.
PN5547
Yes. Paragraph 19, your evidence is that general staff play an important role in assisting post-graduate students and that the teaching - sorry:
PN5548
The teaching section, general staff and individual research assistants assist post-graduates by supervising or instructing on use of equipment and materials.
PN5549
So again that is instruction on how to use a particular piece of equipment or how to handle a particularly sensitive, for example, substance?---Yes, or what material they need for a particular end point or goal.
PN5550
So advising them for example, they will come to you with the theoretical objective and you may assist them in putting together the experiment that will test that theory or objective?---That may happen, yes.
PN5551
Who determines the theoretical objective to be determined. That is the post-graduate student?---That would be the post-graduate and the supervisor.
PN5552
The supervisor is an academic staff member?---That's right or an external member.
PN5553
So you would agree that your role in that exercise is one of supporting the research?---Yes.
PN5554
That as a general proposition, the role you play is a support function to the Department?---Yes.
PN5555
Paragraph 20, your evidence, which I've no reason to doubt, is that:
PN5556
The nature of microbiology is that most of the material used is either infectious or potentially infectious agent.
PN5557
There has been a decrease though, has there not, in the use of some dangerous material, particularly for example for undergraduates?---Yes, most of the - what we would classify as more dangerous infectious agents are now handled by the technical staff and provided as demonstration material rather than directly handled by the students.
PN5558
Yes, and that is a change that has occurred over time?---Yes, the students no longer handle the materials. We handle them ourselves.
PN5559
Paragraph 21 of your statement, you say that it is a requirement that you maintain an understanding of new developments in the field by regularly reading scientific journals and publications?---Yes.
PN5560
You are not actually directed to read scientific journals and publications?---No, but it is 3.1 on my duty statement.
PN5561
Yes, and what we are talking about here is keeping up to date in research methodologies, that would be one example that you would be keeping up to date?---It would be one example, yes.
PN5562
Yes, and perhaps new equipment in the area that cuts across microbiology?---In developments in the field.
PN5563
Yes, and so perhaps to use an analogy, to go back to my gardener. A gardener might keep up to date with respect to new fertilisers?---I presume so. I'm not familiar with what the gardeners do.
PN5564
Or new hydroponics techniques?---Well, yes. I'm not familiar with what the gardeners do. I imagine that the senior horticulturist would. I don't know that the lawn mowing gardener would.
PN5565
Yes. Paragraph 24, you talk about monitoring student performance. Now, it is not part of your role to assess the academic performance of your students?---Not formally, no, but we informally assess them regularly.
PN5566
You are not directed as part of your role to approach students and address their poor performance?---Not directed to, no, it is just considered to be a part of the job of demonstrating.
PN5567
No, and if we went back to paragraph 12 of your statement, your evidence there is that you might choose - let me get it right - you may decide to alert the course coordinator if they feel a particular student is not achieving adequate results and it is their role. Your evidence is that their role ultimately albeit that some matters might be referred to the head of the department, it is their role to correct deficient student performance?---Ultimately but there is a slight distinction to be made between paragraph 12 and paragraph 24. Paragraph 12 is talking about student results. I'm talking about exam or assessment results, 24 is talking about their overall performance. So it may be their behaviour or the sort of question they're asking and it's much less formal, sort of situation, but yes, again of course the coordinator has the overall responsibility for student assessment.
PN5568
Yes, and the previous heads of your department, Dr Barbara Chang, she is the previous head of your department?---Yes.
PN5569
Professor Geoffrey Shellam?---Yes.
PN5570
Also a previous head of your department and they would have the knowledge of the work that you perform in the department?---Yes, they would.
PN5571
Yes, and they had a thorough knowledge of the work that goes on in their department. They were the heads of the department, weren't they?---Yes, two of them, yes.
PN5572
Yes. Part of your evidence is that the university was able to accommodate a move back to - sorry, let me rephrase that - I withdraw that. Part of your evidence is that on your return from maternity leave you had the desire to work part time and the university was able to accommodate that and that in turn was one factor in an increase in your demonstrating duties, is that fair?---I don't think I was - - -
PN5573
I don't mean to mislead you, I'm just trying to for call your evidence?---No, no, I don't think - it was a factor, yes.
PN5574
You would agree with me that amongst the general staff in the department, they sometimes perform duties at their request. They might perform a particular role or engage in, for example, lecturing because they are requested that that occur?---Sorry, because they're requested or because they request, the general staff request or - - -
PN5575
The general staff requests rather than it being a requirement of their position?---Well, I mean, again lecturing is demonstrate and lecture is 1.10 on my duty statement so it is a requirement of my position but it is again much more collaborative. We would sit down at the end of the year or the beginning of the year, the academic and the general teaching staff and people would say what they wanted to do.
PN5576
General staff would see some benefits presumably from stepping outside what may be seen as a strict technical role and, for example, performing lecturing?---It can be more rewarding, I don't know there's any hard benefits to it.
PN5577
Yes, and it is a collaborative approach. So if I was a general staff member and came to the head of department and said I have an interest in, for example, more demonstrating or an interest in a specialist series of lectures, then generally the head of department would discuss that and try and accommodate that request?---Yes, they would.
PN5578
Can I ask you to turn to paragraph 25 of your statement and your statement is effectively broken into two bits. One was about your work in the department and your second bit is about classification experience. In 1994, if I can call it the translation exercise, what was your role?---I was a member of the internal review committee. I think the translation appeals was in fact the title.
PN5579
There was a process put in place, wasn't there, to translate staff from the old classification structure to what you have called the 10 level DWM scale?---That's correct, yes.
PN5580
What is your understanding of what the 10 level DWM scale is?---The 10 level DWM scale is the classification descriptors which are currently in our enterprise bargaining agreement and which were in force at the time.
PN5581
Are you aware of where that came from?---Yes.
PN5582
Where is that?---Well, it came from the DWM consulting group after a National process of attempting to assess general staff positions, to my understanding.
PN5583
There was a translation process put in place at your university and you would agree that part of that process there was a sample of positions in existing levels that were reviewed?---Yes, there was.
PN5584
Part of the reason that those positions were reviewed was to determine whether it would be viable to perhaps translate all the positions at that level on a block basis into the new structure?---Yes.
PN5585
It was also part of that process or as a part of that process, it was determined that in a number of circumstances, it was not appropriate to block transfer?---Yes, although that decision - it is my understanding that decision was made after it was announced that a block transfer would be performed and there were objections from some sections of the general staff community about it.
PN5586
After those objections, a process was put in place where a number of positions were individually assessed against the DWN descriptors in addition to that original sampling work that was done?---Some were, yes.
PN5587
That included all existing level 1 positions?---Yes.
PN5588
All chief technician positions at existing levels 4 and 5?---I wasn't aware of chief technicians, no, technical admin officers, yes.
PN5589
So technical admin officers, all divisional admin officers at existing level 6?---Yes.
PN5590
All faculty administrative officers at levels 3, 4 and 5?---Yes, because we were in the process of - or had just finished devolving between faculties and division and we hadn't resolved the duty statements between faculty and division at that time.
PN5591
Yes. You also include the administrative officers technical positions that exist in levels 4, 5 and 6?---I can't recall whether that's so or not.
PN5592
Are you aware that it included - well, I put it to you that it also included all existing level 6 positions?---It could have done, I don't know. I wasn't a part of that initial process.
PN5593
All right. Are you aware then, given that you weren't part of that initial process, that in the case of wages staff, each classification was assessed including an assessment of the duties and responsibilities of the roles within each classification?---I'm not familiar with wages staff. They have always been separated.
PN5594
Are you not in a position to say whether that did or didn't occur?---No, all I can say about wages staff is that I know that they mounted block appeals to the independent arbitrator but I don't know what happened before that.
PN5595
Yes, and in that process, the individual assessment process, the duties of the position were looked at?---Well, I wasn't a part of that process, so I can't answer that.
PN5596
Okay, all right. Were you a part of the appeals process?---I was, yes.
PN5597
There was an appeals process, that is your evidence?---Yes.
PN5598
That appeals process involved a translation appeals committee?---Correct, yes.
PN5599
What - who comprised that committee?---It was comprised of two representatives of the university and two of the unions.
PN5600
Generally the committee operated by consensus?---Generally, yes.
PN5601
In that appeals process, your evidence at paragraph 26 and 27 is that each position was assessed by a classification's officer initially employed by the university?---That's correct, yes.
PN5602
A report from that classifications officer was presented to the committee?---That's right.
PN5603
Do you recall that that report would include, for example, matters of the duties of the position?---It would, yes.
PN5604
The level of supervision of the position?---Yes.
PN5605
The pre-existing classification of the position?---That's right.
PN5606
Whether there were supervisory responsibilities of the position?---Yes.
PN5607
Mr Farrelly's evidence will be that there were 235 appeals. Your evidence is that it was in the order of 300 appeals. Do you happen to know the exact number of appeals?---No, I don't know the exact number, mainly because a considerable number were withdrawn.
PN5608
If I can take you to attachment D, it is referred to in paragraph 27 which you were taken to before. That is a document you prepared, it is not the university's document?---That's correct.
PN5609
Sorry, I should have asked you. In the middle of paragraph 17, you say the column headed "stream":
PN5610
Is the position concerned allocated to the appropriate stream of the proposed classification.
PN5611
Now, that is just an error I take it, perhaps the document in a former life had a heading "stream"?---I did have a stream, yes.
PN5612
If I'm not mistaken, it does not have a - I'm not missing something?---No, no, I'm sorry, it doesn't.
PN5613
In the column headed, "CO", "CO Report" - sorry, I withdraw that. In the column headed "Comps attached", you have stated at paragraph 7 that indicates where the comparatives were attached to the duty statement?---Yes.
PN5614
Now, those comparatives could be internal comparatives?---They could be, yes.
PN5615
Yes, and they could be external comparatives?---That's right.
PN5616
Do you happen to know how many - let me rephrase the question. Generally speaking, how many of the - or how much of the comparative material perhaps on a percentage basis would have been internal comparative material and how much would have been external comparative material?---Are we talking external to UWA to external to the sector?
PN5617
External to UWA?---The majority would have been internal.
PN5618
All right, and if I can ask you to turn to attachment D. On my count - and I'm happy for you to correct me, there's 243 positions there?---Yes. You can say it is 243.
PN5619
On my count in the comps attached column, there are 72 yes out of 243 and your evidence is that the majority of those are internal comparisons?---Yes, but this refers to my copy of this appeal, does this have comparatives attached. Sometimes comparatives were supplied to the committee directly in which case it was never attached to the appeal. This is just my working document.
PN5620
Yes, and of the documents that you saw, 72 out of this 243 had comparatives attached?---Had them physically stapled to their application, yes.
PN5621
The majority of those were internal?---Yes.
PN5622
Can I take you to paragraph 31 of your statement. Now, your earlier evidence is that you have only been employed - well, your experience in the higher education sector is solely at the University of Western Australia?---As an employee, yes.
PN5623
As an employee, yes, and you state at paragraph 31 on the basis of this experience, which I link back to the translation appeals experience:
PN5624
I can state there is considerable similarity between the nature of general staff positions at universities across Australia.
PN5625
Now, you have never been employed in other universities?---No.
PN5626
Your evidence about the external comparatives that were attached to the documents that you saw is that the majority of a number of 72, there was slightly less than 30 per cent had external - sorry, had comparisons attached and of those, less than 30 per cent the majority were actually internal comparisons, is that right?---No, the 72 is the number that I have physically stapled to my copy of the appeal. There would have been considerably more than 72 and many people would have supplied multiple comparatives.
PN5627
Your experience is when you are referring there on the basis of this experience, that is the experience that you are referring to?---Yes.
PN5628
Mr Farrelly's evidence is that from his experience - now, he chairs the classification committee, is that right?---Yes, yes, he does.
PN5629
He has had industrial relations roles for approximately 22 years?---I wouldn't know how long he has been working - - -
PN5630
Well, I put to you that he has and on that basis, you would agree that he would have broader experience of classification matters generally than you would?---Yes, probably.
PN5631
Well, he will give evidence that he disagrees with your assessment that there is considerable similarity between the nature of general staff positions and academic positions. So you disagree with that?---Yes.
PN5632
But you would agree and you have agreed that his classification experience would be broader than yours?---Yes, it would be.
PN5633
In paragraph 32, the experience that you refer to there, the experience in the department, that is your current department, the Department of Microbiology?---That's correct.
PN5634
On the translation appeals committee, that is the track - that is the committee that was formed at that translation exercise?---That's correct, yes.
PN5635
You don't presently sit on any classification committees?---No, I don't.
PN5636
You haven't since the translation appeals committee?---No.
PN5637
From your experience in the translation exercise, and bearing in mind your own report, the appeals end of it, would you agree that it was - well, let me ask this. How long did it take?---About 2 years, 18 months to 2 years, yes.
PN5638
Two years so it was a significant undertaking?---Yes.
PN5639
How many university staff would have been involved in the translation exercise?---In making appeals or in any way involved?
PN5640
In any way involved?---Well, all the people who made the appeals, most of their supervisors, many heads of departments, heads of division, deans and the human resources section.
PN5641
There would be administrative people presumably supporting with human resources section as well?---Yes.
PN5642
Are you aware of how many general staff there are at the University of Western Australia?---About 1400, FTE's, I don't know how many bodies there are but - - -
PN5643
Paragraph 33, your evidence is that:
PN5644
When considering the translation appeals, it was apparent that the current descriptors were deficient in a number of areas.
PN5645
Now, your evidence is also that all classifications are in a sense arbitrary and you would agree that all classification systems involves some sort of subjective assessment?---That's correct, yes.
PN5646
That people may disagree or have different opinions on outcomes?---Yes.
PN5647
You would agree that in the majority of the appeals that there was a consensus reached amongst that translation appeals committee?---No, a significant number were actually tagged WTA or - sorry, ATD which was agree to disagree and they went through to the independent arbitrator.
PN5648
The majority though were resolved by consensus?---By argument, yes.
PN5649
You came to an agreed position?---That's correct, or they went to the independent arbitrator.
PN5650
Yes, but putting aside those that - well, there was a majority though that didn't go to the independent arbitrator?---I couldn't recall exactly the distinction between the two groups.
PN5651
So you don't know the numbers?---No.
PN5652
Can I ask you to turn to attachment E - sorry, before you do. Your evidence at paragraph 34 is that it is - was that it was a problem with the descriptors was their repetitive nature and this was also commented upon by independent arbitrator in relation to HEE, levels 8 and 9, where occupational equivalents are identical, judgment independent problem solving typical activities are so similar. Then attachment E, that is the handwritten document?---Yes.
PN5653
Headed: Mr I.J. Peacock. In the last paragraph there:
PN5654
The applicants claim is greatly assisted by the evidence and support of Mr Steenhauer, the immediate superinordinate.
PN5655
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is a new word.
PN5656
MR PILL: I must admit, I read that three times last night and read it as subordinate every time. Superinordinate. Are you aware of what the evidence of Mr Steenhauer was?---No, I wasn't.
PN5657
So you are not aware of the basis on which, for example, this particular appeal was resolved?---No.
PN5658
Can I ask that Ms Gooding be shown the agreed documents folder? Ms Gooding, can I ask you to turn to tab 7? Behind tab 7 is the DWM report, which was the report to which you referred earlier and if I can get you to turn to - it is probably about half-way through but there - I would like you to have a look at the descriptors, which are in schedule 1. Not all the pages are sequentially numbered, I apologise. Yes, and can I ask you to turn to levels 8 and 9? Let us start with level 8. When you were classifying staff, or attempting to determine whether their appeal should succeed or not, you'd agree with me that you'd look at the material that you have been presented with by the classification officer, his report - - - ?---Yes.
PN5659
- - - and you'd also look at the other material that has been put before you, that is your evidence?---Yes.
PN5660
You assess that material against all of the matters appearing on those 2 pages? You look at the training level of qualifications, you look at the occupational equivalent, level of supervision, task level, organisational knowledge, judgment, independence and problem solving and typical activities?---And for comparative positions, too.
PN5661
And the comparative positions? It is not the case, is it, that you, for example, look at one of those matters and classify solely on the basis of one of those matters, is it?---In some instances we would because it would be the only guide we would have between the levels.
PN5662
To come to that conclusion you have taken into account all of those matters?---Yes.
PN5663
You were able to distinguish, even if it is only on one of those matters, between a level 8 and a level 9?---Well, we had significant difficulty with level 8 and level 9 because of their similarities.
PN5664
You'd agree with me that the 2 pages there at level 8 aren't identical to the 2 pages at level 9, are they?---No.
PN5665
So there are points of distinction that can be referred to?---Yes. For example, on level of supervision, 8 is "may manage" and 9 is "will manage." A person does manage other staff, you can't tell whether it's 8 or 9 because it's a may or a will.
PN5666
Yes, for example, though, if you looked at organisational knowledge, if you look at 8, it is different to that at level 9?---Yes.
PN5667
Level 8:
PN5668
The employee would be expected to make policy recommendations to others and to implement programs involving major change that may impact on other areas of an institution's operations.
PN5669
At 9:
PN5670
Conceptualise, develop and review major policies, objectives and strategies involving high level liaison with internal and external client areas
PN5671
Yes, and in the second half there is the same.
PN5672
Ms Gooding, if I was attempting to classify staff by reference to one factor, perhaps one skill or one duty alone, if there was a repetition of that skill or duty and I was only looking at that one factor then I wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, would I?---No.
PN5673
Your evidence is that you are familiar with the NTEU proposal. Can I ask that Ms Gooding be given a copy of the NTEU proposal?
PN5674
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't think I can provide one, Mr Pill.
PN5675
MR ..........: I've got a spare here, your Honour.
PN5676
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
PN5677
MR PILL: Now, Ms Gooding, in paragraph 36 your evidence is that the proposed system - and I take it that is the NTEU proposed system - - - ?---Yes.
PN5678
...by separating the broad streams of work -
PN5679
and if you stop there, you'd agree that this classification system, which separates stream - separates work into streams?---Yes, it does.
PN5680
Particular positions would fall within a particular stream?---Yes.
PN5681
For example, if you were looking to classify your position, as you appear to have attempted to do at paragraph 38, you looked at the technical stream?---I did, yes.
PN5682
Did you look at any of the other streams?---I did, yes.
PN5683
Can I ask that you turn to page 41 of that proposal and your evidence at paragraph 38 of your statement is that:
PN5684
With regard to my own position, the typical work skill within band 7 of the technical stream, exercise primary accountability for the preparation and design of the technical aspects of significant teaching or research program where resource, educational and scientific such technical parameters need to be balanced provides a clear match with many duties listed on my duty statement.
