C9020/800, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 263 (19 March 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

C No 90208 of 2000

AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING and
ALLIED SERVICES UNION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the
Act of a dispute relating to a classification
issue for work performed in a technical environment

SYDNEY

10.00 AM, THURSDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2001

Continued from 21.02.01

Hearing Continuing

PN2351

HER HONOUR: Mr Ward, would you like to take the stand?

<ANTHONY WARD, ON FORMER OATH [10.00am]

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DWYER

PN2352

MR DWYER: Mr Ward, yesterday you gave us your background - you indicated you did some training with the Department of Finance, how long was that training?---That was a two day workshop basically for people who already had some experience.

PN2353

Right and Mr Frew, yesterday, called you an expert - do you regard yourself as an expert classification?---I regard myself as someone who has considerable experience.

PN2354

No. I used the word "expert"?---In the context of this exercise, I'd say yes.

PN2355

Have you ever had any papers published or written, academic articles on the classification matters?

PN2356

MR FREW: I object, your Honour.

PN2357

HER HONOUR: Why?

PN2358

MR FREW: Publication of academic articles by a gentleman who is a manager in business is most extraordinary.

PN2359

HER HONOUR: Well, accept that. It seems to me this that if Mr Ward is said to be an expert, then the question of his expertise is entitled to be examined. One of those things that are regularly set forth as matters that establish expertise are publishing academic papers, etcetera, etcetera. So, as long as you concede you are not the sort of expert that publishes academic papers but your experience is limited to the work experience that you've outlined in your statement and evidence to date, then I think we can abandon that line. I don't think he is that sort of witness, Mr Dwyer.

PN2360

MR DWYER: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2361

HER HONOUR: But that is why the question is entitled to be asked, Mr Frew.

PN2362

MR FREW: I understand that, your Honour.

PN2363

HER HONOUR: You never know, he might have been a hidden academic and published reams of academic papers.

PN2364

MR DWYER: They say you shouldn't ask a question unless you know the answer.

PN2365

HER HONOUR: I once called a scientist to give evidence about a very minute cancer question and they asked him - they questioned his expertise and three hours later we were reading his academic lists and I didn't know about them either. So, you can get a very bad answer to that question some times but it won't happen here, will it, Mr Ward?

PN2366

THE WITNESS: No, your Honour.

PN2367

MR DWYER: So, you haven't had any papers published?---No academic papers published.

PN2368

I think you indicated yesterday that in summary in the last 12 years you've worked in the clerical or administrative capacity?---Not clerical administrative capacity - management capacity.

PN2369

Management capacity?---Yes.

PN2370

Yes and you've never worked in a maintenance environment as an operative, that is?---Yes but it was a small portion of my career - before becoming a technical instructor, the majority was with installation.

PN2371

And that was in installation?---Yes.

PN2372

I used the term maintenance environment - I didn't use the term installation but I understand your answer and that was prior to - 12 years ago?

PN2373

Your technical work was all at least 12 years ago, that's correct, isn't it?---That's correct.

PN2374

And you are now part of human resources team in Airservices?---Well, in terms of HR, recruitment, training, planning, co-ordination; those kinds of roles effectively since 1988.

PN2375

Yes but you regard yourself as part of the Airservices human resources team or group?---It's multi skilled so human resources is part of it and it does cross into other areas.

PN2376

Now, yesterday you tendered an exhibit - I think it was ASA5 which is a Melbourne description?---Yes.

PN2377

May I approach the witness?

PN2378

HER HONOUR: Yes. Mr Dwyer and Mr Waters, just so we are absolutely clear about this, you understand that the terms on which I've undertaken this arbitration and the consent between the parties as to the issues I am examining relate only to the Sydney site, is that the case?

PN2379

MR DWYER: Yes.

PN2380

HER HONOUR: I just want to understand that that is an agreed matter and, Mr Frew?

PN2381

MR FREW: Yes, your Honour, although - - -

PN2382

HER HONOUR: You don't want me making any remarks about these matters as they might apply to any other site - I'm certainly, in my view, not in a position to do so having never inspected them nor heard any evidence about them but that is the case. Mr Wards' evidence goes by way of relative comparisons, those sorts of things?

PN2383

MR FREW: Relative comparisons, yes your Honour.

PN2384

MR DWYER: Yes.

PN2385

MR FREW: We understand that although at least one of the unions has indicated that they are hopeful of a very positive outcome because this may flow to other areas around the country.

PN2386

HER HONOUR: Please don't respond, Mr Waters. I don't want to get into that murky water. All I want to know is that in this application before me, no matter what anybody's hopes and aspirations, you will not, either of you, require any finding that affects Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra or any other site.

PN2387

MR FREW: None whatsoever - no, nothing outside of Sydney.

PN2388

HER HONOUR: Excellent, good. Please proceed.

PN2389

MR DWYER: You have that exhibit, ASA5, I think we're talking and this is the structure in Melbourne - this is the area you predominantly work in?---I'm based at Melbourne, yes.

PN2390

In Melbourne and the diagram shows that in Melbourne - I think there are 10 MM1 staff, is that all up?---You've got the TSSs as well as the technical works managers.

PN2391

Yes but there's 10 MM1s?---Yes.

PN2392

And there's seven, I think, or eight - seven or eight in Sydney?---For - across all the functions?

PN2393

Yes?---That's probably correct.

PN2394

Right and the field - the maintenance staff are led by team - you've got technical works managers, three MM1s and these are predominantly day work staff - leave aside the TSSs?---Yes, the TWMs are day management staff performing higher level functions within the C.

PN2395

And the diagram shows for the satellite team you have a specialist TO4?---There's a TO4 that's a primary practitioner, that's correct.

PN2396

Right and in the data team, you have a specialist TO4?---Yes, that's correct.

PN2397

And in the COMs team you've got two specialist TO4s?---Yes.

PN2398

The Eurocat - the radar area - one TO4 specialist?---That's what it shows, yes.