PN5685
So take it from that you have looked at a number of duties on your duty statement?---Yes.
PN5686
It has been necessary to look at more than one duty?---Yes.
PN5687
To fit yourself within that particular description?---Yes, that's correct.
PN5688
On that same page, page 41, if you go to the very top of the page, the first dot point says:
PN5689
Collaborate with senior academic staff -
PN5690
sorry:
PN5691
Collaborate with senior academic staffing the provision of relevant components of courses.
PN5692
Now, I'm not even too sure what that means but assuming that it is collaborate with senior academic staff regarding the provision of relevant components of courses, you'd agree that that is part of what you do?---That is, yes.
PN5693
The second-last dot point in that group of dot points:
PN5694
Maintain, monitor or control equipment where novel, innovative or experimental technology being applied or where significant and immediate hazards or the danger or loss of significant resources could arise where high level skills and vigilance are not applied
PN5695
?---Yes.
PN5696
Sorry:
PN5697
...were high level skills and vigilance not applied -
PN5698
and your department is one where you have dangerous material?---That's correct, yes.
PN5699
That descriptor could fit the duties that you perform as well?---Yes, and so could some from the admin stream and from the lower levels of the technical stream, too.
PN5700
That is correct, and are they all at level 7?---All of my duties?
PN5701
No, all of the duties that you just referred to as being in other streams that match your position?---I am not familiar that I could say that off the top of my head.
PN5702
I would like you to turn the page and look at band 8:
PN5703
Design and develop equipment.
PN5704
Sorry, under band 8, a typical range of work skills, fourth dot point:
PN5705
Design and develop equipment for significant specialist projects.
PN5706
Could that describe some of the work that you do?---No.
PN5707
Why is that?---Because I don't design or develop equipment.
PN5708
All right. You would agree that if you had to pick one - I withdraw that. You'd agree that your current classification is a 7?---Yes, it is.
PN5709
That has been reached by applying the DWM descriptors?---I'm not sure that it wasn't - it just came over on a block transfer, I don't know it's ever actually been - had the descriptors applied to it.
PN5710
Well, what was the basis on which the block transfer was done?---Okay, that was on the descriptors, yes.
PN5711
The DWM descriptors, put aside your current EB for the moment - sorry, the new EB, your descriptors in your EB on which general staff are classified are the DWM descriptors?---That's correct, yes.
PN5712
They are currently capable of classifying you at a 7?---They do, yes.
PN5713
The NTEU draft order, your view is would classify you at the same level?---Yes.
PN5714
Although you'd agree, and you have agreed, that it could be seen that a number of duties fall at different levels?---Yes.
PN5715
And that in order to fit your duties within a 7 you had to look at more than - or you had to look at several duties that you perform?---Yes, I looked at the balance of the job.
PN5716
Yes, rather than, for example, looking at one particular function and determining whether that was the highest function?---I looked at the balance of the job and at the highest function.
PN5717
Yes. Paragraph 41 of your statement say that you believe that the loose framework provided by the current DWM descriptors allows positions to be more arbitrarily placed in a classification level and the proposed classification scheme which provides more precise determinates at each level and for each stream. Now, that is a matter of opinion, that is your opinion?---That's correct.
PN5718
The proposal, you have never had to apply the NTEU proposal to classifying new staff?---No.
PN5719
Apart from yourself and the example that you have given at paragraph 40, you have never had to apply it to the classification of existing staff?---No, I've looked at it and made my own informal assessment but, no, I've never formally applied it to those classification.
PN5720
Yes. Now, Ms Gooding, your current - your evidence is that the university has just reached a new EB?---That's correct, yes.
PN5721
Now, you were involved in those EB negotiations?---Yes, I was.
PN5722
You are aware that the university and the union have now agreed to modify the DWM descriptors slightly?---Yes, we have.
PN5723
You'd agree with me that initially the NTEU representatives in those negotiations objected to that?---Yes, we did.
PN5724
You'd also agree that you didn't, at any stage, seek to insert a new classificational structure, for example, that looked like the NTEU proposal?---No, we didn't. Can I just - can I just add to that?
PN5725
Yes?---That this was - we originally started this period of bargaining to be a straight roll-over agreement and that we did not put any log of claims on the table.
PN5726
Yes, and it is reasonable to infer from that that it is not your view that the DWM descriptors in the current EB are fundamentally flawed?---I think there are problems with the current descriptors, which are outlined in my witness statement.
PN5727
You'd agree that if you considered they were fundamentally flawed you would seek to change them in the negotiations?---Well, we would have been seeking to change them in the next round of negotiations, yes, but we had - as I said, this was to be a minimal roll-over agreement, effectively.
PN5728
So you were prepared to accept that they were sufficient for present purposes?---At this stage, yes.
PN5729
Yes, and, indeed, you opposed supplementing them?---We opposed the ones which were supplied by the university, yes.
PN5730
Yes. I've no further questions, your Honour.
PN5731
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Moorhouse?
PN5732
MR MOORHOUSE: Thank you, your Honour.
PN5733
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before you start, it is a convenient time to have a short break, I will adjourn for 5 minutes.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.25am]
RESUMED [11.40am]
PN5734
PN5735
MR MOORHOUSE: Ms Gooding, I would like to ask you a couple of questions relating to the part of your statement that is headed: Classifications/Experience, and you clearly have some familiar or significant familiarity with the DWM descriptors and you have also looked at the NTEU classification proposal?---Yes.
PN5736
Correct?---Yes.
PN5737
In paragraph 35 of your statement, you make the statement that:
PN5738
DWM descriptors do not readily address the classification and the vast diversity of task performed and skills employed within a university.
PN5739
Do you mean by that they are not capable of addressing the vast diversity of duties performed by general staff, is that the point of your statement?---I'm saying that the - because all those tasks are all lumped into one single set of descriptors for each level rather than them being separated by a stream it is very difficult to classify them, because it can be very difficult to classify jobs using them.
PN5740
Particularly by reference to the fact that general staff across the universities have a very diverse range of duties?---That's right, yes.
PN5741
The key differential, perhaps, between the DWM descriptors and the NTEU proposal is that the DWM descriptors rely on what might be called cognitive valuation factors, such as level of supervision and received and exercises level of judgment, etcetera, Mr Pill took you to some of those, while the DW - sorry, while the NTEU proposal relies primarily on typical duties as a means of classifying?---I hadn't made that distinction, no.
PN5742
Would you agree that that is the - - - ?---Look, I'd have to - I'd have to have a serious look at them but I can accept that if that's the case.
PN5743
It is my client's view that, in fact, it is the DWM descriptors that are better equipped to classify the vast range of duties that are found in general staff in universities because, specifically, they don't go to - they don't rely primarily on specific duties but rather on broad cognitive factors. What - would you have anything to say to that or would you accept that?---Only to say that the Translation Appeals Committee found that one of the most useful parts of the DWM was the typical activities' section because it gave us a handle in which to put the jobs and that the broader - the broader sections of the descriptors we didn't find as useful.
PN5744
Okay, although it is clear that the DWM descriptors don't rely primarily on typical activities in order to classify positions, they rely on them in conjunction with those broader evaluative factors?---That's correct but often the debate, for want of a better word, did generate down to whether or not it was in the typical activities because that was the only thing we could definitely get a handle on.
PN5745
Do you think that the NTEU proposal has captured all duties performed by general staff within the university - within universities?---I don't think it's possible to capture them all specifically.
PN5746
You have just answered my next question. So must not it then be the case that a system based on general cognitive evaluative factors is more able to classify a vast diversity of staff than a system based on specific duties?---No, I think - I think you need some element of both but generally jobs are classified by what they do and so they - that that relies on duties is easier to use.
PN5747
Certainly they are classified by what they do and by applying what they do to the descriptors at the DWM rather than by simply matching what they do with descriptors with lists of duties, effectively, as the NTEU proposal does?---Yes, I'd find that the broad scope of the cognitive abilities in the DWM very difficult to use because they are so loose and so vague and that I find typical activities easier to use.
PN5748
You do agree that the NTEU descriptors will miss particular duties?---All descriptors miss particular duties.
PN5749
Do you think it is possible that the NTEU proposal actually - that there would be general staff positions at universities for whom no duties are captured by the NTEU proposal; ie, none of whose duties would be captured by the NTEU proposal?---I don't believe so.
PN5750
At paragraph 36 you say that the NTEU proposal is more likely to facilitate consistent classification within and across occupational streams?---That's right.
PN5751
The DWM classification system assesses all positions against the same words, the same group of words for each level?---Yes.
PN5752
That is not the case with the NTEU proposal, which has separate groups of words, if you like, separate duties, listings for the different occupational streams?---That's correct, yes.
PN5753
Those task descriptors within the NTEU proposal, they vary from stream to stream?---They do, yes.
PN5754
Again, does that not lead you to believe that the DWM descriptor system is more likely to lead to consistent classification across streams than a system that relies on classifications by reference to each stream?---No, because the NTEU proposal has specific - specific descriptors, for want of a better word, but specific - say, a dot point, specifically referring to technical aspect at that level as opposed to an administrative aspect at that level where DWM is very broad and it's very difficult to get a handle on them.
PN5755
Could I take you to the NTEU proposal now and initially to the technical/scientific stream at page 42. You will see the bottom dot point at band 9 refers to managing other administrative, technical or professional staff and the last dot point at band 8 refers to supervising technical staff?---Yes.
PN5756
If you go back over the last dot point of band 7 it is also about supervising staff - sorry, back a previous page?---Yes.
PN5757
So in that stream, the NTEU has proposed that supervision of staff - there are earlier - in the earlier bands there are descriptors related to directing the work of small groups of staff but apparently in that occupational stream supervision of staff comes in at band 7 and 8 and management of staff at band 9?---Yes.
PN5758
If I could now take you to the IT stream and it is the previous occupational stream in the proposal, page 37, the final dot point at band 7: Managing other Administrative Technical Professional Staff?---Yes.
PN5759
That is, in fact, the exact words that are in band 9 of the technical scientific stream, if you want to just check that, back at page 42. Band 8 of the IT staff managing - the same descriptor again - and, in fact, at band 9, the final dot point of the IT stream, the same descriptor again, so it would seem in the NTEU proposal in the IT stream, managing staff comes in at band 7, 8 or 9 and now if I could take you to the services stream, which starts on page 44. In band 5, it is the fifth dot point: Manager, Security Team, it is on page 47?---Yes.
PN5760
In band 6, the fourth dot point is: Managing University Child Care Centre, and the sixth is: Managing Works of University Services, and that last one, presumably, relates to things such as managing the university cleaning service, perhaps, so it would seem in the - and then that band, in fact, does not go beyond band 6, so it would seem the services stream, the management of staff, comes in at bands 5 and 6. Now, I realise, of course, you haven't had anything to do with putting these together but would you accept from that that there would appear to be anomalies in relation to where - what might be equivalent duties classified across different streams?---Except that I think that the management of technical and professional staff requires more skills than the management of a cleaning service, for example.
PN5761
In that those cleaning services people are more - well, easier to deal with, they are more easy-going and - - - ?---No, in that - in that there is a requirement in managing scientific, technical or professional staff that you have some familiarity with the skills that are required of scientific, technical and professional staff.
PN5762
How about comparing that to the management of information technology staff? Again, the same requirement to have knowledge of the area would exist?---Yes, I must admit - I must confess to not being not particularly familiar with the classification of IT.
PN5763
Would you accept from that that there is - that the potential for the classification of people by reference to separate streams does give rise to potential of anomalies when comparing - when looking for consistency of classification across occupational streams?---Gives rise to the potential for anomalies?
PN5764
In this case I would say it gives rise to actual but, certainly, at least that approach gives rise to potential anomalies?---I can accept that.
PN5765
Yet a classification system such as DWM which does not - which is the same words to classify positions regardless of what stream there is removes that potential for anomalies?---No, there are anomalies within the DWM stream, in my opinion. The fact that - in the DWM classification the fact that they're not in streams hasn't changed that.
PN5766
In the case of DWM, presumably those anomalies are from how people have actually been classified rather than because of the words?---No, it's because - - -
PN5767
You stick with the descriptors?---- - - of deficiencies in the DWM descriptors, in my view.
PN5768
What, you will accept that the same descriptors are applied to occupational streams?---Yes.
PN5769
Yes, the same - - - ---Yes, yes.
PN5770
Okay, no further questions, your Honour.
PN5771
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Britt?
PN5772
PN5773
MR BRITT: Ms Gooding, could I take you to paragraph 30 - sorry, paragraph 28 of your statement? Now, in relation to those persons who weren't translated directly across to a particular level, they were looked at on an individual basis?---Yes.
PN5774
To support their case those employees may provide comparators?---I'm not familiar what happened with the individual ones, only on post-lot transfer.
PN5775
Your involvement, as I understand from your evidence to Mr Pill, who is the man three to my left, was that you were involved in the appeal process?---That's correct, yes.
PN5776
Now, in relation to the appeal process it was the case that it would be the employee who more often appealed rather than the university?---Yes.
PN5777
Now, in the case of the employee appealing, the employee may have provided you with comparisons - - - ?---Yes.
PN5778
- - - or comparators, and I think Mr Pill counted through your annexure D and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think you outlined 243 instances where there were appeals held?---Yes.
PN5779
There were some 72 or 73 where comparisons were provided at least stapled to the appeal?---Yes.
PN5780
I think you said that there may well be the case that a person could provide multiple comparators?---That's correct, yes.
PN5781
I think you also then said that some people may, of course, when they met with the committee, provided documents separately?---Yes, and the classification officer provided comparatives also.
PN5782
Right, now, in paragraph 31 you refer to your - the basis of your experience. Now, I think in response to Mr Pill, the basis for your experience was based upon your involvement in the appeal process?---Yes.
PN5783
Now, you would accept that what you saw in the appeal process was people comparing themselves, either with other positions in the university or other positions within other universities?---And external to the sector as well.
PN5784
What people were putting forward to you were positions that they believed were similar to, or identical to, their position?---Yes.
PN5785
So as part of your experience on this appeals committee you didn't actually have to look at the different positions, you only looked at the similar positions?---Well, no, because often the classification officer would - if in rejecting the appeal, would often provide us with positions which were different and often in not what would be termed the same stream in the NTEU proposal terminology.
PN5786
When you say there's positions that were different, would you therefore concede that there are, in fact, differences between the nature of general staff positions at universities across Australia?---There are natures - there are differences in the nature of general staff positions within a university as well as across Australia.
PN5787
Yes, now, in relation to your position, there wouldn't be a similar general staff position, for instance, in the academia - in the faculty of Law, would there?---No.
PN5788
Nor would there be a position in the faculty of Economics?---No.
PN5789
The faculty of fine arts?---No, they don't tend to have scientific officers in Arts.
PN5790
They don't have, for instance, in the faculty of Law, have general staff providing tutorials, do they?---I think they do, yes. They have this - I'm pretty sure they would have research officers providing tutorials.
PN5791
Do you know that for sure, madam, or you - - - ?---Well, the last - put it like this, I did do some law units and I did have a tutorial that was taken by a research member of staff. Now, I can't - - -
PN5792
You wouldn't know whether that research member of staff - - - ?---No.
PN5793
- - - was, in fact, a level A academic, would you - - - ?---No.
PN5794
- - - or a general assistant?---No. Not in that specific example, no.
PN5795
No. Now, there aren't similar positions in the faculty of Economics, are there?---Not that I know of, no.
PN5796
No. Now, if we extend outside the University of Western Australia, there are not similar positions to yours in Edith Cowan University, are there?---No, there's no microbiology department, to any great extent, at Edith Cowan.
PN5797
There are not similar positions, for instance, at the University of Ballarat?---I'm not familiar with what's at Ballarat.
PN5798
Well, madam, you say that you have - that there are considerable similarities between the nature of general staff positions at universities across Australia, so in that statement can I take that you, therefore, exclude the University of Ballarat?---I can't recall whether I received any comparatives from the University of Ballarat, not the specific institution, no.
PN5799
Now, madam, in relation to the Maritime College of Launceston, are there any similar positions to your position at that particular institution?---There are certainly some microbiology at Launceston but I don't know whether there are any similar positions.
PN5800
Madam, I put to you that there is not, in fact, a microbiology department - - -?---No, there is not a department, no, but there is some microbiology.
PN5801
- - - or microbiology taught at the Maritime College at Launceston?---It may be taught in some other area, but certainly I have communicated with someone who works with the Maritime College involved in and exchanged ideas about microbiology teaching.
PN5802
Is there a similar position to your position at Charles Sturt University?---I don't know.
PN5803
Is there a similar position to your position at the University of New England?---I don't know.
PN5804
Now, madam, is it fair to characterise your knowledge of the industry based upon - is exclusively based upon your experience at the University of Western Australia and the comparison documents you saw in this translation process?---I have other knowledge of the industry other than exclusively gained through my employment, for example, through my union activities - been familiar with a number of general staff working across the country and discussed issues such as classification.
PN5805
Well, in relation to this number of general staff that you have had an opportunity to discuss the classification matters, what universities did they come from?---Well, I was a member of the CPSU higher education working group that worked on classification. Which universities they specifically came from, I can't recall now.
PN5806
Have you had any other experience or expertise in relation to general staff across Australia?---No.
PN5807
So your experience and expertise is restricted to University of Western Australia, documents that you saw in relation to your role in the appeals process, and certain unnamed individuals from unnamed universities whilst on the CPSU executive?---Yes.
PN5808
Madam, you also will concede that a number of universities have a different emphasis, there being a number of universities which are said to be the leading research universities?---Yes.
PN5809
And they have a different role - or see a different role for themselves than the other universities?---They see a different emphasis, yes.
PN5810
And your university is one of those so-called research universities?---Yes, it is.
PN5811
And universities such as Edith Cowan have a different role or see for themselves, a different role than the research university? If you can't answer that question - - -?---No. I don't know what Edith Cowan's strategic policy is.
PN5812
Now, madam, you have had an opportunity to consider the draft order prepared by the NTU?---Yes.
PN5813
You understand from that order that there are streams?---Yes.
PN5814
Do you know how a person is selected for a particular stream?---I don't know specifically, but I would imagine it was on the balance of the position.
PN5815
So in order to tell me the balance of the position, you would have to look at all of the typical activities, would you?---Yes.
PN5816
And then from making that decision, you would understand that a decision would have to be made as to the particular stream a person fell in?---Yes.
PN5817
And then madam, to determine the level at which a person falls, you look at the particular work or skill which is the highest and most frequently performed?---I think I said before, on the balance of the job and the highest level.
PN5818
Now, do you have a draft order in front of you?---Yes, I do.
PN5819
If I could ask you to look at band 7 in the technical stream on page 41, and I would ask you look at the first dot point madam, and ask you do you believe that you performed that particular duty?---Yes, in the second half if it, yes, contributory accountability.
PN5820
Now, in relation to contributory accountability, how you define contributory accountability?---I would define contributory accountability as rather than being a single individual who is accountable being part of a group or a collective or I contribute some element of accountability to the operation.
PN5821
Madam, I think you said you have got a number of employees in the section where you work classified as levels 4, 5 and 6?---No. One 3, one 5/6 and one 6.
PN5822
In relation to the level 6 employees, do they exercise contributory accountability?---They would exercise contributory accountability for that part of the laboratory operation that they were responsible for.
PN5823
And you would exercise contributory accountability for that part of the laboratory that you were responsible for?---That is correct, yes.
PN5824
So all of those employees, you say, exercise that first dot point?---To some level of it, yes.
PN5825
Those level 6 employees and yourself?---To some level of it, yes.
PN5826
Now, did you say there was a level 3 employee as well?---Yes, there is.
PN5827
Now, does that level 3 employee exercise contributory accountability for part of the laboratory?---Absolutely not.
PN5828
Now, in relation to the second dot point, do you perform that role, madam?---No.
PN5829
Now, I read in your evidence you said before you perform a third dot point?---Yes.
PN5830
Now, in relation to the fourth dot point, do you perform that particular work skill?---Yes, some of that.
PN5831
When you say you perform some of it, what part do you perform?---Particularly the second part where significant and immediate hazards or the danger of loss of significant resources could arise.
PN5832
Now, in relation to the next dot point. Do you perform that role, or does that describe your role, madam?---The term "speciality" is difficult, but to some extent, yes.
PN5833
Now, madam, in relation to the last dot point - I think you said you don't supervise any staff?---I don't supervise staff but I may direct the work of the 6 or the 5/6 when we are working together on a project.
PN5834
Madam, that would be the duty, would it not, at the last dot point in band 6?---Well, no, we wouldn't be undertaking a diverse range of functions and working at different locations. It would be the last part of band 7 which is directing a small group of technical staff working on - or assisting in the running of classes.
PN5835
Now, in relation to the small group of technical staff, which ones do you direct?---I may direct the work of the 6 or the 5/6 and from time to time, they direct the work of the 7, depending on who has primary responsibility for the unit I'm working on.
PN5836
Now, madam, would you see that in band 7 in the fourth dot point, there is a typical range of work skills headed: Maintain monitor or control equipment, etcetera?---Yes.
PN5837
Now, madam, I would ask you to look at the second last dot point of band 6 and then ask you to explain to me the differences between those two work skills?---There is no difference.
PN5838
Madam, if you were classifying an employee under this proposal, and that was the - one of the duties being performed by the person you propose to classify, how would you know whether they fall within band 6 or band 7?---As I said to you earlier, it would be on the balance of the job and the highest level that they perform.
PN5839
When you say, madam, it is on the balance of the job, can you point out to me in the proposed draft order, where it says that?---No, I can't.
PN5840
Madam, take your time to have a look?---No, I can't.
PN5841
In fact, madam, can I take you to clause 7.3 which you will find at page 4 of the draft order. That sets out the basis of classification, does it not?---Yes.
PN5842
You would agree, madam, that we have primary regard to the highest function regularly performed?---Yes.
PN5843
So madam, if I can then take you back to page 41, and assuming that the duty which is "the highest function regularly performed by me", is the "maintain monitor or control equipment". Am I classified under the proposal as a 6 or a 7?---I couldn't answer that, I'm sorry.
PN5844
Well, madam, you are a person who is in the past who have to us these classifications - use the DWM classifications - - -?---No, then I would have to give secondary weight to other elements of the job.
PN5845
Now, madam, if the role:
PN5846
My highest regularly performed duty is supervised or direct the work of a small group of technical staff working on a research project or assisting in the running of classes.
PN5847
Am I a level 7 or am I a level 8?---Again, you would have to look at your secondary weight to the rest of the job.
PN5848
Now, madam, you agree with me that that is not what the clause 7.3 says, is it?---Does it not say "primary".
PN5849
Primary regard should be to the highest value of the function?
PN5850
That is right, madam, and it doesn't say anything about secondary roles, does it?---No, but I would, in reading this document, and it is just my personal view, that they would have to give secondary regard to things that if the - I couldn't give primary regard to it.
PN5851
It doesn't say that, does it?---No, it doesn't say that.
PN5852
Now madam, if I can then take you to paragraph 36 of your statement? You say the proposed system - and by that you are talking about the proposed NTU order?---Yes, I am.
PN5853
Will give more consistent classification both within and across streams.
PN5854
?---Yes.
PN5855
Now, madam, in making that statement, have you looked at the work value of people across streams?---No, I haven't done a specific comparison, no.
PN5856
No, so madam, upon what do you base that statement?---I base that statement on my reading of the scientific and technical stream particularly, but also upon my experience from the translation of fields and working with the DWM that the fact that we couldn't separate the streams and work out the relativities in the streams, made a very difficult task.
PN5857
Yes, now, madam, you have no direct knowledge as to whether we get a true comparison of work value if we compare band 7 and a clerical and an administrative stream with band 7 in the technical stream?---No direct knowledge, no.
PN5858
In fact, madam, do you have an indirect knowledge?---Only by my reading of the document and applying it to my experience in the past. But I haven't done job value - a job value assessment of any particular job.
PN5859
You are not aware of any job value assessment done?---Well, no. I've been involved in the - I don't know whether there have been any done.
PN5860
Now, if I can then take you through paragraph 37 of your statement? You refer there to certain anonymous comments made to you about bias towards administrative, and in particular, central administrative positions?---Yes.
PN5861
By that, do I assume that you believe those people have been over-classified?---No, I believe that the technical people have been under-classified.
PN5862
Although you don't believe you have been under-classified?---Nobody concludes to being under-classified. No, I don't think I have.
PN5863
So you believe a level 7 position is the appropriate position for the skills that you perform?---Yes.
PN5864
And that is a position that was reached under the DWM criteria?---Yes, it was.
PN5865
So in relation to the DWM criteria, it was appropriate in respect to classifying your position?---Yes, it was.
PN5866
Madam, if I take you to paragraph 40 of your statement? You refer in that paragraph to certain work tasks in relation to the position classified as HEE2?---Yes.
PN5867
Have you looked at other minimum rates of awards to determine the rates of pay that apply to those particular duties of people who perform those particular duties?---No, I haven't.
PN5868
I've no further questions.
PN5869
PN5870
MR SANDLER: As your Honour pleases.
PN5871
Ms Gooding, I appear in this matter for the University of New South Wales. In relation to a few questions about what you see as the distinction, or you understanding the differences between academic and general staff, it will be the evidence of the University of New South Wales that academic staff are responsible for curriculum development, intellectual - providing an intellectual framework for courses in the subject taught and the subjects taught on courses, and for student evaluation and assessment, and I emphasise the word responsible as opposed to participating in any of those processes from time to time. That is what we say distinguishes an academic from a general staff member. Can I ask you, are you responsible for curriculum development at all?---No, I'm not.
PN5872
And are you responsible for the framework of courses, the intellectual framework of courses and the subjects which should be taught in those courses?---No.
PN5873
And are you responsible for student evaluation and assessment?---No.
PN5874
If I can take you to paragraph 15 where you have provided the duty statement of your supervisor. Our assessment is that under the NTU classification descriptors, that would be evaluated at level 8. Are you in a position to agree?---No, I'm not.
PN5875
So you wouldn't know?---No.
PN5876
Well, currently that person is evaluated at level 10, is that correct?---That is correct, yes.
PN5877
But you wouldn't know how the NTU descriptors would work?---No, I wouldn't.
PN5878
Can I take you to those descriptors? Will you have a look at band 8 and the descriptors in band 8?---Yes.
PN5879
Would you say that based on those descriptors, that is where you would evaluate the person in the position to - - -?---If I was giving the primary consideration to the highest duty done, then I would at least, look at 9 because he manages other administrative technical or professional staff.
PN5880
So you would put that at a band 9, would you?---At least 9 without moving and fully familiar with the level 10s, yes.
PN5881
Well, you might note that there is no level 10. In that stream there is no level 10, you would have to go to the management stream. If I take you to that management stream, Ms Gooding, and look at the primary criteria?---Yes.
PN5882
Which of those two, if any, of those primary criteria, would your supervisor fall into?---He probably wouldn't fall into either.
PN5883
Okay. So then we are back at level 9?---Mm.
PN5884
If you are the other administrative technical professional staff, you supervise the managers?---He manages the 8, two 7s, 6, a 5/6 and a 3 and five technical assistants.
PN5885
Now, in relation to paragraph 16 of your statement where you talk about laboratory sessions?---Yes.
PN5886
You are in charge for the session, aren't you?---In some sessions, yes.
PN5887
Some sessions you are in charge, but overall the responsibility lies elsewhere - the overall control?---The overall accountability, yes.
PN5888
And so you wouldn't have the final say in whether a student has passed or failed?---No. The final say would lie with the Department's exams board which I am a member.
PN5889
And the final assessment of that student? Who would make that - would that be you, or would that be - - -?---The final assessment in physically marking something or in - - -
PN5890
Physically - - -?--- - - - determining what level or what mark they got at the end of the unit?
PN5891
In determining what mark they got at the end?---That would be made by the exams board of which I am a member of.
PN5892
In relation to paragraph 18 where you say there is an entirely arbitrary division into academic and general staff based solely on the funding source?---Yes.
PN5893
Can you tell me who makes that decision? Is that decision made at the university or made externally to the university?---Well, I think we went through that before that that was largely as a result of the rules of the funding body.
PN5894
So it is the funding body?---Mm.
PN5895
Now - - -?---Can I just clarify that? I should add that often staff's positions will be allocated against different funding sources and that decision is made within the department by either the departmental manager or by the principal researcher.
PN5896
At paragraph 22, you talk about the development and maintenance of computer skills?---Yes.
PN5897
And you have attended courses?---Yes.
PN5898
Can you - if I take you to the descriptors in the technical and scientific stream, is there anything in those descriptors which you would say encompasses computer based skills?---No.
PN5899
In paragraph 24 you talk about approaching students and monitoring their performance - - -?---Yes.
PN5900
- - - over the course. Who would you say has responsibility for determining whether a student is performing adequately or as expected?---Within the practical component of the course, whoever is in charge of the demonstrating or whoever is demonstrating, but if you are talking performance in terms of assessment, then ultimately the head of department does.
PN5901
And is the head of department a member of the academic staff?---Yes.
PN5902
Now, the - you have said at paragraph 35 in your experience:
PN5903
That the DWM descriptors, while providing the broad framework for classification, does not readily address the classification of a vast diversity of tasks performed and skills employed within a university.
PN5904
And I assume that in saying that, you would be asserting that it is not the case with the NTU proposal?---I would be asserting that they are better.
PN5905
Well, if I could take you to that NTU proposal? If I could take you to the services stream which is at page 44. Could I ask you - where in - have a look at the services stream and please take your time - where in that services stream would you place an aerobics instructor or swimming coach, or printing staff, or weights room supervisors?---All of them?
PN5906
To be honest I find that very difficult to do without the specific duty statement of the individual so I could pin a specific task to a level.
PN5907
Well, let us take an aerobics instructor. I mean, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to work out what an aerobics instructor does in terms of finding anything which might link those descriptors to an aerobics instructor?---I'm completely unfamiliar with aerobics instructors. They're not on the university staff at UWA so I don't have that much familiarity with them and I would find it very difficult.
PN5908
Well, as I understand your statement, you essentially said - put to this Commission that university staff are similar across the country, general staff, in your experience and on the basis - - - ?---I said there was - - -
PN5909
MR McALPINE: I object to that. That is not - a misquote is being put to the witness.
PN5910
MR SANDLER: Well, I will take you to your statement then:
PN5911
I can state there is a considerable similarity in the nature of general staff positions.
PN5912
?---Yes.
PN5913
Considerable similarity?---I can. I'm not familiar with the specifics of who employs aerobics instructors at which university, I'm sorry.
PN5914
Your university does no?---No, they're employed by the Guild at my university.
PN5915
Well, let us go to weight room supervisors then?---As in weight-lifting, weights?
PN5916
That is right. You have a room full of weights and somebody oversees the people in the room who are lifting weights?---Again, I'm not familiar with weight room supervisors.
PN5917
Maybe something a bit more basic. Maybe we could go to printing?---Printing.
PN5918
Printing staff?---As in staff who operate photocopiers or staff who - - -
PN5919
Staff who work in the reproduction of materials, yes, staff who operate photocopiers, staff who - - - ?---I suspect that at my university you would probably place them in the clerical stream.
PN5920
Staff who are responsible for producing publication, lecture notes that have been published generally?---I would imagine at first glance that it would be in the clerical stream.
PN5921
In a clerical stream?---I would imagine it would be correctly operating photocopying equipment or something like that.
PN5922
Where would you put the public relations people?---It would depend - I imagine it would depend on the level of the person.
PN5923
You do know what a public relations person does broadly, don't you?---Yes, I do, yes. They would - some would probably be in administration, clerical and admin.
PN5924
Well, that is at page 17. Our evidence will be that those descriptors don't apply to public relations people. They are just not in the NTEU descriptors. You can take your time?---Again, without looking at the specific duties of the position, I would imagine that would be coming to the ability to communicate effectively or apply advanced written or oral knowledge in interpretation of procedures and so on.
PN5925
Well, on the basis of our discussion over the past 15 minutes, would you say or would you concede that it would be fair to say that your criticism of the DWM descriptors and the fact that they don't readily address the classification of the diversity of tasks performed and the skills employed within a university, as opposed to your university, that those criticisms could be levelled equally at the draft order put by the NTEU in these proceedings?---I think it's very difficult for any classification system to address them all.
PN5926
Now, in your evidence today there's been some discussion about what was sought in the enterprise bargaining negotiations and I understood you to say this time around, while we didn't accept supplementary descriptors put forward by the university we didn't seek to alter the current descriptors?---That's correct, yes.
PN5927
Speaking hypothetically, if the NTEU draft order was to be accepted as an outcome of these proceedings would it be your expectation that in the next round of enterprise negotiations that in enterprise bargaining you would be pressing for though the NTEU draft order to be adopted into the enterprise agreement?---Yes, we would.
PN5928
Would you agree with me that if that was the case and one got to the position where that order was adopted, that there would be a significant translation exercise - - - ?---There would be, yes.
PN5929
- - - which would have to be undertaken?---Yes.
PN5930
Without giving you dollar figures, but in general terms our evidence would be that that would be an extremely costly exercise?---I imagine it would be costly, I have no idea how much it would cost.
PN5931
I have no further questions.
PN5932
PN5933
MR McALPINE: You were asked - I take you to paragraph 7 of your statement, Ms Gooding. You were asked a question about whether or not the holding of PhD and Masters degrees were considered prerequisites or were essential criteria for the selection of those positions. Do you remember that question?---Yes. Yes, I do.
PN5934
What relevance would those qualifications have to the performance of the duties in those positions?---They'd have a great deal of relevance. For example, the one who has a PhD now gives all the specialist lectures in his area.
PN5935
In relation to the questions you were asked about scientific literature, what type of scientific literature do you read as pursuant to that element of your duty statement to which you referred?---We scan the broad range of scientific journals and medical journals and we read specifically in the area that we're teaching in or working in, so I would be reading Nature Science, The Lancet, Australian Medical Journal, those sort of publications.
PN5936
You were asked a number of questions about streams and occupational streams. What relevance in the application of the DWM descriptors at the University of Western Australia, what relevance does that concept have to the way in which jobs are classified?---None.
PN5937
How then does the committee, for example, when it is looking at the DWM descriptors where they refer to, for example, in typical activities, technical positions or professional positions, how was an assessment made whether a position is a technical position or a professional position?---On the basis of the duties and the typical activities.
PN5938
Of the position?---Of the position, yes.
PN5939
In your work do you have a contact - in your work as opposed to your union activities do you have contact with general staff from other universities?---Yes, I do.
PN5940
What sort of contact is that?---General staff from another university may phone and ask for a particular organism or might phone and ask for advice on a way to run an experiment. From time to time we will phone other universities and ask them similarly.
PN5941
Looking at the type of work that you do, would you be able to say whether there are people who do similar work to yours at other universities?---Yes, there are.
PN5942
Do you have any idea what proportion of the general staff of the University of Western Australia would be aerobics instructors or gym supervisors?---I would be very surprised if there were any aerobic instructors and I know nothing about gym supervisors. There may be some in the Department of Human Movement but I don't know.
PN5943
The printing positions, how is printing done at the University of Western Australia?---It's done by photocopying. We do have an associated body, University Press, and I would not know how they physically produce the books but I don't think they're actually UWA employees.
PN5944
If one or other of the parties desired a change to the descriptors or the classification basis used in enterprise bargaining at the University of Western Australia, what would happen with such a proposal? What would be the process by which it would get implemented?---Outside of the bargaining period?
PN5945
No, I'm talking about if one - if the university proposed or the unions proposed a new classification structure, then what would happen?---It would normally be negotiated between the parties.
PN5946
Now, you were asked a question about whether or not the union will pursue a new classification structure in the next round of enterprise bargaining, depending on the outcome of these proceedings. At what level of the union would such a decision be made, ultimately?---At the local level.
PN5947
I have no further questions.
PN5948
PN5949
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have got another witness?
PN5950
PN5951
MR McALPINE: Mr Hyde-Parker, could you state for the Commission your full name, your address and your occupation?---My name is Barry Ernest Hyde-Parker. My address is 29 Denman Terrace, Lower Mitcham, South Australia. My occupation, I'm employed at the University of Adelaide as a Higher Education Officer Grade 6 Technical.
PN5952
Have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN5953
Do you have that statement with you?---Yes, I do.
PN5954
Have you recently re-read that statement?---Yes, I have.
PN5955
Do you have any corrections or modifications that you would like to make to that statement?---Yes, I have.
PN5956
Would you like to explain those to the Commission?---On the second page, paragraph 4, second-bottom line which reads:
PN5957
Or more academics, even within the chemistry department.
PN5958
I believe the word "even" should be struck out, otherwise the sentence does not make sense.