PN2399

And so forth the voice switch is a specialist TO4 and the navigational team, you've got two specialist TO4s?---Yes.

PN2400

And, again, radar, you've got one TO4?---Correct.

PN2401

Moorabbin, that's the equivalent of our Bankstown remote light aircraft airport?---Broadly.

PN2402

You've got specialist TO4, just for Moorabbin?---They take in more territory than just the local airport.

PN2403

You appreciate Sydney also takes in Woronora, Kings Tableland and other remote sites?---No, they don't.

PN2404

You're aware there's a lot of sites off the airport in the Sydney basin that are maintained?---I'm aware there are some sites.

PN2405

And the simulator, you have a specialist TO4?---Yes.

PN2406

For the Melbourne simulator?---Yes.

PN2407

And yesterday you describe the TO3s as assistants to those various specialists?---They broadly are a pool of technical practitioners.

PN2408

But yesterday I'm asking you - yesterday you described them as assistants to that - my question was, yesterday you described them as assistants to those specialists TO4s?---Yes.

PN2409

Okay and in the attachment to that you indicate that some of those assistants actually can work in a couple of areas?---Yes.

PN2410

That is if we took the top person back - he's 100 per cent TCI; that's all he does - that's what the chart indicates, does it?---Yes.

PN2411

Bosna - for example, spends 5 per cent of his time on satellite, 5 per cent on sensor which is, I suggest, the radar sensor?---Correct.

PN2412

And 90 per cent on MCD?---Mt Macedon and its associated sites.

PN2413

Mt Macedon - okay, that's the remote site and the third one down, CHH OUR spends all of his time on the satellite?---Yes.

PN2414

Yesterday, when you described classifications in Sydney you said that or I think your argument was that there were two issues; one is the technical qualifications and skills of staff and the second thing was responsibility. Do you recall that?---Technical skills and qualifications, I don't remember using that term. Certainly, responsibility, I did use.

PN2415

Yes. You agreed yesterday, I believe, that when you looked at TO3s and TO4s the skills and qualifications were equal?---Technical competency is the term and there is very little to distinguish in terms of technical competency.

PN2416

No. I'm talking about their actual - I'm not talking about - - - ?---Skills and qualifications?

PN2417

- - - yes?---To use that terminology, yes I'd still agree with that.

PN2418

That the TO3s and TO4s have equal skills and qualifications?---Same education standard. So, that would be qualifications and skills - working on similar equipments, yes.

PN2419

Right and you're distinguishing when you approached it, you said, "Generally, it is responsibility", that's correct?---Correct.

PN2420

That's how you delineate between the TO3s and TO4s?---That's how I would delineate it according to the classification standard.

PN2421

Now, you're familiar with attachment I to your - I think it's exhibit A1, the Airservices 1 - I provide you with a copy - might I approach again, your Honour?

PN2422

HER HONOUR: What are you showing him?

PN2423

MR DWYER: It's exhibit 1, Airservices 1 attachment I.

PN2424

Now, we're looking there - do you know what this document is?---Yes, it's an extract from the Airservices Australia Consolidated Award 1996.

PN2425

And you'd agree that's the law that applies in Airservices in terms of classification?---Yes.

PN2426

That's the only law that applies in Airservices in terms of classifications?---That's what is in the Consolidated Award.

PN2427

Yes and that has work level descriptions for technical officers including Technical Officer Grade 3/Technical Officer Grade 4?---Yes.

PN2428

If I could read the Technical Officer Grade 3, it says:

PN2429

As technical practitioners may undertake moderately complex activities -

PN2430

sorry:

PN2431

...tasks or activities for a function with limited guidance.

PN2432

?---Correct.

PN2433

And for Technical Officer - it then mentions that they may exercise supervision - I will just pass that for the moment - Technical Officer Grade 4:

PN2434

As a technical practitioner -

PN2435

I'll just back up a little - you'd agree the people at Sydney Airport on shift are technical practitioners?---Correct.

PN2436

So, in Technical Officer Grade 4:

PN2437

As a technical practitioner undertake a range of very complex activities with limited guidance.

PN2438

?---Correct.

PN2439

Undertakes either a range of moderately complex to very complex activities or a function within broad guidelines?---Correct.

PN2440

Undertakes a moderately complex to very complex function with limited guidance which has limited corporate impact?---Correct.

PN2441

And then there's some other discretionary - or it talks about other people but a practitioner would be the appropriate classification?---Practitioner would be the appropriate.

PN2442

And would you agree with me then, that the award delineates the TO3 and TO4 by reference to matters of complexity and range?---And range?

PN2443

Yes?---The term isn't used there. What do you mean by range, sorry?

PN2444

For example, the TO4 undertakes a range of very complex activities as opposed to - for example, the word "range" is not found under TO3?---The term range is not used. The term function is used and that's equivalent within the TO3 and TO4 scales, which implies work across various classes of equipment. So function is the common term between the two, which is consistent with what we've said today.

PN2445

Well, I'm not suggesting it's not a common term, I'm suggesting the word - the words - if we might be able to delineate are "undertake straightforward" - sorry, "undertake moderately complex tasks or activities for a function" versus "undertake a range of very complex activities"?---A range of complex activities is a narrower statement, but that's what's written there.

PN2446

My question is, that's a differentiating issue, isn't it?---It is, it is.

PN2447

You'd also agree with me, the word - that the word "responsibility" is not bound within those definitions?---It's not found. People commonly use the term.

PN2448

Yes, but the word "responsibility" is not found within those definitions, is it?---Not directly. It's covered within those statements.

PN2449

And you'd agree with me, that these descriptions really delineate skill sense, rather than responsibilities?---No, they delineate both.

PN2450

But you can't point to the word "responsibility" anywhere?---You can go to the original defining PCSs which define the terms used there.

PN2451

Could I stop you there. You agreed with me earlier that these were the documents that apply and the only ones that apply. You are now talking about position classification standards. What are they?

PN2452

HER HONOUR: Your talking to TO3 and TO4, aren't you?