PN5959
Yes?---On the second page approximately half-way down, on the area of dealing with occupational - - -
PN5960
You mean on the third page?---Sorry, the third page, yes:
PN5961
There are toxic solvents and chemicals and significant mechanical hazards and other?
PN5962
I believe that is a typographical error. It should be struck out.
PN5963
Yes.
PN5964
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What should be struck out?---The words "and other" and the question mark.
PN5965
The three things, yes. Right?---Hazards should be hazards full stop, I believe.
PN5966
Yes?---One, two, three lines down:
PN5967
The department's workshop makes a considerable amount of equipment that is for use elsewhere.
PN5968
I believe "a considerable amount of" should be struck out. I believe that puts it in better context.
PN5969
Now read "makes equipment"?---Makes equipment that is for use, yes.
PN5970
On the next page, on paragraph 9, half-way down, paragraph reading:
PN5971
Now the workshop is expected to generate revenue from.
PN5972
I believe it should read "generate revenue". The words "from" and the second full stop be taken out.
PN5973
Yes?---Two lines further down:
PN5974
Create the accounting and charging system.
PN5975
That should now be modified to include the words "internal": Create the internal accounting and charging system for this work.
PN5976
This is due to the universities adopting a new computerised system which is more extensive in its application than the previous one. That is the end of the variations as I see them.
PN5977
You tender the statement?
PN5978
MR McALPINE: Yes, I tender the statement.
PN5979
PN5980
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Warburton?
PN5981
MR WARBURTON: I have no questions for this witness, your Honour.
PN5982
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mendelssohn?
PN5983
PN5984
MR MENDELSSOHN: Mr Hyde-Parker, in the third paragraph - - -
PN5985
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you go on, Mr Mendelssohn, Mr Sandler has a most laudable practice of announcing for whom he is appearing to the witness. I think it is only kind and proper that we all follow his example.
PN5986
MR MENDELSSOHN: May it please your Honour.
PN5987
Mr Hyde-Parker, I represent the Community and Public Sector Union in these proceedings. Mr Hyde-Parker, in paragraph 3 which is the first paragraph on page 2 of your statement you say in the last sentence that:
PN5988
Even employees who are technically proficient have failed as technical staff because they have not been able to work within the environment of the university department.
PN5989
Are there particular employees, former employees, of the university you have in mind when you say that?---I believe there have been examples in the past where I've seen technical staff who were unable to make the translation from a technical background as practised outside the new Higher Education system who are unable really to fit within the procedures and the morays, I guess, of the employment.
PN5990
Do you have any view about why they were unable to do that?---I think it's a case of first of all early training and I think the environment in which they had practised their occupation after their training.
PN5991
Would that be because they perhaps were engaged in more limited types of duties outside the university or under stricter supervision, some factors like that?---I believe that would be the case, yes.
PN5992
Would it be fair to say that they were required to operate perhaps under less supervision, less immediate supervision, in the university environment?---Yes, I would agree with that.
PN5993
You feel they were unable to do that?---Yes.
PN5994
Just a point of clarification, Mr Hyde Parker, in paragraph 6 you say in summary - that is on page 3:
PN5995
In summary of the criteria we are required to apply without reference to anyone higher in relation to what we make and what we do are as follows.
PN5996
Then in paragraph 7 you set out some criteria by way of questions. To what are you required to apply those criteria?---I'm sorry, I don't understand the nature of - I don't understand your question. Could you amplify that?
PN5997
You say you are required to apply those criteria set out in paragraph 7: is it safe, etcetera. What are you required to apply those criteria to?---To all projects that we undertake. In other words, if I make an instrument it must be safe for the user. It is pointless to produce an item which does not do what the client wants it to do. We are not in the business of making things that people don't want, I guess is the answer to that and so it goes down the line.
PN5998
Thank you, I just wanted you to clarify that, that is all. Now, the duty statement which you have attached, is that generally accurate?---It is the latest duty statement that I have been issued with and in the main that is correct, yes. The only variation would be at this stage - I believe that in item 8, electronic workshop - as matters stand at the moment I don't do that because we no long have an electronics workshop. But that may change as we restructure again next year with further restructuring within the university.
PN5999
So that has gone but it may come back?---Yes. The physical equipment is there, the room is set aside but there are no people inside the room.
PN6000
Now, you are presently employed as a higher education officer level 6?---Yes.
PN6001
Are you at the top of the scale for level 6?---Yes, I am.
PN6002
How many level of pay points are there in that scale?---It's a long time since I got to the top. I think there are six.
PN6003
Now, when you were appointed to your position as manager of the workshop in the Department of Chemistry, were the duties broadly similar to what is stated in your duty statement?---Yes, they were, broadly speaking.
PN6004
You have also gone into some detail about your duties in your witness-statement. Were you able to perform all the duties of the position from the time you were appointed?---I don't believe that I was as effective then as I am now. I believe that where you go into a position you go in at what I call job entry standard, which means you are qualified to commence the job and that you will learn by experience, by examples around you and by reading, educational and other means, so you tend to go into the job, you become more effective and more efficient as you go.
PN6005
So you were able to perform the duties when you started?---Yes.
PN6006
You say you are more effective at performing them now after a number of years of experience in the position?---I believe so, yes.
PN6007
No further questions, your Honour.
PN6008
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Pill?
PN6009
PN6010
MR PILL: Mr Hyde-Parker, I just missed when you opened - you stated your position and I thought I - the position in your position statement says workshop manager. What is the current title of your role?---I'm currently classified as the workshop manager.
PN6011
Right?---That's what I'm - my local title.
PN6012
Right. What was the response you gave to the Commission? I missed it, that is all?---I don't believe I was asked what my local title was. I am classified as a higher education officer and my job is workshop manager. Does that answer your question?
PN6013
I was actually just asking what your position title was. I didn't hear what it was when you said it to the Commission?---Okay.
PN6014
Perhaps you could tell me what it was?---I am the workshop manager of the Department of Chemistry.
PN6015
I am happy to leave it. I will find out later. You have been employed at the university for 46 years or thereabouts, is that right?---That's correct.
PN6016
Since that time you have held a number of different positions?---Yes.
PN6017
So it is not surprising, in paragraph 1, your evidence is that your skills and responsibilities you currently exercise bear no relation to those of your initial trade, that is not a surprising observation given the roles that you would have been through over the 46 year period?---Mm.
PN6018
How long have you currently been employed as the workshop manager?---I think just on 14 years.
PN6019
14 years?---Yes.
PN6020
Your position is - your evidence is that your position is an HEO6 under the existing enterprise agreement and since you prepared this statement there has actually been a new certified agreement reached at your university, are you aware of that?---Yes.
PN6021
Your position has not changed as a result of the introduction of that new certified agreement?---No.
PN6022
That is because the classification structure in that certified agreement has remained unchanged from the last time?---That is correct.
PN6023
In response to questions from Mr Warburton you have given evidence that your current position description is - - -
PN6024
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, he wouldn't have achieved that, Mr Mendelssohn.
PN6025
MR PILL: My apologies to both gentlemen. In response to a question put by Mr Mendelssohn you have indicated that your position description is accurate, broadly reflects what you do and there haven't been any or rather it records the duties that you were performing when you first went into the role?---The position descriptor was re-written, I think about the year 1996. It was an upgrading, I believe, of the original job description but the duties are broadly the same.
PN6026
Yes. You've broadly performed the same duties as workshop manager since you commenced in that role?---Yes.
PN6027
So you would agree with me that there has not been, since your appointment 14 years ago, fundamental changes in your position?---In terms of the descriptors, no.
PN6028
No, there's has not been fundamental changes in the duties that you have performed?---I think so. I think we've taken on different roles. I think, rather like one's experience, as you progress and circumstances within universities change, well they have changed quite dramatically in the last 14 years, so the range and scope of duties is altered as well.
PN6029
Where that occurs, you have progressed through the incremental scale?---Yes.
PN6030
Can I ask you to turn to your duty statement?---Yes.
PN6031
Have you got your duty statement?---Yes, I have.
PN6032
If you look at duty 2?---Yes.
PN6033
You would agree with me that in performing that duty you are essentially exercising what might be called "trade skills"?---No.
PN6034
Developing or designing or constructing laboratory equipment?---No. The design/development phases are probably the most crucial part of that descriptor and they are not trade descriptors. They are descriptors of people of higher technical expertise and knowledge.
PN6035
When you are constructing a piece of equipment - you started back in 1955 or once you completed your apprenticeship as a an apprentice scientific instrument maker, that is a trade, as I understand it?---That is correct, yes.
PN6036
Your duty, your fourth duty there, which draws up specs and designs for equipment, that has a trades basis, does not it?---Yes, it does but again - - -
PN6037
It is an extension of the trade skills but it is based on a trade?---No, they are different knowledges, attitudes and skills involved, I believe, other than just purely trade skills themselves.
PN6038
Duty 6 is: supervises and trains staff and students working in the mechanical workshop. You would agree that some tradespeople can supervise other staff?---Provided that they are suitably trained themselves in training techniques, supervision techniques and occupational health and safety and are capable of carrying out task analysis in order to instruct untrained personnel.
PN6039
At paragraph 2 of your statement you say that you are employed as a technical manager and manage other technical staff?---Yes.
PN6040
How many direct reports do you have?---How many?
PN6041
Direct reports? How many people report directly to you rather than through an intermediary?---Just the one at this stage.
PN6042
Just the one. What is his or her position title?---He is a technical - sorry, higher education officer grade 5.
PN6043
He is a technical officer 1?---Yes.
PN6044
You would agree that parts of his duties are fitting, turning, welding, plastic applications and spraypainting?---Part of that would be the case, yes.
PN6045
You would agree that those duties are trades duties?---Yes.
PN6046
In paragraph 2 of your statement you say - you draw distinction between technical staff and tradesperson. You say it is because your understanding as a tradesperson works within the broad fixed parameters of a particular trade. Given your extensive experience, are you of the view that tradesperson, such as electrician, essentially has a set bundle of skills that they would utilise and that is how you would distinct that perhaps from a technical staff member?---Yes, it is plus, I think, the degree of supervision and the degree of responsibility. Other than those responsibilities - other than those laid down by the appropriate Health and Safety Act. I consider that a tradesperson, be they an electrician or a fitter and turner, receives instructions, performs specific tasks. Those tasks are generally straightforward. They may need some explanation as to special circumstances, materials and so on. A person goes away, completes that task and comes back and says what is next. Where there is a problem with that task, they then go to their supervisor or manager and say: What is the solution to this and they are told what the answer is, okay. So they are directed, more or less, at every stage.
PN6047
So putting aside the question of supervision, you would agree, for example, that a carpenter has a constant set of skills or has a constant set of duties and wouldn't require - let me stop the question there, would you agree with that?---I think the question is incomplete.
PN6048
Well, let me ask the question again. Your evidence is that tradespersons work within the fixed parameters of trade and so therefore if I hold those trade qualifications I therefore have a set bundle of skills, would you agree with that?---Yes.
PN6049
That set of skills does not change over time if I continue to hold that same position?---They are upgrades to skills. I think some areas do change.
PN6050
You might become more efficient, you might become more expert but the skills are essentially - - -?---There may be new technologies you may need to use with training.
PN6051
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I might interrupt there. We will adjourn until 2 pm.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.02pm]
RESUMED [2.12pm]
PN6052
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Pill?
PN6053
MR PILL: Thank you, your Honour.
PN6054
Mr Hyde-Parker, I do apologise, it was remiss of me, I am appearing on behalf of the University of Adelaide and on behalf of four other universities in this matter?---Understood.
PN6055
Mr Hyde-Parker, it is fair to say that your workshop provides a support function for the research and academic work done at the university?---Yes, it does.
PN6056
Part of that role is a technical one, to provide equipment, etcetera, which will meet the needs of the department?---Yes, it is.
PN6057
Your evidence, at paragraph 4 of your statement, is to the effect that you may be approached by a member of the academic staff, who will approach you with some sort of theoretical objective?---Yes, that's correct.
PN6058
That is a theoretical objective that he or she has determined and wants to look at and then you will look at the equipment that you have got and you may modify the equipment, and in this case you give the example of a mass spectrometer and you have modified the equipment to include additional gauges and design guards, that is right?---Yes, that is correct, in that instance, yes.
PN6059
You would agree it is not your role, or those of your staff that you manage, to determine the theoretical objective that is to be achieved?---Yes, I would agree with that.
PN6060
In paragraph 5 of your statement you talk about the reduction in the number of laboratory managers, when - - -?---Sorry, which paragraph?
PN6061
Sorry, paragraph 5 of your statement?---Yes.
PN6062
You say there used to be positions of laboratory managers. When did the position of laboratory manager in the chemistry department cease?---I think it ceased in about 1994. The person involved - or in that position at that time was seconded to a position in the central administration for a period of time. He subsequently took a retirement package. There were, I think, 150 of those offered at the time due to downsizing within the university and I guess from about 1994 he left our department and hasn't been back since.
PN6063
Is it fair to say that a number of the functions, the non-technical functions, that were performed by that laboratory manager are now performed by - I understand there is a manager of the chemistry department?---There is currently a finance manager of the chemistry department. That person has no authority, as I understand it, within the department other than to manage finances. That person is currently on secondment to the Faculty of Science, as a finance manager in that area, and to my knowledge - well, I haven't seen her, and the information from the Head of Department is that she puts in a small amount of time providing oversight to the finances of the department.
PN6064
Is that Ms Cotis?---Yes, it is.
PN6065
So she would have some responsibility for budgetary matters, when you say "finance"?---She would be responsible for the overall budget of the department.
PN6066
There is a budget within which your department operates, obviously?---Yes, there is.
PN6067
That is not a budget that you set?---No, that is set by faculty.
PN6068
Yes, and - - -?---In broad terms.
PN6069
The work that you do, one of the factors you have identified is you actually are constrained by that budget, you couldn't go outside that budget?---No - well, for a specific project where a budget is set, that's correct, yes.
PN6070
Part of your evidence is that - and this appears the second - it is at paragraph 5, which is a long paragraph, two-thirds of the way down, you say:
PN6071
I am the legally responsible person in relation to occ health and safety issues.
PN6072
?---Yes.
PN6073
Is that an elected position?---No, it's - - -
PN6074
Are you an elected OH and S rep?---No, I think the answer to that, sir, is no and yes. Under the terms of the Act, as a supervisor and person in charge of an area, I am personally responsible for all acts committed within that area. I'm responsible to ensure that people who work there are adequately trained and are adequately supervised at all times. I am also, or I have also been, a worker elected health and safety representative.
PN6075
The university has a dedicated occupational health and safety manager for example, there is an occupational health and safety manager?---Yes, he heads the - the unit in central administration, yes.
PN6076
There is a number of elected occ health and safety reps, isn't there?---Yes.
PN6077
There is also people who have as a formal part of their role an occupational health and safety responsibility?---As I - - -
PN6078
You might be one of those?---No, it is not part of my duties. It is an additional thing which is not even necessarily required but it is there if the staff of a particular work group, building or area, so desire.
PN6079
Are you aware that there is occupational health and safety reps who are classified, or who hold positions that are classified, at levels 3 and 4 under your EB?---I'm not aware of the classifications of other OH and S reps.
PN6080
In response to one of the questions from Mr Mendelssohn you indicated that part of designing a machine, or a primary part of designing a piece of equipment, is to ensure that it does what it is intended to do?---Yes.
PN6081
Is that right?---Yes.
PN6082
So at paragraph 7 of your statement you have identified a factor that it does what it sets out to do?---Yes.
PN6083
What it sets out to do is something that the academic staff member, or perhaps a postgraduate student, has come to you and said: here's what I need to do, do you agree with that?---In broad terms, yes. What frequently occurs is that the student, or staff member, has a general idea of what they want and in many cases, by consultation, we must actually tease out what is the actual technical requirement for that operation. For example, somebody may say: make this piece of equipment safe. What do you mean by that? And so we have a - perhaps a consultation and we agree on a whole range of issues and we go ahead and do so.
PN6084
So part of your input would be about: here is what this particular piece of equipment can and can't do?---Yes, but sometimes that's also an assessment I have to make unaided because the academics are not necessarily technical specialists.
PN6085
At paragraph 9 of your statement you talk about another significant change in your job over the past 5 or 6 years has been the requirement to charge outside users at a commercial rate to use the facilities. Then you go on and say:
PN6086
15 years ago legitimate outside users, such as CSIRO, might have been charged for materials and, provided the work was relatively minor, would not be charged anything else.
PN6087
Do I take it that since that time, 15 years ago, this has been a gradual process whereby the university has increased the amount of work that it performs for outside users?---I would say, generally speaking, that is the trend across the whole university and perhaps all universities. In my particular case my experience is that the academic staff have been urged to undertake outside consultancies. We are often involved in that process. The technical staff, laboratory staff, have also been consulted and urged to either take on outside work or to contribute ideas which would lead to outside work coming in. The - in my particular case, the routine outside work is basically left to myself to pursue, perform and produce and cost, of course.
PN6088
When you say "cost" - and you have said in your statements your job is set in price - you are effectively providing a quote on a particular piece of work?---That's one of the ways we do it, yes.
PN6089
Are you in a position to tell us, or tell the Commission, how much, perhaps in dollar terms, we are talking about?---Over the cost of a year, a good year might be $10,000. An average year, I suspect, is around about 5 to $6000.
PN6090
Yes?---Plus the 20 to $25,000 a year we bring in for the sale of liquid nitrogen to other departments and other Government users.
PN6091
The charging for that work is within a framework that is set by the department?---No.
PN6092
Well, is there a budget for the department or - - -?---I don't - I - - -
PN6093
Sorry, your evidence is that there is a budget for the department. Your evidence is also that you are not involved in setting that budget?---I've simply been told that I should go and generate outside income. I - at the present moment the university is undergoing a number of structural changes. My own faculty, and therefore my department, is undergoing a considerable restructuring. Within that, I personally have come to the view that we need to look at the workshop's function to see where we need to upgrade it, to see whether we need to market our skills, how we do that, do we need to change, if so where, when and how. On my initiative I consulted a manager of what we call the Thebarton Campus, which is a geographical area, but this person is actually the manager of the area which does the industry liaison. The Thebarton Campus is an area where outside companies have come in and are working in conjunction with the university to produce things. I have spoken to this officer, together with my associate, and together we are working to examine what we are doing, how we are doing it, what changes we need to do to keep ourselves - to adjust ourselves so that we provide the new chemistry department with the support it needs. That - that proposal, I might add to amplify, came from ourselves and was put to the Head of the Department, who said: sounds like a good idea, go and do it, and I've simply updated him as matters have proceeded.