PN2453

MR DWYER: Yes.

PN2454

HER HONOUR: Well, the word "responsibility" is in the final paragraph of the TO4: as a technical manager undertakes work, with limited management responsibilities.

PN2455

MR DWYER: Yes. Your Honour, that - we're not talking about a technical manager role here, we're talking about a technical practitioner.

PN2456

HER HONOUR: I'm sorry. Were am I then? Where should I be looking?

PN2457

MR DWYER: I'm sorry, I was talking on the second page.

PN2458

HER HONOUR: Yes, well so am I. "As a technical practitioner" - I see, are you distinguishing a technical practitioner, a technical specialist and technical manager?

PN2459

MR DWYER: Yes, and the witness has agreed that we're talking about technical practitioners here.

PN2460

HER HONOUR: And is there a definition section in this award that has escaped me?

PN2461

MR DWYER: Yes there is on the previous page.

PN2462

HER HONOUR: Previous page? All right, sorry I wasn't following you properly, Mr Dwyer. Please proceed.

PN2463

MR DWYER: I'm sorry, your Honour, perhaps I should have drawn your attention.

PN2464

HER HONOUR: No, no, no, that's cool. I understand exactly what you're doing now. Please proceed.

PN2465

MR DWYER: Where we're at, you've now raised a document called Position Classification Standards, I think you referred to. Are they part of the award?---They are not written within the award. The award draws from the classification standards, so the definition of terms is there and responsibilities is covered in the award. It's covered on the previous page.

PN2466

There is a document around or documents around called Position Classification Standards?---That's true.

PN2467

They are not called up by the award, are they?---I don't know if there is a direct reference to them. They were the formative documents for the statements which have been included in the award.

PN2468

Yes, but you've agreed earlier the award is the document, that we rely on?---The award is the document.

PN2469

And position classification standards are something somebody else has written?---They were the framework behind the award. They were written as part of the process of moving to these classification levels. If you like, they're a dictionary that defines terminology that's used within the award.

PN2470

But when we have definitions within the award, you'd agree with me that the award should prevail over all prior documents?---The terms used in the award must prevail.

PN2471

HER HONOUR: Mr Dwyer, it doesn't matter what - Mr Dwyer, excuse me. There's a rule here Mr Ward, if I interrupt you stop. It doesn't matter what he agrees with, that's a question for me.

PN2472

MR DWYER: Yes. I'll move on. I think at the conclusion of your evidence yesterday you said in a statement: At least on my reading of the job descriptions. Are you suggesting there that that's your - when giving your evidence of it, you've read these and you've applied an interpretation to - your own interpretation to this?---They were part of the evidence that I considered in making an assessment.

PN2473

Under your heading in your witness statement, you've got a paragraph dealing with technology?---Yes.

PN2474

And you've indicated that Sydney has certain equipment that's not found in other - - -?---That's correct.

PN2475

Is that an exhaustive list?---That's not an exhaustive list. They are the major items that I would have considered.

PN2476

What about matters such as the different types of instrument landing systems, you don't consider that?---There's a difference in implementation of technology. The maintenance requirements are similar.

PN2477

So, if you have an instrument landing system made by a different manufacturer and a different aerial systems, you don't regard that as something unique?---It would require specific training generally, and in that sense it would be unique.

PN2478

Wouldn't it require specific training specifically on that equipment?---You mention ILS?

PN2479

Yes?---I would say, yes.

PN2480

My question was, you wouldn't consider that unique, you should add - something important?---I didn't consider that notable in terms of assessment because it has kindred equipments at the airport, and having previously taught ILS and taught that across three generations of equipment, I don't consider the bridge from an ILS 381 to a Normark that significant on a notable. However, VSCMS and the others that I've indicated there I did think were more notable.

PN2481

In your statement you then say: Brisbane and Melbourne have two to three times the number of process account?---Yes.

PN2482

You're suggesting there that you've counted up the number of processes at both airports and found that there's two to three times more in Brisbane and Sydney - in Brisbane and Melbourne, is that correct?---In doing the evaluation, yes.

PN2483

I've got a laptop on my desk here - if we trained someone to the point of being able to fix that and restore it to service, that's a fairly significant skill you would agree?---These days no.

PN2484

Let's just say for the purpose of this, there's some skill involved in using Cathode-ray oscilloscopes data equipment to measure it, let's just assume that for the moment?---Are we using this as an analogy to the processes of the airport are we?

PN2485

Yes. Let's assume there is some skill involved fixing them?---Okay, yes.

PN2486

If I had 10 identical ones, is there any additional skill needed?---Due to networking implications there usually is.

PN2487

No, no, I've asked - - -?---There is. If you've got 10 you've multiplied the situation.

PN2488

Well, has Sydney got one and Brisbane, sort of, got a network? Are you suggesting that Sydney doesn't have a network?---No, I'm not suggesting Sydney doesn't have a network but the scale is different.

PN2489

And why is it that when you network two computers it's more complex than when you have a stand alone computer?---System interaction elements. What does that mean?---Well, when you have network computers, you not only have the functionality that resides on each computer, you have network overhead, so there is software considerations specific to the networking arrangement and in situations which we're talking about, where we have operational positions, you generally have more permutations of system configuration where functions can transfer from one operator to another. So the scaleability of the system is a significant factor.

PN2490

So the complexity of the system arises, once you add a second computer?---As you add more, yes, or as you add a second one, yes - you do increase the complexity over a single one.

PN2491

On inspections in this matter, we went to say, an instrument landing system site?---Yes.

PN2492

Which is in an optical fibre ring?---Yes.

PN2493

And we saw process of that - somewhere in that site there?---Yes, commonly used at other airports too.

PN2494

I am not suggesting it is not?---Mm.

PN2495

And if a fault occurred at that instrument landing system site, it's possible to disrupt all the other sites, or some of the other sites. That's what you are saying, isn't it?---If they are co-dependent on the network, it is possible.

PN2496

So, you're aware Sydney has got six instrument landing systems. Do you know how many Brisbane has?---Brisbane has two.

PN2497

Would that mean that Sydney might have more complexity, based on your analogy used before?---It's not exactly the same as a processor comparison. There is increased workload.

PN2498

I think we just mentioned there that the instrument landing systems have processors involved in the optical fibre ring in Sydney?---Brisbane also, has a optical fibre which services both the ILSs and other sites.

PN2499

Your argument was, that once you start adding more computers to the system, it got more complex. Now, if Brisbane has two ILS systems in the ring, if there is a ring - - -?---Incorrect association. We were talking about process account in a TAAATS Centre, or in the TCUs - you've now taken the statement to the ILSs.

PN2500

Yes?---What I see there, is an increasing workload because of more items. We were talking about network computer systems previously, and that is different.

PN2501

HER HONOUR: Mr Dwyer, I am going to let you persuade me that this is relevant, if you wish, but - - -

PN2502

MR DWYER: Yes, I will move on.

PN2503

HER HONOUR: - - - what Brisbane does, doesn't seem greatly to help me.

PN2504

MR DWYER: You've indicated that the voice switch, in your statement, VSCMS - Sydney voice switch in the tower, is mainstream IT equipment?---Yes.

PN2505

That's just untrue, isn't it?---No.

PN2506

Can you buy these at Dick Smith, or Tandy?---You can buy the computer nodes quite commonly, except for the interface card.

PN2507

Can you buy the systems at Tandy or Dick Smith?---You don't buy the system at Tandy or Dick Smith.

PN2508

Can you buy the software from microsoft?---No, it was purpose software for us.

PN2509

How many of them are there in the world, that you're aware of?---I'm only aware of the Sydney system.

PN2510

Only one in the world?---That I'm aware of.

PN2511

That you are aware of?---There may be others, but we're talking about my awareness.

PN2512

If I suggested to you there is one other in the world?---Okay.

PN2513

In another country, you'd still call this mainstream IT?---The implementation of the technology, yes.

PN2514

And it was manufactured by Boeing, this system?---That's fine.

PN2515

Are they in the mainstream IT?---The implementation of the technology, I still maintain is mainstream IT and I could go into further detail about that, if you wished.

PN2516

HER HONOUR: Mr Dwyer, tell me how this helps me? Where they say, work value case in relation to these technical officers, then an examination of the changes in the work and the systems and what is involved in their complexity would have been a very relevant matter, but as it's work that - so far all parties seem to have conceded, is done by both TO3s and TO4s then it's the distinguishing between those two classifications and the relevance of the difference - I don't understand why, if there's no difference, I need to know about it. It could be the most complex work in the world, but unless I'm hearing a work value claim for an increase in salary, and I'm not inviting you to make such a claim, I don't know how it helps me.

PN2517

MR DWYER: Well, I do agree with - - -

PN2518

HER HONOUR: Persuade me, if you like?

PN2519

MR DWYER: No, I do agree with you, your Honour - just, when witnesses throw these sort of statements in - - -

PN2520

HER HONOUR: Yes, I know. It is always tempting to have a go at something you think is wrong, but I only want to hear about those things you think are wrong, that are relevant.

PN2521

MR DWYER: Given the distinction you put, I agree with you that there is - - -

PN2522

HER HONOUR: It's not a work value case.

PN2523

MR DWYER: There is no dispute there's TO3 and TO4 work at the airport and I don't know why these statements needed to be made.

PN2524

HER HONOUR: No, they may not, but - - -

PN2525

MR DWYER: But I just have to indicate, we don't agree with them.

PN2526

HER HONOUR: You may, in your submissions, say that those matters are matters that you don't agree with and if you like, you could look at Mr Ward's and Mr Hughes' statement and Mr Todkill's statement and identify those matters you don't agree with and place those on the record and if I don't think those are matters that are relevant to my consideration of the issue here, then I will tell you. I won't necessarily have to make any finding about those matters.

PN2527

The alternative is, that every time you do this, I am going to stop you because I don't need to resolve whether or not, the system is complex or not, unless you are asking me for a pay rise.

PN2528

MR DWYER: Given, what I think is the understanding I have with you - - -

PN2529

HER HONOUR: Yes, do you want to have five minutes to have a look at it?

PN2530

MR DWYER: No, what I will do is just pass a number of issues that I was going to raise, as the problem is they have been raised in very strong terms and - which we disagree with.

PN2531

HER HONOUR: I think it is important from this respect - if you say in response to my raising this issue, that you're happy to concede that they're not relevant and not pressed, that's all right as long as Mr Frew doesn't think they are relevant and in the absence of your putting it to this witness, press them. So, you both have heard what I have had to say about it, you might like to have that five minute discussion and then you can either both press, or both abandon the issues. I won't interrupt you again after that and if you press them, and I think they're irrelevant, I'll just ignore, but it might be useful if you reached an agreement about that. So, I'll take a caffeine break - everyone can have one and we'll come back.

PN2532

MR DWYER: How long is that?

PN2533

HER HONOUR: Twenty minutes.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.31am]

RESUMED [11.03am]

PN2534

HER HONOUR: Yes Mr Dwyer?

PN2535

MR DWYER: Yes, your Honour. Perhaps, the best way to describe it, I will finish it in fifteen minutes and I'll just note that I will pass on that. I think the parties do agree, this is not a work value case, there is no attempt to change the classification standards that are before you and should some matter become relevant in a submission later on, then I might jump to my feet.

PN2536

HER HONOUR: All right.

PN2537

MR DWYER: But, I think, it might be best to do it that way. It's been difficult to try to identify it - I haven't been able to do that.

PN2538

You make comparisons, you referred yesterday Mr Ward, to the TSS in Melbourne?---Yes.

PN2539

And you indicated that some of them were at MM1 level and some of them were at TO3?---Yes.

PN2540

And in your statement, you say the TSS is not required to be a technical expert - it's impractical, given the diversity of systems and geographical coverage. You agree with that, do you?---Yes.