PN6094
If you came to the conclusion that changes needed to be made then the process would be that you would perhaps make recommendation or discuss it further with the Head of the Department?---I would - I would put - present a complete package to the Head of the Department for discussion and he may wish to seek wider consultation within the Departmental Committee, which governs the department, and then a decision, I guess, will be made that we either go ahead, we don't go ahead, or we modify what we set out to do.
PN6095
Mr Hyde-Parker, do you believe that you are appropriately classified as an HEO6?---That falls into the category, sir, of I've never seen a man who has admitted to be asleep or rich. I believe I could do - I believe that - sir, I feel torn between a natural professional standard and a sense of modesty but I believe that a - perhaps a review of the position, an objective review, would perhaps result in an upwards classification.
PN6096
Have you applied for such a reclassification?---No, I haven't.
PN6097
You are aware that there is a system in place that would enable you to apply for a reclassification?---Yes, I am. I'm also aware, very strongly, of the deficit budget that my department is in and in all honesty I don't think that I particularly want to strain those positions, nor do I, at my age, wish to perhaps make myself appear to be vulnerable.
PN6098
No further questions, your Honour.
PN6099
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Moorhouse?
PN6100
PN6101
MR MOORHOUSE: Mr Hyde-Parker, are you aware of the purpose of these proceedings?---I am in broad terms, yes, I'm not familiar with the detail.
PN6102
Are you aware - broadly speaking, they are to ascertain what the appropriate wages - salaries classification structure to go into the updated general staff award are - are you aware the NTEU has put forward a proposal in relation to that of the outcome they would prefer to see?---Yes, I'm aware of that.
PN6103
Could the witness be shown that NTEU proposal? Mr Hyde-Parker, I should have said at the outset, I represent the University of Sydney and the University of Queensland in these proceedings?---Thank you.
PN6104
Could I take you to the - the classification system in that works primarily by duties set out for the various bands in it, and if you could go to page 39?---Yes.
PN6105
There is a heading: Technical Scientific Stream?---Yes.
PN6106
There are a number of bands with what are said to be typical duties that are performed with the - would be performed by employees that work within that band, employees in the occupations of - the technical scientific occupations?---Right.
PN6107
If we could go over a page and start at band 5, could you have a look through the dot points there under band 5 and let the Commission know which ones would be duties that you would perform?---I think the second dot point would possibly apply, yes. The thing being only general specifications as distinct from a general idea, the key word, I think, being "specifications", I'm used to drawing up my own specifications.
PN6108
If you keep going down that list?---Certainly monitor the work of one or more staff, the level is different, of course. I mean, I don't know where all of these - where these - - -
PN6109
That would apply depending on where the levels of the other person - - -?---Yes, where they all pan out, yes. Possibly set up experiments and research equipment, except that I think in my case it's, sort of, very limited direction. Prepare reports, yes, I would think so. Participate as a member of a research team, in the wider context that the entire department is a research and teaching team and we are all part of the same group - you know, dedicated to the same aims but in different ways, in that case.
PN6110
If we could go to band 6, the heading is on the page but then the actual dot points start over the next page, if you could do the same exercise there?---The first one possibly, in as much as we frequently design equipment with a particular experiment in mind, and again I could probably give an example there. Construct and modify equipment within budget restraints, yes.
PN6111
That is the second dot point - - -?---Yes.
PN6112
- - - it clearly applies?---To an extent the next one, maintenance and consumables budgets, in as much as we have program budgets - program maintenance systems which have to be costed and submitted for approval. Certainly the next one. And I think the last one as well, that's - - -
PN6113
Can I ask you to do the same exercise for the dot points under band 7?---I think if you were to substitute workshops for laboratories and assume elements of teaching and experimental laboratories. The second one. Part of the next one, I would think.
PN6114
That is the one that starts: exercise primary accountability - - -?---Yes, I'm sorry, yes, we would have input into that, I think.
PN6115
Sure?---Yes, maintain, monitor and control equipment where novel innovative experimental technologies apply. I think the next one, operate - sorry, act within a teaching or research department as acknowledged authority on a technical speciality. And the next one.
PN6116
Also applies? Finally, if you go over the page, could I ask you to do the same exercise in relation to band 8?---A portion of item 1, which is exercise primary account of a safe efficient operation. The third one, liaise with staff nationally and, where appropriate, internationally - were we to assume that those staff were in, perhaps, commercial organisations then that would apply. We frequently talk to providers of equipment interstate and notably the United States on equipment that we are looking after or incorporating in our apparatus. I'm unclear about the next one.
PN6117
The one starting: design and develop equipment?---Sorry, no.
PN6118
I would have thought that one might apply from reading your duty - - -?---Yes, that is - sorry, I skipped one there. But the one, act within a teaching or research department as acknowledged authority on a technical speciality, for example native species, the development of a diagnostic skills, I'm unclear about that. I would need to have examples of that, wider examples than those that are here.
PN6119
On the words itself it might apply, you suggest?---Yes. The last one, with the exception of the assistance in the running of classes, as we have specialised staff who do that, but we assist them in the maintenance of equipment and the construction of equipment.
PN6120
In any event, it is an "or"?---Yes.
PN6121
Supervise the work for technical staff on a research project or - - -?---Yes.
PN6122
So the last one applies as well?---Mm.
PN6123
Moving to band 9, the final dot point of band 9, would that also apply to your position - it is on the same page?---Manage other administrative, technical, professional staff, yes, certainly technical. I have - yes, technical.
PN6124
No other questions, your Honour.
PN6125
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Britt?
PN6126
PN6127
MR BRITT: Sir, my name is Britt and I represent the AHEIA?---Yes.
PN6128
Which may or may not be known to you?---Yes, it is.
PN6129
Sir, if I can take you to paragraph 1 of your statement. Now, when you initially undertook your apprenticeship as an instrument maker you were an apprentice to the university?---Yes, I was.
PN6130
Sir, I take it by that, your entire working life has been with the University of Adelaide?---Apart from the first 6 weeks after I left school when I worked for the company called Metters, I think who have now disappeared, I don't hold any authorship to that, but it was a junior office position which I wasn't happy with.
PN6131
Now, sir, you did an apprenticeship as a scientific instrument maker?---Yes.
PN6132
So that is a rare apprenticeship, even in 1955?---I believe so, yes.
PN6133
It has become even rarer, hasn't it, sir?---Yes.
PN6134
In fact, sir, the instrument makers could perhaps be called the princes, or one of the princes, of the trades?---That's very nice of you to say, so I suppose, yes, in that sense.
PN6135
It has always been a very specialised trade?---In some ways it is specialised, yes, in other ways it's very general.
PN6136
Sir, you are aware that it has always been recognised as somewhat higher than some of the other trades?---I believe so, yes.
PN6137
That is carried across, sir, into metal awards in passing?---I believe so, yes.
PN6138
Now, sir, when you first started after completing your apprenticeship, I take it then, sir, you did utilise your trade skills whilst engaged by the university?---Yes, I did.
PN6139
Sir, you continued to utilise those skills for a number of years?---That's correct.
PN6140
I think, sir, you now say the skills and responsibilities that you currently exercise bear no relation to those of my initial trade?---Yes, in as much as the - I do exercise those skills but the more important skills stand above those. The most important thing is to make decisions regarding the use of technology, rather than the use of technology itself.
PN6141
Sir, that has arisen primarily as a result of over the last 46 years you have been promoted so that now you are in a management role?---Yes. Could I just turn it upside down, perhaps, and say that I have been promoted because I have the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to be promoted.
PN6142
Yes. I am not saying that you don't have those skills. Sir, also other changes have arisen to your job due to changes that have occurred in the university over the last 46 years?---Yes.
PN6143
Changes in being able to purchase equipment as distinct from having to make equipment?---Yes.
PN6144
Sir, I take it, when you first started working for the university there were many other tradespersons and instrument makers in the area in which you worked?---Where I served my apprenticeship there was my superior and myself and we, in fact, serviced the entire medical faculty and a number of departments which were deemed, for various reasons, to be part of the medical faculty. There was about, I think, 10 separate departments ranging in diversity from surgery, paediatrics through to anatomy and histology.
PN6145
Sir, were there also fitters employed at this time and other metal workers employed?---Not in my area, no.
PN6146
Now, sir, if I can then take you forward to 1993/1994?---Yes.
PN6147
Sir, was that the time you were, can you recall, being transferred to a classification known as a Higher Education Officer?---Yes.
PN6148
Sir, prior to that, what was your position called?---It's difficult, I've had so many positions. I think it was - I was called a Senior Technical Officer, Grade 1.
PN6149
Right. Now, sir, did you originally transfer across as a Higher Education Officer, Level 6?---Yes.
PN6150
Since 1993/94 have you received a promotion or you have continued to act as the workshop manager?---Promoted in terms of grades. I progressed through the grades - well, actually, no, I was at the top of the - top of the senior technical officer grade and I just slotted across. We see the magnificent sum, I think, of $34 a year salary increase.
PN6151
So you slotted across to the top of the increment?---Yes, it was - it was a point to point translation.
PN6152
You went to the top of the Level 6?---Mm.
PN6153
You have stayed at that position - - -?---Yes.
PN6154
- - - since 1993/1994?---Yes.
PN6155
Now, sir, in paragraph 2, you say that you manage other technical staff. I take it, sir, that is one person?---Yes, it has been more people but due to deaths in service, redundancies due to amalgamations and voluntary retirements, it is now myself and one other.
PN6156
Now, in relation to this other person, who is classified I think as a level 5?---That's correct.
PN6157
Mr Pill asked you some questions about his particular duties involved, I think he asked you welding, metal fabrication and some other duties?---Yes.
PN6158
Sir, you agree with me that his duties are closer to the trade duties than your duties?---No, I don't believe so. Again, I have the advantage that I know this person, he was my apprentice when I moved into the position.
PN6159
If I can stop you there. He was an instrument maker as well?---He was employed as a fitter and machinist - apprentice fitter and machinist. At the time when he finished his apprenticeship, there was another person who was due to retire within 10 years and the game plan was that, for some reason, at the end of this person's apprenticeship they were due to be - that was it, it was the end of their job. They went away and got a job elsewhere. I put the case that this person should be trained as a replacement for the very highly trained instrument maker who was due to retire and that we should invest money and time and effort on bringing this person up so he can replace him and who knows, he's probably going to replace me in a few years as well.
PN6160
Sir, I'm going to take you to what is the third line of paragraph 2, you state there:
PN6161
This is because in my understanding a trades person works within the broad but fixed parameters in a particular trade.
PN6162
You refer to your understanding. Can you explain to the Commission what that understanding is based upon?---Observations of people within the university who work within what we call - loosely call the blue collar areas, the maintenance staff. These are electricians, plumbers, refrigeration mechanics and so on. These people - and of course comparing it with my own position and my own development within the university, these people do strictly regulated tasks. An air conditioning person will come in, in response to a call and they will look at your refrigeration gear or whatever and they will repair it under the direction of their foreman. They do not go outside the parameters of refrigeration trades person. On the other hand, I work in structural steel. I work in precious and semi-precious metals. Now, I've even made things out of concrete. Nobody has ever trained me formally for this but it's because I guess I have what one might politely call an inquiring mind or maybe I'm just a sticky-bead. I also have read fairly widely and I've also interacted, I believe, well and closely with academic staff and with PhD and honour students over the years. So all of this is actually contributed I think to my education but I would not expect a carpenter to come in and operate any of my equipment. I wouldn't expect him to weld. On the other hand, if I build a bench-top mass spectrometer, having built it and tested it, I then build a bench and put a piece of wood on the top. So in that extent, we go beyond just the narrow trade. My training initially was as a - my formal training at trade school was 5 years of study as a fitter and turner and toolmaker, okay. If I were to do that, I would simply wait at my bench and my lathe for someone to come down and give me a drawing and I would make whatever is on that drawing. That is what a tradesman does. I don't do that and neither do my subordinant.
PN6163
Sir, would you agree with me that there may be trades-persons in private industry who do in fact design equipment?---I don't know. I've not worked in industry.
PN6164
So your understanding then is based - correct me if I'm wrong - as to how things work at the university?---That's correct.
PN6165
You have not - well, have you had to deal with trades-persons special class who have knowledge across a range of trades?---I'm not aware of those. I may have seen them around the university as outsourced persons but I have no detailed knowledge there.
PN6166
Now, sir, I think a moment ago you said you built a mass spectrometer - sorry, bench-top mass spectrometer, you could build the bench to place the mass spectrometer on, you are not suggesting sir, you have the ability to perform the full range that one would expect from a carpenter. You wouldn't be able to build a house?---No, that's not a carpenter's job. That's a second fixing carpenter which is a specialised sub-trade in itself. We have made in our less busy times when we had more staff, we have made some minor items of furniture, more as a courtesy I think to the department than as part of our core functions but again of course I believe that's the same as sweeping the floor after you've finished making a mass spectrometer. It's something you do but it's not something which determines your skill level.
PN6167
Now, sir, if I can now take you to paragraph 3, you state:
PN6168
I need to have a general knowledge of the relevant current teaching and research and projects.
PN6169
Do you see that there, sir, it is in the third line?---Yes.
PN6170
Now, sir, your knowledge in relation to those matters is knowledge that deals with how those particular matters effect the workshop?---Not necessarily. I need to know what a research group is doing in order to ask the right questions so I can deliver the right goods and services, okay. I have a general knowledge of what goes on and in a specific case, part of the consultation consists of a series of questions, answers.
PN6171
Sir, if I can take you down to paragraph 4 and I think it is about six lines into that paragraph, you refer there to a particular example being:
PN6172
My staff and I are required to add additional gauges to the instrument in the design guard so the students can safely use it.
PN6173
Sir, the design of guards for instance would be a trade - sorry, would be a trade function for an instrument maker or a toolmaker?---Yes, yes.
PN6174
In relation to the addition of gauges, that would also be something you would expect from a trade toolmaker or instrument maker?---Yes, the strength of the position is the decision which is made to install not only a gauge but a particular type of gauge, namely an ionisation gauge, where it is to be located so that it actually produces the reading at the crucial point and recognising you don't put a piece of hot apparatus made of glass anywhere where a student can either drop things or touch it. That is part of our duty of care and similarly the whole modification of that piece of apparatus was rather complex and it was done in conjunction with both a teaching research academic and a teaching only academic and involved the use of some fairly novel materials as part of the redesign of the teaching of that particularly laboratory for that year level.
PN6175
That is you worked in collaboration with the two academics that - the teaching only academic and - - -?---Tasked by the senior academic and I then worked very closely in relation with the teaching academic and when we finished it, we both consulted with the senior academic. We then put the machine through a run. We put different gases through. We made sure the spectrum obtained were correct, that we weren't getting any funny artefacts, we could purge it and all sorts of things. It was quite an interesting project.
PN6176
So you tested the machine for one that worked?---Yes.
PN6177
That it was accurate?---Yes.
PN6178
Three, I presume that it was safe?---Yes, safety comes first.
PN6179
Given that students are creatures of curiosity, that would be one of the functions that you would be required to do?---Yes. We have a saying that you can't make anything student proof but we have to try, that's the going saying.
PN6180
Sir, if I can then take you to paragraph 9 of your statement. You say - it is about halfway through the paragraph:
PN6181
It is my job to set the price for outside work on the basis of maximising revenue to the department.
PN6182
So you would agree with me that there are other persons in private industry do occupy trade persons who also have to exercise that particular skill?---Yes, I employed one recently to do some electrical work and repair my washing machine, yes.
PN6183
That is something that a trades-person can do?---Yes, and also of course highly qualified accountants.
PN6184
Often of course if you are billing for yourself, you pay particular attention?---To the nature of the accountant you have, yes.
PN6185
I've got no further questions, Deputy President.
PN6186
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Mr Sandler?
PN6187
PN6188
MR SANDLER: You have spoken about your task of setting prices for outside work?---Yes.
PN6189
You have said that in a good year it might amount to $10,000?---Yes.
PN6190
In a standard year about $5000 a year?---Yes.
PN6191
How many jobs would that represent on average?---I wouldn't like to put a number on this simply because it does vary. Built into that are a number of small maintenance contracts I've negotiated with people, such as the CSIRO and their bench of companies where you go in a monthly basis and maintain the equipment and maintain a watching group, that's a constant level. The - had I known I could have brought the figures with me but I can't tell you an exact number.
PN6192
So in terms of setting the prices, the price setting activity, how many hours a month do you think you would be doing that?---Again it depends on the tempo.
PN6193
In an average year?---I would say probably three working days.
PN6194
A month?---Yes, possibly, at a maximum I guess but I wouldn't like to be quoted there. I would need to go back through the figures.
PN6195
I've no further questions.
PN6196
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was your question, Mr Sandler, as to the costing or as to the work?
PN6197
MR SANDLER: As to the costing.
PN6198
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The costing. Did the witness appreciate that?---He asked me how much I - - -
PN6199
MR SANDLER: How much time would you spend working out the prices?---I'm sorry, working out the prices?
PN6200
Yes?---That's quite a different thing altogether, sorry, I was looking at the work.
PN6201
Thank you, your Honour?---Again it depends on the tempo and it would also depend on the complexity and the need to purchase in other equipment and other things. I would say again half a day to one day.
PN6202
A month?---A month, yes.
PN6203
I've no further questions.
PN6204
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Mr McAlpine?
PN6205
PN6206
MR ALPINE: Mr Hyde-Parker, you said in your statement and you were asked about what happened to the duties of the laboratory manager when that position was abolished, do you remember that?---Yes.
PN6207
You said that some of the duties went to a finance manager, is that correct?---Yes, the oversight of management of the overall departmental budget went to that person, yes.
PN6208
Do you have any idea what proportion of those - the laboratory manager's duties would have been, that sort of thing, the budgeting duties?---I would take the old original laboratory manager, I would say it would be at least 50 per cent of their time and maybe as much as 70 per cent.
PN6209
What was the rest of their job?---The rest of the job would be liaising with academic staff on matters which affected the smooth running of the department, such as the deployment of staff into various teaching areas, oversight of the enforcement of safety aspects, liaising with people such as myself on more complex issues and he also did such things I think as arrange on behalf of the head of department the lecturing rosters and such matters.