PN2541

Now, these TSSs and SYSS type roles - these people are people who receive or identify faults in the system, from alarms?---Partly and partly through the TCI.

PN2542

Yes. Somehow alarms come to their attention either from a phone call, or display panels?---They're communicated to them, yes.

PN2543

Then these people don't actually fix it themselves?---They may. They may attempt first in maintenance. If it's beyond their capability, they may call in further resources.

PN2544

Then they'd call someone in?---Yes.

PN2545

So their role is, what we'd call, a bit like a call centre - they try to fix it, then they find people who can fix the problem?---Not exactly.

PN2546

The faults in Sydney, for example, they obviously won't attempt to fix that, will they?---That's an obvious case. The TSS role - - -

PN2547

- - - is just to phone Sydney and say: You've got something broken?---Possibly, but they may have to resolve, if the fault resides at their end, so it would depend on the fault that was reported.

PN2548

Okay. And you'd agree with me that say, the MM1s in Sydney have the role where they must be able to fix faults as well as identify - receive those faults?---That's correct.

PN2549

And, of course, the same with the TO4s and TO3s?---Correct.

PN2550

In your report there, you indicate you've done some investigation into the Sydney classifications at some stage?---In compiling this assessment, yes.

PN2551

You didn't produce a report for the unions or anything like that, did you?---No.

PN2552

Just one final question - it goes to what we said to you earlier. I've got a statement here which says, and I'd like you to just listen carefully, I think you've seen this in some of the documentation. It says:

PN2553

A direct comparison between the pre-imposed TAAATS maintenance support task is not really valid. It is more appropriate to say that the nature of the support task has changed significantly, with equipment repair skills of a high order being replaced with systems network skills of a high order.

PN2554

Do you agree with that?---In part, not fully.

PN2555

Do you know who wrote that?---I'm not familiar with that at the moment.

PN2556

So, if I said it was written by Bob Peake - do you know Bob Peake?---I know of Bob Peake, yes.

PN2557

And he is a senior engineer, professional engineer?---Yes, yes.

PN2558

And you don't agree with it?---Not entirely. I mean, not across the broad range of equipment with - with which we work. In some cases, there has been very little change. In other cases, there has been a move to network skills being more important.

PN2559

You'd agree with me, that Bob Peake is the specialist engineer on the TAAATS project?---In a TAAATS context, yes. Yes.

PN2560

Yes. Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WATERS [11.12am]

PN2561

MR DWYER: I have no further questions, your Honour.

PN2562

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Waters?

PN2563

MR WATERS: Mr Ward, you indicate that you carried out an assessment of the work of the Sydney shift TO3 position in your statement?---Yes.

PN2564

When did you carry out that assessment?---In the lead up to its publish date, which I think is the 7th of August.

PN2565

Did you speak to any of the Sydney TO3 staff?---I hadn't spoke directly to TO3 staff, but I did have access to some information from them which was part of the preparation for this hearing.

PN2566

So, you didn't speak to them?---Not directly.

PN2567

Did you speak to any of the TO4?---Not in great numbers. Most of it was to the team leaders - to - some of the work records - some of it was incidental to MWI.

PN2568

Sorry, did you speak to any of the TO4 staff on shift?---I had, in - in the course of MWI research, which relates in part, to the assessment.

PN2569

Sorry, in the task of carrying out this particular assessment, did you specifically raise any issues or speak directly with, any of the TO4s on shift, in conducting this assessment?---In gathering evidence for the assessment and I am being careful, because I'm under oath - gathering evidence, some of the evidence sources were drawn from TO4s, but - from the evidence sources.

PN2570

Okay. Did any of the TO4 staff, know that there was an assessment being done of them by you that led to the production of this document?---When I compiled the final aspect - no, I wasn't speaking to TO4s at that stage.

PN2571

The Sydney shift supervisors, did you speak to them about the compiling of this report on the TO3s?---Not for the compiling of this particular report as submission.

PN2572

You indicate in your statement, that you've done a number of position classification exercises, when you've being doing those, do you normally speak to the officers directly affected?---It depends on the context of the request. Quite often, they are personal requests by those officers, to management - there's close involvement. In this particular case, I was requested to do an assessment to form part of the submission.

PN2573

So, in those other cases, you have spoken with the officer. You have taken evidence in the formation of your views?---Yes.

PN2574

From the officer - - -?---Mm.

PN2575

- - - who you're assessing?---Yes.

PN2576

So, this particular assessment, is different from the other assessments that you've done in that regard?---Different, in taking written evidence, versus a lot of oral evidence, shall we say because, there's evidence statements been tendered by the TO3s and they've formed part of the evidence base that I've used.

PN2577

In attachment I, of Airservices One, the pages 1 and 2 of attachment I, the work level descriptions?---You'll have to help me, I'm not perhaps, looking directly at what you're - - -

PN2578

Okay, if you could go to the second page of attachment I, under technical officer, level 4 at point (iv), it says: "As a technical practitioner - "?---Excuse me, I have that - I don't have the same titling of attachments as you, is that the same?

PN2579

Yes, that is the same?---Sorry.

PN2580

Under technical officer, level 4, under item 3, it indicates:

PN2581

... undertake to moderately complex, to very complex, function with limited guidance which has a limited corporate impact

PN2582

?---Yes.

PN2583

Would you characterise the corporate impact of technical work at Sydney Airport to be higher than the corporate impact of technical work at other airports around Australia?---Corporate impact has its definition relating to policy contribution so, with respect to what position because there is no direct comparison on the statement you've made.

PN2584

Well, in terms of what is written in the award with regard to the words, corporate impact" do you think it would be fair to characterise a fault leading to the shutting of Sydney Airport as having a corporate impact on Airservices?---It has a business impact. Corporate impact would relate to the Sydney shift leader, the management of Sydney, or a Sydney team leader.

PN2585

So are you saying that you don't think that the shutting of Sydney Airport has a corporate impact?---Corporate impact as that states is different to a business impact.

PN2586

Could you show me where in the current award corporate impact is defined in the way you're defining it here?---I can only show it in the documents.

PN2587

No, in the award?---The award leaves out the defining terms.

PN2588

So, corporate impact is - could have a - as it would commonly be understood by an ordinary person definition in terms of the award?---I don't see how that relates to the classification standard which already has definitions behind it. Common understanding could be quite varied.

PN2589

You accept, I would think though, that in terms of the impact on the business or on the corporation - - -?---Yes.

PN2590

The technical decisions that are made by technical staff at Sydney Airport can have a very significant impact?---Yes, and I think I've acknowledged that in my submission.

PN2591

And that impact is probably more significant at Sydney Airport than at other airports around Australia?---No. At Melbourne you could shut down half the country, versus one airport, although Sydney is a very important import. No-one would deny that.

PN2592

When there was a power failure at Perth Airport - and I think it lasted about four or five hours - did that make the media?---Perth Airport has no comparison to Sydney on scale. I'd agree with the point you're making there.

PN2593

HER HONOUR: Well, I'm not sure that I know though from your response what the answer was?

PN2594

MR WATERS: Sorry, your Honour?

PN2595

HER HONOUR: Well, you agree with his point but I'm not sure what happened at Perth Airport.

PN2596

MR WATERS: They had a power failure at Perth Airport and there was a power failure at Sydney Airport. Sydney Airport got far more press and industry concern than what the Perth Airport incident did.

PN2597

Well, the answer was that it didn't make the press?

PN2598

MR WATERS: I don't know whether it made the press. I can't say yes or no to that but in terms of business impact I could provide comment on that. Do you think it would be a reasonable assumption that all of the technical staff, be they TO3s, TO4s or MM1s at Sydney Airport are cognoscente of the corporate impact or the impact on the corporation that their work can have while they're doing their job?---I'm sure there is a general awareness of the importance of their work, yes - and the impact of their work, yes.

PN2599

And do you think that awareness would be higher in Sydney given the amount of media and industry attention on Sydney Airport than at other airports around the country?---From interaction I've had around the country I do not think that it is higher. I find other areas are very aware of the effect that their work has on their customers and the impact on industry at their locations.

PN2600

But in terms of the impact on the corporation from the response of customers their tends to be a much higher level of response when something happens at Sydney - - -?---That fact is understood I'm sure.

PN2601

And you think that would be understood by the staff?---I'd be very confident of that.

PN2602

Could I take you to page 2 of your statement and could I take you to the third last paragraph commencing at: "Melbourne TO4"?---Yes.

PN2603

You list a number of additional responsibilities?---Yes.

PN2604

I'll put it to you that the TO3s in Sydney carry out each and every one of those responsibilities as a matter - - -?---I've found no evidence of that and I've heard no evidence in my attendance at the Commission in statements.

PN2605

So you're saying - - -

PN2606

HER HONOUR: Mr Ward, if you don't know the answer, or you're just not in a position of any facts from which you can make such an answer - to arrive at such an answer, then say so. Is that your answer that you don't know?---No, my answer, your Honour, is that the evidence that I have gained through compiling this and what I've heard in the submissions - - -

PN2607

HER HONOUR: Well, don't worry about what you've heard in submissions, what you know from your own personal information?---Just repeat the question, sorry, because I've got your point. Just repeat the question again please?

PN2608

MR WATERS: Well, what I put to you was that the TO3s at Sydney Airport carry out each and every one of the additional responsibilities that you put down here?---I would reject that.

PN2609

You're saying that no TO3s at Sydney Airport conduct tech cert?---Not with the responsibility equivalency of the TO4 at Melbourne.

PN2610

Sorry, do they conduct tech cert - do TO3s conduct tech certs - there is a sign off. I mean, you either sign it off or you don't. Do they conduct tech cert at Sydney Airport and do TO3s do that?---The statement in here is not what you are putting to me. Responsibility for tech cert on the TO4s at Melbourne is managing the adequacy and ensuring the certifications are up-to-date and adequate in number for the areas of responsibility as distinct from conducting an assessment.

PN2611

I put it to you that that's not what your statement says. What your statement says is: "Conduct tech cert?---That's fine, that's fine.

PN2612

That's what your statement says: "TO3s at Sydney conduct tech cert?---Conduct tech cert? Yes, there are certified assessors.

PN2613

Do TO3s do software upgrades at Sydney?---They are not responsible for the software upgrade. It is the responsibility of the Melbourne TO4. He negotiates with OPS.

PN2614

HER HONOUR: Mr Ward, just answer the question you are asked. They do, or they do not. Whether they have responsibility is a matter that no doubt Mr Frew can raise in re-examination of you if he thinks it is relevant.

PN2615

MR WATERS: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2616

HER HONOUR: You don't have to actually manage the answer to the question. Just answer the question. Yes, Mr Frew?

PN2617

MR FREW: Your Honour, I would just remind the - Mr Waters that the terminology or the question he has asked in full talks about supervise software upgrades and the question I believe Mr Waters asked was, do they do the software upgrades. I presume you meant - that's the point to which you are referring.

PN2618

MR WATERS: I asked the question that I asked, Mr Frew.

PN2619

HER HONOUR: Yes, Mr Waters, please proceed.

PN2620

THE WITNESS: Yes, they do upgrades.

PN2621

MR WATERS: Do they provide technical expertise on - back to the contractors, such as Boeing, on what comes out of those upgrade - when they are conducting those upgrades?---I'm sure they do.

PN2622

Do they act as technical liaison with people in engineering support - TO3s in Sydney?---They could and I'd say it is probable.

PN2623

Do they do - but you haven't found anything out about that in terms of the assessment that you've done - the assessment of Sydney TO3s that you've done?---Most of the evidence that I gathered from team leaders indicated that those kinds of functions were primarily with shift leaders and team leaders. I wouldn't exclude the occurrence from the T03s.