PN6210
In relation to the outside revenue that is obtained as a result of your taking work for outside bodies, what are your riding instructions, do you have a budget to meet in relation to that or do you have a - or are you told simply to maximise the revenue?---We are told the maximise the revenue consistent with meeting with the requirements of the department. So in other words I have to meet the needs of the academic and research students and the teaching areas and at the same time where possible slot in work for outside organisations which we manage to do by I guess progressively making ourselves more efficient and I think reordering our priorities within the department.
PN6211
No further questions.
PN6212
PN6213
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr McAlpine?
PN6214
MR ALPINE: I think it might be me again.
PN6215
PN6216
MR SANDLER: Thank you, your Honour. Mr McAlpine, before where we ended off yesterday, we were discussing the possibility of translation and I think you said that there would be elements of the draft order that if it was adopted in this process that you would be seeking to flow through or achieve on agreement elements of the draft order in future enterprise agreement negotiations?---I think that's probable. I see that we certainly wouldn't say that we wouldn't be doing that and I think it's probable that we would.
PN6217
I think I have shown you an extract from a publication that the university put by your local branch committee?---Yes, that's right, by Mr Sandler.
PN6218
By Mr Sandler, no relation. That publication I would put to you suggests that there is an expectation on the part of your members at the University of New South Wales that ultimately there's going to be substantial change as far as they are concerned, whether it is correct or not, what I'm putting to you is that in their mind that is how they see it?---I would love to agree with you. I have to say that these proceedings have not given rise to a clamouring of expectations amongst general staff because of the termination the system by enterprise bargaining. So I suspect that the small minority that know about these proceedings or the small minority who have an intimate detailed knowledge of these proceedings or a good knowledge of these proceedings would probably have an expectation that good things will ultimately flow from them, given a favourable result. I don't think - it would not be fair to say that our members generally have an expectation that anything in particular is going to flow out of these proceedings even if we are successful.
PN6219
Well, I think I'm confining it to the University of New South Wales for a start and suggesting to you that when Mr Sandler talks about - maybe it is unfair for you to answer this - but I put it to you when he talks about a smooth and easier regrading path and the general staff members career that that is what he has in mind will occur?---I think that that's a fair assessment of what he thinks, yes.
PN6220
If I could speak to you hypothetically for a moment. If the award was simplified in the way that your union has proposed and if that structure had to be implemented at the various universities, whether by - and with side the mechanism by which you come to that the structure would be implemented but if there was a conversion from what exists now to your draft order?---Yes.
PN6221
If there was that conversion process, would you agree that the - well, there would be considerable implementation costs?---If exactly the draft order that we sought was made - now, it seems to me that - I'm just trying to look at - in the hypothetical situation that this had to be implemented rather than constituting the safety net, the - each employee will be - in 7.2 it says:
PN6222
Each employee will be designated and advised of such designation on appointment and from time to time as change occurs of the broad band level and pay point in which he/she is employed.
PN6223
Now, it would seem to me that a decision would have to be made when a person was appointed and when a change occurred in their duties, otherwise it would be incumbent upon the university merely to be paying at or above the level designated by the descriptors. I think that's correct.
PN6224
Well, you see - - -?---That would have some cost in terms of when a position was advertised and a staff member was offered a position, that determination would need to be made and they would need to be advised at what level in the structure they were being appointed.
PN6225
Staff are currently on a particular structure at the moment?---Yes.
PN6226
That is in may simplistic terms but that is the DWM structure, maybe in hindsight by secondary descriptors, what we would say was the DWM structure at the moment?---Yes.
PN6227
What your union is proposing is a fundamentally different structure to DWM?---I wouldn't say it was fundamentally different but it's significantly different.
PN6228
Significantly and therefore if that was the structure that employees - general staff employees had to move to, there would need to be a translation process. There would need to be a process of evaluation of where they are on the current structure and how they might need to translate into new structure?---If they had to move to that structure, yes.
PN6229
If they had to move to that structure?---Yes, yes and that the award the Commission made didn't just prescribe the minimum rates of pay but actually required that employees be classified.
PN6230
Yes. Well, that is one way of getting to that structure but there are other ways that that structure might - they might end up with that structure but it is the evidence of my client - and that is what I'm putting to you - that that would involve apart from what you might talk about the levelling up or the adjustments as people move or translate across say from one pay level to perhaps higher pay level and you have the overall costs, that you discussed with Mr Britt that the cost of implementation itself, the job of examining all the classifications at the university, the job of making an assessment as to whether or not or where they should move onto the new structure, the evidence of my client is that that will involve considerable expense?---Well, taking the worse case scenario, I think that that is considerable expense if for example it might cost, you know, in the order of I would have thought somewhere in the order between 200 and $500,000 would be a sort of guess but I - - -
PN6231
That is the implementation?---That's right and I suppose in the context of UNSW revenue, the question is whether that is a considerable expense as a one off cost. I mean, that seems to me whether that's a considerable expense for a university that spends $500,000 on Olympic suite, you know, is - - -
PN6232
That is evidence you are going to lead in these proceedings?---You asked me the question whether it was a considerable expense and I'm saying, I think it's a question of these things are relative. These things are relative and as a one off expense, I don't think it is a considerable expense. I don't think it would be an excessive expense.
PN6233
Well, let me hand to you a - provide a copy to the Commission - this is the attachment to the supplementary statement of Mr Bateman and it details what the University of New South Wales says would be the cost of translating its staff to the NTEU structure and that is the cost of translating 2781 general staff?---At an estimated time of 10 hour position description. Well, I'm not going to dispute the calculations. I would certainly dispute the assumptions.
PN6234
Which assumptions would you dispute?---Well, I would doubt that - I would think the job analysis in writing the position descriptions has been done. So that is the first thing I'd say. This doesn't prescribe how position descriptions are to be written. There are position descriptions. So you don't have to write position descriptions. So I think that now he's collapsed job analysis and writing of position descriptions into one process but if we were talking about the analysis of the position descriptions against the classification criteria with the position descriptions already written, then I think the proposition that a person could get through three or four a week is - well, preposterous. If that's what - perhaps I'm misreading it but it seems to me that that's just a preposterous proposition. So that's what I'd say about the first section.
PN6235
You would agree though that you would have to see whether the position descriptions under the current structure, how that - whether they were up to date? You would have to look at them again, you couldn't just assume - - -?---Well, we're talking about a hypothetical situation here. If an employee thinks their position description is wrong at the moment, they can dispute their position description, nothing changes on that. The employer has information which on their best understanding is a description of what the employee is doing.
PN6236
We are talking about a different situation here, we are talking about as of a situation where there is a conversation required?---Yes, but that doesn't require you to write a new position description.
PN6237
So you would say 10 hours doing the analysis and writing the position description, 10 hours is preposterous?---Well, given - there should be position descriptions for the positions already. They don't need to be rewritten and there will be a lot of job analysis, I suspect, I suspect, about what the job involves. That work has already been done.
PN6238
So when my client - okay continue. Go to the next?---Okay. I think the evaluation - I think the evaluation, just casting my eye over it, I would have thought that 2 hours for the evaluation of PD was on the generous side but I don't think that that's an unreasonable - I don't think that that's actually an unreasonable assessment and I would have thought that - I would have thought that that $98,000 figure - I'm not saying it's right but I think it could be justified.
PN6239
Next heading?---Well, I mean, that's very interesting. It seems to me that what the university would be deciding to do is to separately advertise and recruit three times for three separate jobs, not train the people together and make sure they - yes, make sure the three of them were trained separately. Now, I'm - I would have thought that the first figure of 16 or $17,000 would be more in the - in the order of - of what was necessary. In my experience, it doesn't take - cost three times as much to train three people as it costs to train one person.
PN6240
Go to the next item?---I don't understand the next item exactly.
PN6241
Well, it requires - it requires the training of the replacement staff and, therefore, the spreading of the additional work-load. It is the person who is doing the training would have otherwise do, that is how I understand it?---Sorry, so the person who is doing the training - - -
PN6242
That is right?---- - - would do the 10 days' training separately, one for each person. I - that's - well, I make my same comment. I would have thought about a third of that cost would be justified - could be justified.
PN6243
Checking the evaluations?---Well, that - that would be a decision for the parties as to whether that was to occur, that's not a requirement of what we've proposed.
PN6244
No, it is what we say we - it is what my client says it would have to do or would be - is likely to do - - - ?---Well, that's a matter of - for it's choice. I mean, my view is that we've now - we've dealt with the matters that would be required by anything we're proposing. The - if the university chose to have a checking mechanism then I - and it chose that all the six trained and experienced evaluators were all at level 8, which would surprise me, surprise our members who are on those sorts of committees, but the six trained and experienced evaluators all at level 8 have 30 minutes per evaluation that they'd - that they'd re-evaluate all the jobs, then it's - it looks like a reasonable calculation, I just wouldn't agree with the assumptions. The appeal committee, you would see that as not being a necessary feature of the process?---It - it would depend - it would have to be something that was dealt with through enterprise bargaining or something that his Honour decided was necessary in addition to what is being sought in the ord, but there would - there would obviously need to be some disputes settling procedure, whether that disputes settling procedure went all the way to an appeal system, for example, where the employee was already being paid above the rate applicable to their classification, which would be the case in the overwhelming majority of cases, I would doubt because it's a fairly theoretical exercise and unlike an appeal system where you're in an enterprise agreement where if you win the appeal you're going to be paid more, in a safety net situation where you might be being paid $80 above the award rate and you might be saying: well, in fact, my rate is only $20 above the award rate, people are much less likely to appeal if they're not going to get any money out of it, so I'd dispute the assumptions and I'd dispute that it was a necessary part of what - anything that we were proposing.
PN6245
So there wouldn't be a mechanism for resolving disputes between - - - ?---No, I just said there would need to be such a - - -
PN6246
There would need to be?---There would need to be such a mechanism.
PN6247
So you wouldn't - you wouldn't have an appeal procedure, you would think of something else?---Well, there maybe - there could be a board of reference created under the Commission, there could be - there are other ways of dealing with it rather than 25 per cent of all staff appealing and each appeal taking 10 hours.
PN6248
Whatever the process would be it would require time and it would require time and money on the part of my client, do you - you'd agree with that? If it had to put people into any process of dispute resolution - - - ?---Yes.
PN6249
- - - it would cost the university the time - - - ?---Yes, if - if on that assumption, yes.
PN6250
- - - of those people?---Yes, it would. I think that's a fantastic over-estimate but - but I would agree with your proposition, yes.
PN6251
So in terms of that document, if I understand you correctly, you say: well - you disagree - you would disagree with the grand total of - - - ?---Yes, I - I said at the beginning and it seems to me, at least we're in the same wavelength, I expected the cost would be somewhere between 1 and $500,000. Having looked at those figures I think now it would probably be at the lower end of that range rather than the higher end of that range. As a one-off cost, not a recurring cost.
PN6252
Okay. Now, just a couple of comments I would like to put to you in relation to some of the evidence we will be leading in relation to your draft order. One of the criticisms my client will make of the draft order is that progression through the bands is based on additional skills and experience but there's no mention in the work value levels of associate diplomas or diplomas?---In the - sorry, in the which?
PN6253
In your draft order - - - ?---Yes.
PN6254
- - - one of the criticisms we will offer is that there is - although progression through the bands is based on additional skills and experience - - - ?---Yes.
PN6255
- - - there is no mention of the work value levels of associate diplomas or diplomas?---Well, I would have thought that those were two separate criticisms. The absence of a reference to associate diplomas I think is because associate diplomas now virtually don't exist any more, I think that as a qualification they're being phased out and I can't - your criticism in relation to diploma may be a justified criticism. The relevance of diplomas to the work of most staff would be limited to most types of work would be limited but I suspect that what you're saying about diplomas rather than associate diplomas is - may well be a fair criticism. If it's correct, I think it is, I think your statement is correct, insofar as that's concerned.
PN6256
Then one of the - another criticism that will be offered is in relation to the reporting structures in your proposal - - - ?---Yes.
PN6257
- - - and the criticism there is that your descriptors take into account the position of the supervisor of the position. So for example, in your management stream you report to CEOs?---Yes.
PN6258
The criticism will be that one does not evaluate, or should never evaluate, a position on the basis of the position supervisor, and that goes against all evaluation theory which says that positions should be evaluated on the basis of tasks, knowledge and skills needed to carry out the duties and that any reference to a supervisor does not form a proper basis for evaluating positions?---Well, there's two things I could say about that: I think that that may be a - may be a legitimate criticism - sorry, no, that may be a legitimate theory in relation to the great bulk of positions but certainly I know that Monash and a number of other universities looks at the question of whether who - what level you report to as a significant factor when you get to the most senior positions. Positions that report directly to the Vice-Chancellor and directly advise the Vice-Chancellor on strategic matters, without that advice being mediated through other levels, are seen as - as having a more senior level of work value responsibility and I think that that's - that would be true in those sort of senior level positions.
PN6259
The other criticism that will be offered is that the descriptors which you have provided in the draft order would be easier to manipulate than the DWM descriptors because an employee, by referring to the tasks - - - ?---Yes.
PN6260
- - - would be able to prepare a position description which directly links into those tasks?---I think that - well, we run training as a union on how to write your position description against the DWM descriptors and the employers also are very meticulous about the - particularly words used in the DWM descriptors right down to the level of head of department and supervisor when they are consulting with an employee about what words to use. So I think - I think everybody plays that game in relation to any set of descriptors. I think the only real difference is that - that ours - ours don't talk about - ours don't concentrate quite so much on what might be considered by a lot of employees to be airy-fairy cognitive issues, they concentrate upon - upon skills used in doing tasks and I think it's much harder to fake a task than it is to fake a description about judgment organisational knowledge or other things, so I would disagree with that.
PN6261
Okay. Now, there was some discussion between you and Mr Britt during your cross-examination about looking in the clerical and administrative stream, looking at a level 4 and there was that - you will recall that employee who types the mathematical - - - ?---Yes.
PN6262
- - - the mathematical symbols?---Yes.
PN6263
Now, under your - under your proposal that employee is at a level 4?---Yes.
PN6264
The uni - our evidence will be at the university at that level that person is currently a level 5?---Yes.
PN6265
So in a translation to your - on the basis of your structure, they would move down a level?---No, it would depend what other duties they performed and the way in which they performed those duties, I would need to see the duty statement.
PN6266
Well, if that was their highest - if that was their highest duty?---If that was their highest duty.
PN6267
Yes?---Yes, I think that that's true, I think that people at UNSW and other places, particularly in Sydney, are classified not on the basis of descriptors but on what's needed to attract people in the market. I think that would be an example.
PN6268
Now, in your - later on in your discussions with Mr Britt you, in answer to a question on how you - what you took into account in relation to putting the management proposal together, I understand that you - I recall you saying that you - you said you looked at Monash University - - - ?---Yes.
PN6269
- - - and you used your broad knowledge from enterprise negotiations?---Yes.
PN6270
Was there any direct consideration of how the University of New South Wales classifies its senior management? Did any of that go into your proposal?---I think it did. I think it did, because I know that the University of New South Wales has various gradations, I think, within level 10, I think that's correct and I think that others looked at that issue but I, you know, I - - -
PN6271
So you wouldn't - you wouldn't know? I mean - - - ?---I don't know directly whether - I'm pretty sure that we took - looked at those sorts of things, I think from a - it might have been ANU, as well, but I know that UNSW has such descriptors.
PN6272
You, yourself, didn't look at it?---Well, I have looked at it but I didn't look at it as I wrote this document, as I wrote those - those bits that I wrote.
PN6273
You also had a discussion with Mr Britt in relation to the library stream?---Yes.
PN6274
You were asked about the construction of the library stream and you - you said that you - and I don't mean you, personally, and this is what I wanted to clarify - looked and particularly at the University of New South Wales and at the University of Queensland and then you mentioned that Mr Shelton and maybe Mr McCulloch had concentrated on that area?---That's right, I think, yes, yes.
PN6275
So do I take it that you weren't involved in putting together the library stream proposal, or looking at the University of New South Wales in putting that proposal together?---At looking at the University of New South Wales, no. Not - not in drafting that.
PN6276
Then I just want to get an understanding of what happened in 1996 - - - ?---Yes.
PN6277
- - - in relation to the material presented to you by Mr Britt yesterday. If I could just recap: in 1990 there was a restructuring agreement?---Yes.
PN6278
As a result of that restructuring agreement your members received a structural efficiency wage increase, the second I believe?---Yes, that's right.
PN6279
Following that there was the commissioning of the DWM report?---Yes.
PN6280
That report proposed a classification structure - 10 level structure with relativities - - - ?---Yes, yes.
PN6281
- - - and - okay. In 1993 that DWM classification structure was inserted into a minimum rates' award, the HEWV Award? That was the structure that was adopted in their award?---It was one of the structures adopted in that award.
PN6282
So there is another structure other than the one in the award?---No, there are other structures in the award. The - - -
PN6283
What do you mean by that?---The previous awards. The underlying awards. In Victoria.
PN6284
Yes, so it incorporated some of the Victorian awards, is that what you are saying?---Yes, yes.
PN6285
The DWM structure is in the HEWV Award?---Yes, yes, it is a - - -
PN6286
Okay?---- - - as the minimum rate, yes.
PN6287
Yes?---Yes.
PN6288
Turning to 1996, what I understand, as I read the documents, is that what was presented to the Commission as part of that process was the HEWV Award or the structure which was contained in the HEWV Award - - - ?---Yes, that was what was - - -
PN6289
- - - with an adjustment for the second safety net increase?---Yes, I think that's correct.
PN6290
Now, you are aware of my client's proposal in these proceedings, which is the HEWV Award with all safety net adjustments to date, insofar as the classification structure and the rates of pay are concerned?---Well, it's the minimum rates schedule from the HEWV Award, yes.
PN6291
Adjusted for safety net increases?---Yes, adjusted for safety net increases.
PN6292
Apart from the subsequent safety net increases - in other words, the safety net increases that would have come in after 14 October '96?---Yes.
PN6293
Okay?---Yes.
PN6294
How would you say my client's proposal differs from what you were putting to the Commission in October 1996?---It - - -
PN6295
In relation to the classifications, the relativities - - - ?---It doesn't, it doesn't.
PN6296
I've no further questions.
PN6297
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Pill?
PN6298
PN6299
MR PILL: Mr McAlpine, what is your view of what is meant by the term, "work value"?---I think it's - my view of what is meant by the term, "work value," would rely primarily upon the - you know, the definition in the Act, which I think - I mean, it isn't defined, as such, but it's set out in the Act which is skill responsibility and the conditions under which the work is performed. I used to be able to recite the provisions from - from the metal industry decision in the 1960s but that - as I understand it, that's essentially what it is.