PN2624

So it's quite possible, in fact, that in terms of each of the additional responsibilities that you've listed here that TO3s in Sydney do carry out those responsibilities?---Not - - -

PN2625

There is nothing in your evidence that says that that's not possible?---Not each of them as I have listed them.

PN2626

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're making?---Well, to supervise software upgrades is something I have listed and I would say they do not carry that responsibility. They do not do that, though they make work in the performance of an upgrade.

PN2627

You're saying that - I put it to you that TO3 is on shift at Sydney Airport in terms of software upgrades are the experts on that shift for the software?---That may be the technical expertise. I could accept that in some cases, yes.

PN2628

So when you're saying on site technical expert in this statement, they're probably - you're accepting that that would apply to TO3s?---It could in some instances, yes.

PN2629

One of the issues that you spoke about in cross-examination by Mr Dwyer was the additional complexity that comes with the addition of elements to a network. Do you think it would also be fair to characterise that the complexity of a job, as the total grows, with the number of systems that the staff member is required to be trained, tech certed and able to do fault maintenance on so that there is an increased level of complexity if - you have a responsibility across three ranges of systems as opposed to if you have an area of expertise across a single system?---Yes, that would be correct.

PN2630

That's all I have, your Honour.

PN2631

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Frew, any re-examination?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FREW [11.30am]

PN2632

MR FREW: Thank you, Mr Ward. Can you tell me please if most, if not all, positions in the maintenance services branch of the operation support group are covered by either a duty statement or a position description?---Yes, they are.

PN2633

So, it is common for them to have a position description?---It's generally a requirement due to our quality system and CASA requirements.

PN2634

Are you aware of any objections raised to the content of these position descriptions or duty statements?---With particular reference to Sydney or just in general?

PN2635

In general because you've established that you - - -

PN2636

MR DWYER: Your Honour, I'm reluctant to stand up but it is not re-examination.

PN2637

HER HONOUR: You don't have to say why it is you want the answer, Mr Frew. Just ask the question.

PN2638

THE WITNESS: Then the answer is, yes.

PN2639

MR FREW: You are aware that some have been challenged?---Yes.

PN2640

And in what context were they challenged? Were they challenged by the union, by the employee?---Well, I've had both situations to my knowledge.

PN2641

And what was your involvement in the challenge?---Generally to review the position requirements, the actual duties that were being performed, the responsibilities that went with those duties, assessing those against the award provisions and classification standards for any defining terms.

PN2642

Are there any outstanding challenges right at this point in time that you know of?---Not to my knowledge.

PN2643

The - are you aware of any places in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane as a geographic centre where there is no supervision provided to any TO3 or TO4?---No supervision? Not that I can think of.

PN2644

The standard of education or qualification for a TO3 and a TO4, as I understand it, is the same in those position descriptions or duty statements or, in fact, in selection criteria?---Yes, for technical officers, that's correct, yes.

PN2645

You alluded to the fact that you were a trainer, did you find - you mentioned both in cross-examination and in your - that in training you were involved in training people in different systems, is that the case?---Correct, yes.

PN2646

Did the fact that those who were training in these training sessions had a base qualification in electronics improve their ability to absorb the training material as it was developed?---It did and I'd say it was essential.

PN2647

We talked about position classification standards. You were asked about those. I don't believe that you were precise as to the source of those position classification standards. Do you know where they came from?---They came from - well, they were managed in my time by the Department of Finance but they were actually developed as a Commonwealth industry wide with the Industrial Relations Department. It was a Federal set of standards that applied across the public service so you were referring to a document provided by the Commonwealth Government of the day?---Yes, and I believe it was either the Department of Industry or Industrial Relations, whatever terminology they had for that Commonwealth body at that time.

PN2648

And would these position classification standards, to your knowledge, apply to technical officer positions in just their services or to other departments as well?---To many other departments.

PN2649

Were they applied in other departments, again to your knowledge, where there were awards in existence?---I believe so. I believe so.

PN2650

without stating the obvious, obviously there was an award that existed in Airservices.

PN2651

You were questioned extensively about the corporate impact of the work of individuals. You might just clarify for me and it's a difficult issues because it enters an issue of politics but you mentioned an awareness across the technical ranks of Airservices technical staff about the importance from a safety issue of their work. Do you believe that any loss of life anywhere in the system would be taken seriously across Airservices technical staff?---Of course.

PN2652

We talked about the VC - well, we talk about the voice switch of which there are two at Sydney Airport. Who, in fact, to your knowledge handles software configuration - who controls software configuration?---The engineering control - well, there would be a system engineer for that.

PN2653

So, the configuration of those software systems is - - -

PN2654

MR DWYER: I object to this leading.

PN2655

MR FREW: I'm just asking a question who controls - - -

PN2656

MR DWYER: - - - matters arising out of re-examination.

PN2657

MR FREW: - - - well, there was a great deal - excuse me, your Honour.

PN2658

HER HONOUR: Please - I don't understand your objection, Mr Dwyer. Why do you say it is leading, what part of it do you say is leading?

PN2659

MR DWYER: The part where it's suggesting that there are engineering sections, that there are other people involved in the control of this software in - at the voice control. The witness has - the witness has said - - -

PN2660

HER HONOUR: I'm not sure that is leading, Mr Dwyer. What it does is the question contains some assumptions that haven't been established. Is that what you mean, is it?

PN2661

MR DWYER: Yes, your Honour. I think that's it and particularly given the witness' last answer where he said "there should be". He didn't say there is. He said, "there should be the engineer".

PN2662

HER HONOUR: All right. I think, Mr Frew, you understand the objection. It is not an unreasonable one. Would you deal with it, please?

PN2663

MR FREW: What, may I rephrase?

PN2664

HER HONOUR: Yes, rephrase away.

PN2665

MR FREW: Who controls software configuration of voice switches?---Engineering.

PN2666

Thank you. Who controls the design elements of software configurations?---Engineering.

PN2667

If there is a need to download those systems, who controls the actual download of the system?---I'm not quite sure of your question.