PN6300
So skill responsibility in the work performed?---And the conditions under which the work is performed. I mean, I think that's as good a definition as most.
PN6301
Yes, perhaps a sub-set of those for qualifications required?---I think the qualifications required is an element of skill, yes.
PN6302
The complexity of the work perhaps equally could be seen as such?---Yes.
PN6303
If we take a step back from this exercise, bearing in mind I'm not trying - I'm not trying to be exhaustive or tie into something - is it fair to say that your position, or rather the position of your union, is that, firstly, you don't accept the DWM 10-level structure because you say it didn't adequately constitute a review of work value?---That's one of the reasons, that's one of the reasons, yes.
PN6304
Yes, and that, secondly, you shouldn't adopt the DWM structure because there's been a change in work value since that time?---Yes, that's another reason.
PN6305
Conversely, you say - - - ?---The structure? I think - I think the - I think it may be that it's the structure, the rates - the rates, which of course, there are no DWM rates - - -
PN6306
Yes?---- - - but the rates proposed by the employer wouldn't take account of the change in work value. That's a slightly different position, I think.
PN6307
Your proposal is to adopt a new structure with different relativities in some respects to those recommended by DWM?---Yes.
PN6308
You say that is necessary because there's been a change in work value?---Well, we say it's necessary for a number of reasons; we say it's - it's appropriate having regard to the paid rates review process.
PN6309
You have not included the DWM descriptors but rather come up with a new set of descriptors because you believe that is necessary to ensure that there is an enforceable safety net?---Amongst other things, yes, that's true.
PN6310
You are of the view that to have an enforceable safety net the employee in the position needs to be able to look at the classification structure and say: I am classified as X, or perhaps I am inappropriately classified as Y?---Broadly speaking, I think that's generally true, given the limitations that are on the - yes, given the limitations imposed by the Act, I think that it's - it wouldn't be fair to say that the Act required - for enforceability. I mean, it does depend on what view you take about enforceability and I would say from the point of view practical enforceability, and I think that's - that's something that's reasonably encompassed within the idea contained in the Act, that that's true.
PN6311
Yes?---It may be ultimately determinable by the High Court, you know, any form of words, may be but to be - to be properly a fair - fair and enforceable safety net, then it needs to be reasonably clear to the industrial parties what the requirement is for each classification.
PN6312
You'd agree - let us assume that the DWM exercise, if we can call it that, and I will include in that the 1990 Restructuring Agreement and the DWM consultant's work and the outcome of that, the DWM Report, adequately took into account the work value of general staff across the sector, that we put aside the question of rates, that could be inserted into an award at that time?---Sorry, are you saying that it did? You're putting to me that it did constitute an adequate - - -
PN6313
At the moment I'm just assuming that it did?---Assuming that it did, yes.
PN6314
Assuming that it did - put aside the question of rates - - - ?---Yes.
PN6315
- - - over which there were significant debate, if you took into account work value, it could have formed the basis for a proper award structure?---It could have, yes, it could have.
PN6316
Yes. What was your role in the DWM exercise, if I could call it that, the DWM exercise - sorry, there, I've changed the definition - the DWM exercise being the work the DWM consultants did?---I didn't have a direct role in it.
PN6317
All right. You'd agree, and it is evident from you responses - - - ?---Sorry, it - I do remember, however, just to give a complete answer, it was my suggestion that we should serve - do a rates survey for particular types of positions, that was actually the suggestion of our organisation a year before that, but in terms of actually doing the DWM - the work that DWM did, I didn't have any direct involvement.
PN6318
I will come back to that. If - let us assume in 1993 and 1994, if the parties, building on the work of DWM in translating positions from the old structure to the 134A Agreement structure appropriately took into account work value, then again putting aside the question of rates, that isn't a structure which could have been inserted into an award at that time?---If the Commission had approved of that and thought it was appropriate. I would imagine if the parties had consented - - -
PN6319
Yes, is there any reason why the - in your view, the Commission wouldn't have approved such a structure?---Well, you're asking me a practical question. I would have thought that if the parties had come along and consented I would have thought the Commission would have approved it.
PN6320
Yes, and if we move ahead to 1996, if it was - - - ?---Sorry, except in relation possibly to increments. I'm not sure what - - -
PN6321
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Depends on the time?---Yes, it would depend on the time, yes.
PN6322
MR PILL: With the exception of the increments, you accept that it could have gone into an award?---That's a pretty big exception but, yes.
PN6323
If we move ahead to 1996, it was your position that you were confident that the Commission would accept an award that included the DWM structure?---I was less confident by then, much less confident.
PN6324
You were prepared to put up the DWM structure as the basis for an award?---Yes, in - as part of a package, yes.
PN6325
Yes, as part of a package and perhaps not as your first choice - - - ?---Yes.
PN6326
- - - but you were prepared to do it?---Yes, we were prepared to accept it.
PN6327
Yes, all right. If I can go back to the DWM exercise, it is not disputed, as I understand it, that it was jointly supported in the sense that it was a joint engagement by ACT and AHEIA?---Yes.
PN6328
That ACTU was acting on behalf of the unions?---Yes.
PN6329
The AHEIA was acting on behalf of the employer parties?---That's right.
PN6330
It is not that DWM was government funded?---No.
PN6331
And it is not disputed that it followed significant attempts by the parties to agree a new award structure?---Yes.
PN6332
And if we turn to paragraph 11 of your statement you record there at 11 through to 15, the attempts to negotiate that new award structure?---Yes.
PN6333
This is all pre-DWM?---Yes.
PN6334
And there was industrial action at the time?---Yes.
PN6335
Paragraph 15 says at least the ACUs office was in fact planning a series of rolling protest strikes over his position on the status of the award and salary rates?---Yes.
PN6336
And it is fair to say that that industrial action and those strikes didn't go ahead because the parties were able to reach the agreement in May 1990?---I think there - I think there was one day - I think there was one day of strike action in February or March but, yes, those further - that further strike action didn't go ahead because of that agreement.
PN6337
Because of the agreement. And you have described that as a comprehensive agreement" in paragraph 16?---Yes.
PN6338
And you have just indicated in evidence to Mr Sandler that it was the agreement that formed the basis of the second SEP increase?---It formed the basis of it, yes.
PN6339
Yes, and it is not disputed that the 1990 agreement was part of award restructuring?---That it was part of it - - -
PN6340
Yes?---Yes.
PN6341
It is not disputed it was part of fulfilling the structural efficiency principle?---Well, it was a preliminary agreement, yes, yes, it was put up - - -
PN6342
Well, it was put up - - - ?---It was put up to indicate substantial progress I think is the sort of formulation I think that - - -
PN6343
Yes, part of fulfilling the SEP was what I asked you?---Yes, yes.
PN6344
And it is not disputed that it proposed a single stream ..... classification structure?---Yes, that's right.
PN6345
And it is not disputed that there were descriptors in that agreement that had been agreed between the parties?---Subject to the further - - -
PN6346
Subject to testing for validity and appropriateness?---Yes, yes, that's right.
PN6347
And it is not disputed, is it, that one of the factors which was being considered by the parties was the elimination of discrimination?---That was one of the factors that was - yes, I think that's fair to say. I think even the employers wanted to achieve that outcome.
PN6348
And your union was not unique in that desire?---No, no, I think to be fair the document I was taken to yesterday was written by the APSF.
PN6349
Yes. Now, you have knowledge of the DWM exercise?---Yes.
PN6350
You would agree that there were 15 benchmark positions which were tested?---Well, it depends which part of the report you read. Some of the - yes, there were 15 where an attempt was made, yes.
PN6351
Yes?---And there were 13, I think, where results were included.
PN6352
Well, we will come back to that. And there were a number of jobs for each of those benchmark positions?---Yes - sorry, there were a number of jobs for each of those benchmark positions - - -
PN6353
Well, let me put it to you - - - ?---Yes.
PN6354
- - - that it is in the methodology?---Yes.
PN6355
There were 15 benchmark positions and then there were essentially three jobs, ctual jobs,identified - - - ?---Yes.
PN6356
- - - within each of those 15 benchmark positions?---Yes.
PN6357
And I am looking - for example I can take you to the agreed chronology document behind tab 7, page 5?---Yes.
PN6358
The substantive paragraph there, the first one:
PN6359
Prior to the groups being convened, institutions were asked to describe for each of the 15 benchmarks, three actual jobs which were assessed as falling within the benchmark description.
PN6360
?---Yes.
PN6361
Then:
PN6362
These descriptions were provided on a job summary form prepared by DWM.
PN6363
So you agree that all of that occurred?---I've no reason to doubt it.
PN6364
Yes. Can I hand to you a document - the document is actually an attachment to a witness statement of Ann Cavanagh filed in this matter. I didn't bring additional copies, but it has previously been distributed to the parties. Ms Cavanagh's evidence will be that these are a sample of the job summary forms which were provided by ANU to DWM as part of this exercise. If we look at the first one - looking at the top right-hand corner - to "Faculty Administrator"?---Yes.
PN6365
It appears to have been previously classified at ANU3. I am surmising - - - ?---Yes.
PN6366
- - - from the top right-hand paragraph. If we look at the sorts of information in there, starting on the front page we have got, "Classification Details"?---Yes.
PN6367
You will agree that the job summary forms identify instruments and classifications that apply to the existing position?---Yes.
PN6368
Sets out the rates of pay?---Well - - -
PN6369
Well, let me rephrase that. Sets out a pay rate for the position?---Yes, yes.
PN6370
And it sets out the weekly hours for the position?---Yes.
PN6371
And identifies the work unit in which it occurs?---Yes.
PN6372
And at C, you would agree, at points 1 and 2, it provides information about the supervisory arrangements?---It provides - it tells you what the award was and the pay rate, yes, of the supervisor.
PN6373
Of the supervisor and, secondly, positions that might be supervised by this particular position?---That's right. The pay range and their award.
PN6374
And if we turn the page again, D, we have got "Position Overview"?---Yes.
PN6375
One, describes the primary purpose of the work unit - - - ?---Yes.
PN6376
- - - in which the position is located. It describes the primary purpose of the position, do you agree with that?---Well, I agree that is what they have written there, yes, yes.
PN6377
Well, you agree that is the question which has been posed to the institution?---Yes, that's the question being posed to the institution, yes.
PN6378
And the response, in this case:
PN6379
Administrative and procedural support to the faculty secretary.
PN6380
?---That's the answer they've given.
PN6381
That is correct, and it identifies qualifications and experience?---Yes.
PN6382
And at 4, it identifies the essential skills the occupant of the position needs to perform, would you agree with that?---That's what they've done.
PN6383
MS FLOYD: Your Honour, there is no question arising out of this cross-examination.
PN6384
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, the document speaks for itself, does it not?
PN6385
MS FLOYD: Yes.
PN6386
MR PILL: Thank you, your Honour.
PN6387
You would agree with me, Mr McAlpine, that going back to the matters which comprise work value?---Yes.
PN6388
Skill, responsibility, work conditions under which it is performed, that this document addresses each of those matters?---That's a question.
PN6389
I was hoping to take you through the whole document and then ask you the question?---No, no, no, I think it's quicker this way. It does address those issues, yes.
PN6390
And it addresses those issues in some detail?---It does do it in detail - in some detail, yes.
PN6391
And so you would agree with me that if DWM has taken this information into account, it has taken into account matters which appropriately comprise work value?---It has taken into account matters that bear upon work value, yes.
PN6392
And in your view are there other matters in terms of the skill, responsibility, or the work conditions under which it has being performed which do not appear in this document?---I will have to have a look, I'm sorry.
PN6393
Well, you see, for example in "Position Overview" on page 3, it says:
PN6394
The qualifications and experience required when selecting a person to fill this position.
PN6395
The answer is:
PN6396
No quals required.
PN6397
Which I suspect I wouldn't have a dispute with - although I wonder - and relevant experience. Well, relevant experience is it seems to me by definition required for any position that requires any experience. I don't see that it actually adds much to answering the question of work value to say that the person requires the experience relevant to doing the job. So I don't think it actually adds anything to that.
PN6398
So that would be experience relevant to the duties and skills of the position?---Well, yes, I'm just saying, the answer to that question does not add much.
PN6399
Yes, but the duties and skills of the position are also set out in the document?---Yes.
PN6400
So it is a fair reading of the document, isn't it, that the relevant experience required is experience in respect of those matters?---Well, for example, I could say: familiarity with academic policies and procedures, and I suspect if I went - which is in point 4 - if I went and worked at VET for 4 weeks in their academic registrar's office, I could probably attain a familiarity with academic policies and procedures, whereas, I think that you could distinguish under 3 by reference to experience, you could distinguish different levels of work value in relation to those listed skills, based upon the period of experience you might expect the person to have in the job and I think you can - the words in 4 can be given meaning by reference to experience. And I think to be fair, you know, I think that even occurs somewhere - in some places in the DWM descriptors itself based upon extensive experience and broad knowledge obtained through extensive experience, those sorts of expressions. Now, what they have done in there is, they have said, "relevant experience". Well, frankly, I don't think that adds anything. I think that the - - -
PN6401
I might stop you there?---Yes.
PN6402
So your view is that you could have taken into account other matters, such as, how that experience fits within perhaps the structure of the university in comparison with some other positions?---Well, I suppose, what I am saying is to say, "relevant experience", is to not answer the question.
PN6403
So more details of experience would be - - - ?---Yes. And I think that - I think the essential skills of the occupant - again, within the academic unit - I think it would be fair enough to say a statement like: familiarity with academic policies and procedures, to a person within that area, I think that they would know what that meant, but I'm not sure that it would actually relate to something very obvious for an outsider and relevant experience is significant when one turns the page to page 4 and it says:
PN6404
The main differences in qualification are experience and skills.
PN6405
As distinguishing it from the position directly above it. It says:
PN6406
Less experience, less specialised.
PN6407
Yes, and also it says:
PN6408
No formal qualifications required.
PN6409
?---Yes, that's right, and that's exactly the same as for the position that we're talking about - - -
PN6410
Yes?---So neither of them requires any formal qualifications according to the - according to the person who answered this.
PN6411
Well, it says:
PN6412
No formal qualifications required for the lower level post.
PN6413
?---That's right and I think it - - -
PN6414
So it is a fairer reading of that, isn't it, that they are talking about there the position being assessed?---Yes - well, hang on. On page 3: Position Overview, question 3.
PN6415
The qualifications and experience normally required when selecting a person to fill this position. No formal quals.
PN6416
And then over the page - no, you are right:
PN6417
No formal quals. Less experience, less specialised than the one above it.
PN6418
Yes. That is right and that is consistent with (iii) isn't it?---Yes, yes.
PN6419
Yes, that:
PN6420
The lower level post supports the faculty secretary.
PN6421
?---Yes, that's fair.
PN6422
So some additional information, or some additional knowledge of what the job did would assist in assessing work value?---Yes.
PN6423
And you would agree that part of the DWM exercise, or their next step was that they are expert groups - page 5. It says:
PN6424
Throughout this report -
PN6425
?---Yes, going back to the DWM report, yes.
PN6426
Sorry, going back to the DWM report, page 5 of the DWM report?---Yes.
PN6427
Describes at the bottom of page 4 and over on to page 5 what DWM have called: Expert Groups:
PN6428
Groups between four to eight members. People with reasonable experience in the institution. The group would cover the major range of designations and skills -
PN6429
etcetera?---Yes.
PN6430
And their role was to - one of their roles was to discuss the completed job summary form?---Yes.
PN6431
And they would be people who, for example, could provide - perhaps fill any gaps, such as those that you might have identified - what is meant by the concept of relevant experience - you would accept that?---They might, they might have, or they might merely have made assumptions based not on knowledge.
PN6432
You agree that the people at the institution would be best placed to determine what the relevant experience of that particular role was?---Well, they'd be better placed than me, but as I understand it the way the classification - proper classification committees work, even presently, is that you are not allowed to make such assumptions, you actually have to have the documentation in front of you.
PN6433
Yes?---Even if you actually know the occupant of the position.
PN6434
And you would agree that the DWM exercise was conducted across 13 institutions, and that was a range of institutions across different States?---Yes, yes.
PN6435
Now, you will agree that one of the positions reviewed was that of assistant registrar/school secretary? That was one of the benchmark positions?---That was - now, if I go to one of the benchmark positions.
PN6436
Well, if you go for example to page 17?---Yes.
PN6437
At the bottom of page 17 near B14?---Yes.
PN6438
Assistant registrar/school secretary/faculty secretary?---Yes.
PN6439
And:
PN6440
This benchmark produced a very wide range of rates both between but also within sample institutions.
PN6441
?---Yes.
PN6442
Are you aware of that?---Yes.
PN6443
And the document that you have there in front of you, AC3, if you keep flipping through that document - they are stapled as a bundle, but it is - - - ?---Yes
PN6444
- - - approximately half way through and it is entitled with a handwritten annotation: Part a of new benchmark", are you with me?---Yes, yes.
PN6445
And you will see it is ANU grade 9 or 10?---Yes.
PN6446
School secretary?---Yes.
PN6447
And you will see that - I won't labour through the information - but the sorts of information that was on the previous job form, in fact, this form is exactly the same. The questions are exactly the same as the first form that we looked at?---Yes.
PN6448
And it has all of those matters that you have agreed are relevant to take into account for the purposes of work value?---Yes, and I note that they are the same - a lot of the skills are the same as for the student records clerk.
PN6449
And if you turn to the next job summary form, which is entitled", Part B?---Yes.
PN6450
And this is an ANU grade 9 or 10 faculty secretary?---Yes.
PN6451
And the same information is again set out. And you would agree with me that on the basis of those documents - - - ?---Yes.
PN6452
- - - that some of the information looked at DWM was information for people such as assistant registrars?---Sorry, can you repeat that question, I'm sorry.
PN6453
Well, I will rephrase it in a more simple manner. Did DWM take into account matters for assistant registrars?---Did they take it into account? Well, they collected data on that - - -
PN6454
And they - - - ?---They - although actually I think part of their problem was that they collected data on assistant registrar, which is not a term that describes a job level, and that was one of the serious problems, so they collected data on it. Whether they took it into account in establishing the salary rates, or the relativities, I don't think there is anything there to suggest they did.
PN6455
Well, we can - you and I was not involved?---Yes.
PN6456
You were not involved, that was your evidence. We can only go on what is in the DWM report?---Yes, and for example they don't produce - at the back they don't produce a weighted average for that position.
PN6457
Can I ask you to turn to page 25 of the document?---Yes.
PN6458
The last paragraph there was a paragraph which, amongst others, you put to Mr Picouleu?---Yes.
PN6459
And you put to Mr Picouleu on the basis - or to support an assertion that DWM did not take into account matters above level 6?---Yes.
PN6460
And if we read what it says there:
PN6461
The relativities between the benchmark positions excluding B14, assistant registrar/school secretary/faculty secretary, where the range of rates and work values was too wide to be summarised in this matter -
PN6462
?---Yes.
PN6463
And then close the brackets:
PN6464
- and how they compare to relativities elsewhere are presented in the table below.
PN6465
?---Yes.
PN6466
You would agree that a matter of interpretation that that firstly supports the proposition that they did collect the information?---They collected the information, yes.
PN6467
And the only reason it does not appear in summary is because the range of rates and work values was too wide to be summarised in that manner?---Well, that may have been the words they used. Obviously, it is not too wide to be summarised in that manner. It's - the fact is the information is - is next to worthless because - and that's - it is possible to summarise the range - that isn't what they - I think on any reason were reading - that's not what they meant that - - -
PN6468
So your interpretation of that is they discounted the information. They didn't even take it into account, rather than what it says, which is that they just didn't summarise it in the table?---Well, where the range of rates and values was too wide to be summarised in this manner, what they are really saying, I think, is that the - in fact the range of sorts of positions and work value was so wide that it was actually describing different types of positions at different work value levels, whereas for example, say for argument's sake, cleaner, or librarian 1, they were satisfied that they were describing one cluster of work value level.
PN6469
Well, I put it to you that you cannot from that paragraph come to the conclusion that they did not take into account information on that benchmark position?---No.
PN6470
I also put it to you that you cannot come to the conclusion that they didn't take into account the relativities that may have been observable in respect of those positions?---Well, I think it's a reasonable inference.
PN6471
Well, can I ask you to turn back to 18?---Yes.
PN6472
The conclusion of B14, the last paragraph there?---Yes.
PN6473
The DWM state:
PN6474
The benchmark was useful in providing data on a range of positions to assist in re-drafting of the classification descriptions.
PN6475
?---Yes.
PN6476
So you would concede that at the least they took it into account in re-drafting the classification descriptions?---Yes, they - yes, I can see how that would have been quite possible, yes.
PN6477
And you would agree with me that that is more consistent with a view that if they are going to use it to do that, they need to take into account the relativity information that would have come out of looking at that benchmark position?---No, I think what they - I think what that implies is that in fact that what they discovered was that they - that in using a job title like "Assistant Registrar/School Secretary/Faculty Secretary", they were covering such a wide range of jobs, that they had to in coming up with a set of descriptors, had to use some other formulation to distinguish between the different range of work values in coming up with the descriptors and that - - -
PN6478
So is your evidence that we can infer from that, that in collecting information about B14 benchmark, they actually collected information about a range of jobs, some of which might more appropriately be understood as being assistant registrar and some that extended more broadly than that?---Well, I think that despite what criticisms one might have of employers, they say the lowest rate reported for the benchmark was 26,845 and the highest rate reported was 55,263. Now, I think that discrepancy is not because the same work value is being paid at different rates. I think it's because, clearly, they got it wrong in bench-marking a particular position and that they were quite different positions at different institutions that satisfied the description and that, therefore, that sort of data would be useful in coming up with a set of descriptors to make sure that when you write the descriptors, you don't make that mistake, but I don't think that the salary ranges of 26,000 through to 55, was going to give them much guidance in terms of relativities.
PN6479
Well, a salary for 26 - I am not going to put to you the totality of the information there - but there is a significant difference between the positions, which is part of what you are saying, and all that I am putting to you is: when you say the data collected - - - ?---Yes.
PN6480
- - - we are talking about data that includes the position title - we are talking about data that includes the skills being exercised. We are talking about the qualifications required, so they collected all of this data for a range of positions, didn't they?---Yes.
PN6481
And some of those positions were at the higher levels?---Sorry, some of those positions were at higher - - -
PN6482
For which they collected data were at the higher levels?---Some of the positions within that benchmark were at the higher levels, yes.
PN6483
And the benchmark was part of the exercise?---Yes, that is some of the positions within that particular benchmark were at higher levels, and I think their aim was to collect a benchmark at a particular work value level for each of the descriptors that had been done earlier, and to test those essentially. So if you had a descriptor for a dog catcher and you came up with wildly divergent descriptions of skills and the like, then, the description "dog catcher", or the description that had been used, didn't necessarily - wasn't particularly useful and I think to be fair some of the benchmarks they used were quite useful and some of them were not so useful and at the higher levels - and this is the only high level position - it wasn't particularly useful.
PN6484
Even though they say the benchmark was useful in providing data on a range of positions to assist in the re-drafting of the classification description?---That's right, because of the flaws in that benchmark, yes.
PN6485
Well - - - ?---That was what would have been useful, discovering the error that you have made - - -
PN6486
Well, I put it to you - you described it as "flaws" - I put it to you that the only material in here in the DWM report in respect of this particular benchmark better supports a conclusion that they did take into account information collected in respect of this benchmark?---In determining the relativities - sorry - - -
PN6487
In - one, in setting the classification, or in revising, or re-drafting the classification descriptions?---Yes, yes - - -
PN6488
Mr McAlpine, that is what it says - - - ?--- - - - that is fair, that is fair.
PN6489
And secondly in respect of the duties that were performed in respect of those levels?---I think that's true - that's true of - of most of the descriptors, yes.
PN6490
Yes?---Most of the benchmarks - sorry.
PN6491
And the skills being exercised?---Well, I mean, on the basis of this information I wouldn't say they did a particularly good job, but I think that they did a reasonable job, given the time they had available.
PN6492
Yes. I will take you to page 25 - sorry 24?---Yes.
PN6493
On 23 and 24 they raise what they describe are a number of difficult issues with the base trades rate?---Yes.
PN6494
And one of which is a criticism which you raised in your opening, which is that they represent a very small number of people?---Yes.
PN6495
That is the first one there, and there are a range of other matters which they take into account, and they come to a conclusion that - or they recommend that there are three different base relativities that could be used?---Yes.
PN6496
They are relativities 1, 2 and 3, which appear towards the bottom of page 24?---Yes.
PN6497
Now, these pages appear within section 5, if I remember, sir, correctly - sorry, section 4, which is the review of the revised benchmark salary data?---Yes.
PN6498
It is material that was taken into account in coming to the recommendations?---Yes, it's - it's - - -
PN6499
It is material that was taken into account in redrafting the recommended set of classification descriptions?---That's a reasonable assumption.
PN6500
It is also material that was taken into account in setting the indicative relativities that appear with those classification descriptions?---Well, that's what they say, yes.
PN6501
So it is open to conclude - well, I put it to you, it is the case that DWM took into account a number of problems in setting the appropriate base - sorry, the appropriate relativity for the key classification, the base rate classification, in coming up with the descriptors and the relativities which they have recommended at schedule C?---It's a reasonable inference that they took those matters into account.
PN6502
Yes?---They don't explain how, but they do - it's a reasonable inference. It would be silly to think they didn't.
PN6503
Now, part of the DWM methodology was also to supplement the salary surveys of institutions that had already been done, is that correct?---Yes.
PN6504
When I say "supplement", there was previous salary surveying done by - jointly by ACTU and AHEIA?---That's right.
PN6505
DWM recommended that, in lay terms, they go back and collect some more salary information?---Yes.
PN6506
That was done?---Yes.
PN6507
That was taken into account in setting the indicative relativities which appear at schedule C?---Well, that's a reasonable inference. They don't say how, but, yes, that's a reasonable inference. I can't - I must say, I can't see much of those - that data reflected in those relativities - - -
PN6508
Yes?--- - - - but - but it's a reasonable inference that they - that they turned their mind to that issue, yes.
PN6509
Do you agree that in setting the relativities, or the indicative relativities, for the new structure they took into account relativities in other awards?---Yes, they say they do.
PN6510
Yes, they say they do. And some of those were paid rates awards?---Yes.
PN6511
Some were minimum rates awards?---Yes.
PN6512
They included the Metal Industry Award?---Yes.
PN6513
Mr McAlpine, you would agree with me that this was a major exercise?---Yes, given - given - it was certainly a major exercise, given it was done in 7 or 8 weeks. It was - it was heroic, I thought.
PN6514
It was a major benchmarking exercise?---Yes.
PN6515
Indeed, that is your evidence at paragraph 19 of your statement, that:
PN6516
The consultancy from DWM undertook a major benchmarking exercise paid for by the Federal Government - - -
PN6517
?---Yes.
PN6518
- - - and produced a set of descriptors and proposed relativities for the consideration of the parties.
PN6519
?---Yes.
PN6520
You have actually attached a copy of this report - - -?---Yes.
PN6521
- - - which appears behind tab 7?---Yes.
PN6522
It is attachment I to your statement?---Yes.
PN6523
You don't dispute that that was the outcome of the DWM process?---That they produced a report for the - - -
PN6524
That the report was produced?---Yes, of course it was produced.
PN6525
You don't dispute that a significant part of that report is the descriptors and relativities appearing in attachment or schedule C to that report?---It's - it's a significant part of the report, yes.
PN6526
Bearing in mind your limited direct knowledge, are there any matters, from your direct knowledge - are there any parts of the DWM report which don't accurately reflect what DWM did?---Sorry, that's - which don't accurately reflect what DWM - well, I'd say the - the relativities, that's what I'd say, the - - -
PN6527
Well, let me break the question down for you. Are there any matters in here concerning the methodology adopted which don't reflect what DWM did?---Sorry, I think that question is tautological. Maybe I'm - maybe it's late in the afternoon but is - the question seems - sorry, I don't - I don't - I really don't understand that question. I - - -
PN6528
Well, Mr McAlpine, this document which you have attached to your statement contains a fairly extensive summary of what DWM did. I am asking you whether, from your direct knowledge, there are any matters in there which are incorrect?---As statements of fact about what they did?
PN6529
Yes?---To my knowledge, no.
PN6530
Now, when this DWM report came out, your evidence was - your evidence in cross-examination by some of my colleagues was that you had some discussions internally. Can I ask, did you or any other union or indeed employer representative, of which you are aware, write to the DWM consultants and dispute the outcome?---Write to them, no.
PN6531
So you didn't write to them and criticise it as being fundamentally flawed?---No, I would have thought that was improper.
PN6532
You didn't write to them and dispute the position sampling used was non-representative?---No, they'd finished their work.
PN6533
You didn't raise those matters publicly through the ACTU?---Publicly through the ACTU, no.
PN6534
Nor did you raise matters, for example, such as the accuracy of the data collected?---Well, I think that we - I think - the accuracy of the data collected, no, no. Use to which the data was put, I'd say was what we dispute.
PN6535
You haven't tendered any documents in this proceeding, for example, which constitute such correspondence or such public documentation indicating the NT - or the predecessor unions, to the NTEUs position that this was fundamentally flawed or, indeed, in any way flawed?---Well, only by implication the documents, I think, attached to Mr McCulloch's statement showing an alternative proposal.
PN6536
The alternative proposal being a proposal pre the DWM exercise?---No, post the DWM exercise, but some, I think - I think, months after it.
PN6537
That is the proposal that has eight levels?---Yes, that's right.
PN6538
That is, essentially, the proposal which was in existence pre the 1999 - sorry, the 1990 restructuring agreement?---No, I don't think it - I don't think it was. I think that we - I think that we - we prepared a document in 1988 even, or perhaps 1989, which - which looked at both academic and general staff award restructuring, which I think went to an ACTU special unions conference. So there was a document in existence but I think it had been modified by 1992, I think it was, when we put it to the ACTU and to others.
PN6539
Well, there is documents attached to your statement - - -?---Yes.
PN6540
- - - in 1990, which describe this eight level three stream structure?---Yes.
PN6541
So essentially you are saying that part of the document which you have tendered which evidences the union's criticisms of DWM, it is implicit from Mr McCulloch's statement in which he describes a different proposal, being an eight level proposal?---Yes.
PN6542
I am putting to you that that was the proposal which was previously considered and rejected in coming to the 1990 restructuring agreement?---No, no. No, because I remember, I think, in response to the DWM report, that other document was prepared in response to the DWM report. It wasn't prepared as a modification or a - or another - I think, in fact, it couldn't have been an - a document that was earlier rejected because it was actually for a minimum rates - it was for a minimum rates structure, the one that we were putting forward in 1992.
PN6543
I am happy to explore that, Mr McCulloch [sic]. You would share my view that the DWM exercise was an extensive review exercise?---Yes, I've already said that.
PN6544
Indeed, it is the most extensive exercise on a national level - it is a most extensive review exercise on a national level of work performed by general staff in the higher education sector?---Yes.
PN6545
I put it to you that based upon the information considered, that it took into account work value?---Yes, it took into account work value.
PN6546
That the appropriate characterisation is that it was a work value exercise?---No. No, I think - I think it was a - it was a hybrid of a rates survey, a comparison with other awards, and some of which had been subject to work value considerations in detail and others hadn't, and to some minimum rates awards that had been restructured.
PN6547
You would agree it is the most extensive review of work value of general staff in the higher education sector conducted on a national level?---In terms of its data collection, yes, it's the most - and - yes, it's the most extensive.
PN6548
Certainly more extensive than the review work that has gone into your proposal?---Yes, yes.
PN6549
Now - - -?---It's not as extended but is - but more extensive, yes.
PN6550
In part, you have based your proposal on it?---We've - we've taken parts of it and used those, yes.
PN6551
Although you described it to Mr Sandler - or sorry, perhaps Mr Pitt - no, I correct myself, Mr Sandler as being inadequate?---Which?
PN6552
The DWM exercise?---Yes. Yes, because it - not because of the data collection though.
PN6553
Well, one of the reasons you put to Mr Sandler, and indeed, in my view - - -?---Not primarily because of the data collection.
PN6554
- - - the only substantive reason as to why it was inadequate, was because it didn't take into account matters above level 6?---No, I think that there - I said that there was a more narrow range of positions that were benchmarked as well, too narrow a range of positions were benchmarked.
PN6555
So it could have been better?---Yes, it could - yes, it could have been - it would have been much better if we'd adopted the original proposal, which was to select, say, 400 jobs at random and classify them against the proposed descriptors and see how divergent the - the jobs were that we classified. That would have been better because that would have got - captured a much broader range of jobs. That was - that was our preferred methodology but, you know, there were a lot of parties involved and - and, you know, you don't get everything you want.
PN6556
Now, the outcome of the DWM exercise, it didn't go into the HEGSS Award, and I put it to you that a significant issue between the parties was whether the rates would be paid rates or minimum rates?---Yes, that was a significant issue.
PN6557
Your evidence is that you were concerned that a minimum rates structure would be used to undercut existing rates?---That was a necessary consequence of a minimum rates structure, we thought.
PN6558
That was the main issue between the parties - was this concern about the employers using the minimum rates structure to undercut rates?---That was - in terms of - in terms of the bulk of our membership, yes, that's true. The bulk of our membership at the levels, sort of, 2 to 6, that was our primary concern.
PN6559
If that concern could have been addressed, I put it to you that the 10 level structure and descriptors would have gone into the award?---That's a judgment you'd have to make at - we would have had to make at the time. That is - and I don't mean to evade your question - it is really speculative. It's a function of what rates were being offered. I mean, if the DWM were - offered to us, on the basis of a, you know, $27,000 at the trade level in 1991, we would have taken it for sure. It was - it would have been a question of balancing the rates, any modification we could get to the relativities and - and those descriptors. But it - it's - it is conceivable that in a tactical sense we could have accepted that and might have had to, yes.
PN6560
Now, you did consider that the 10 level structure, the recommended relativities of DWM and the descriptors - - -?---Yes.
PN6561
- - - were appropriate for industrial regulation? They went into the 134 agreements?---Yes, often with a provision saying: provided that no employee shall be paid less than a rate provided for by an award of the Commission, but, yes, yes.
PN6562
Well, an EB is a form of industrial regulation, Mr McAlpine?---Yes. Yes, that's true.
PN6563
It is your evidence that the 10 level structure recommended by DWM put in place - was put in place at virtually all institutions - - -?---Yes.
PN6564
- - - in 134 agreements?---Yes.
PN6565
It is also your evidence that the 134 agreements included, with some variations, the relativities proposed by the DWM consultants?---Yes.
PN6566
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Will you be much longer? Will you be much longer?
PN6567
MR PILL: I will certainly be longer than 15 minutes, your Honour.
PN6568
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have got another engagement this afternoon which I would like to go to if I could. So if you are going to be longer than a quarter of an hour I will cease - - -
PN6569
MR PILL: I am not going to finish today.
PN6570
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - I will cease now.
PN6571
MR PILL: Thank you, your Honour.
PN6572
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will - does it inconvenience anybody if we start at half past 9 tomorrow morning?
PN6573
MR MEREDITH: It may be, your Honour. Mr Britt does not know it yet but he and I, in fact, intend to advise that we would need to meet at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning because it is a - competing parental commitments tomorrow morning.
PN6574
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right - - -
PN6575
MR MEREDITH: I apologise, your Honour, it is just something peculiar to tomorrow.
PN6576
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. No, it is all right. You have got short notice of it so there is no love lost as a result of that. I will resume at 10 o'clock. Do we have agreement as to what will happen tomorrow at 10 o'clock?
PN6577
MR ..........: Perhaps if we go off the record, your Honour.
PN6578
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will. We will go off the record.
OFF THE RECORD
PN6579
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I adjourn these proceedings until 9.45 am tomorrow morning.
ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2001 [4.32pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
GABRIELLE ELIZABETH GOODING, AFFIRMED PN5392
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McALPINE PN5392
EXHIBIT #NTEU14 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GABRIELLE GOODING PN5407
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MENDELSSOHN: PN5410
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL PN5449
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOORHOUSE PN5735
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRITT PN5773
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SANDLER PN5870
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McALPINE PN5933
WITNESS WITHDREW PN5949
BARRY ERNEST HYDE-PARKER, SWORN PN5951
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McALPINE PN5951
EXHIBIT #NTEU 15 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BARRY HYDE-PARKER PN5980
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MENDELSSOHN PN5984
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL PN6010
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOORHOUSE PN6101
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRITT PN6127
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SANDLER PN6188
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McALPINE PN6206
WITNESS WITHDREW PN6213
KENNETH McALPINE, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION PN6216
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SANDLER PN6216
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL PN6299
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2001/1065.html