PN2668

Who downloads those systems?---On site?

PN2669

Yes?---The technical staff - yes, sorry.

PN2670

But under whose supervision is the initiation of that download?---It would be initiated by the engineering authority.

PN2671

Thank you. One final reference, if I might redirect you to the attachment I over which there was considerable discussion; Attachment I(1) page 11 Work Level Descriptions. If I direct you to Definition A on 5, Work Level Descriptions, the statement made - you might like to confirm that is that:

PN2672

Technical officer work is performed within a variety of environments such as factory ...(reads)... technical knowledge of tasks and activities and functions.

PN2673

?---Correct.

PN2674

Do you believe that that is a guide - is that a guiding principle for your work in job classification?---Yes, it is.

PN2675

Would you also look at item 4 which talks about functions:

PN2676

A field of technical work which requires the bringing together of activities ...(reads)... different classes of equipment, documentation of procedures, scheduling, safety and training.

PN2677

Would you agree that that is a guiding principle in the classification of jobs?---Yes, it is.

PN2678

Thank you. Thank you, your Honour. Nothing further.

PN2679

HER HONOUR: Mr Ward, you're excused - one question, Mr Ward.

PN2680

Have you identified anywhere in your statement who those people were that you gathered your evidence from?---I haven't named them specifically in that submission.

PN2681

And who were they, generally?---Mr Bob Baker, Mr Noel Jones, Mr Hughes - they would be the predominant ones.

PN2682

All right, thank you. You're excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.43am]

PN2683

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew, who do you intend to now call?

PN2684

MR DWYER: Bob Baker, your Honour.

<BOB BAKER, SWORN [11.44am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FREW

PN2685

HER HONOUR: Mr Baker's statement is attachment what?

PN2686

MR DWYER: It's attachment L, I believe, your Honour. May I approach the witness, your Honour? I've just passed attachment L to the witness, your Honour.

PN2687

Is the statement highlighted attachment L in front of you your statement, Mr Baker?---Yes, it is.

PN2688

Thank you. In that statement in the first paragraph in the last line of the first paragraph, you say, "Manager senior specialist grade 1 shift leader" and, "Manager senior specialist grade 1 team leader". Could you - - -

PN2689

HER HONOUR: I'm sorry, Mr Frew, to interrupt you - what attachment is it, O?

PN2690

MR FREW: L.

PN2691

HER HONOUR: Yes?

PN2692

MR FREW: Could you please advise us when you were appointed to that position and approximately what year?---I'm sorry, which position is that?

PN2693

The senior specialist shift leader/team leader - when did you become a manager senior specialist grade 1?---In 1992.

PN2694

1992 and that would be approximately nine years ago - could you please briefly explain what you do in that position of MM/SS1 team leader?---As a team leader, Sydney Radio Maintenance at Sydney Airport, I'm involved in the efficient effective maintenance of the national airway systems of that airport.

PN2695

What particular tasks do you carry out on a day to day basis, just very briefly?---I interface between the staff who are responsible for maintaining the facilities and engineering services and various other organisations within Airservices and organisations external to Airservices.

PN2696

So, you, to use the word, "interface", you are the link between - - - ?---That is correct.

PN2697

- - - between the management of the airway system or maintenance manager of the airway system and the staff and also engineering services and other levels of management and other people to whom we provide a service, is that what you're saying?---That is correct, yes.

PN2698

What are some the jobs that you would do, just one or two examples, in doing that?---Task allocation as a general rule - the allocation of performance inspections through micro scheduling a MMS.

PN2699

So, it's the allocation of work?---That's correct, yes.

PN2700

To workers on site?---Yes.

PN2701

Thank you. What do you do with respect to rostering staff - you allocate tasks - what do you do with respect to rostering?---The current roster that we have - we have some rostering guidelines and my aim is to keep those guidelines intact and to ensure that on morning and afternoon shifts we have adequate staff of, at least, three and on night shifts we staff to a level of two operatives.

PN2702

So, it's your responsibility to decide who's on duty basically in the roster and to publish that?---In consultation often with the shift supervisor.

PN2703

Is there ever an occasion where you would not roster a shift supervisor?---I don't believe so, no.

PN2704

Do you ever have to make allowances in that roster for absences of TO3s or TO4s or shift supervisors?---Yes.

PN2705

How do you make that allowance if there is not enough at that level?---Staff are paid at a higher duties rate.

PN2706

So, you would select somebody to work higher duties?---I would select people in the event that I was aware that there may be an absence in the future - if there is an absence that occurred due to illness, then that selection may have to be done by the shift supervisor who was at the place at the time.

PN2707

And it wouldn't appear on the roster therefore?---It may not, no.

PN2708

Thank you. When you select somebody to take the place of a TO4 who may be unable to attend on duty, how do you decide which person will take that available slot on the roster?---It's pretty much a judgment call on who's available. Other considerations are costs if I have to take people from another shift to go to that - to move across but basically I make a decision on what I believe to be the skill set and the capacity of the person that I'm going to elect to give higher duties to.

PN2709

Have you at all been involved in the selection of officers to become TO4s?---Yes, I have.

PN2710

And what is that process?---That process takes a number of parts. There's the submission of an application by the applicant to support his/her stance to work at that level against the selection criteria that's published. There's referee supports and there's the formal interview where a committee of people will ask a variety of questions relevant to the job and addressing the selection criteria. Taking those various different inputs, the committee will make a decision based on the response of the applicants and the other inputs as to who will be most suitable to be promoted to that higher position.

PN2711

HER HONOUR: Mr Baker, given the description of the two jobs and the evidence of Mr Waters to responsibility being the chief distinguishing feature between a TO3 and a TO4, wouldn't responsibility be the only matter that would be addressed in relation to that?---Yes.

PN2712

Wouldn't that be the only criteria, it being the only difference?---That's - that hasn't been my experience, your Honour.

PN2713

All right.

PN2714

MR FREW: Just picking up on that, just a little, if I might, your Honour?

PN2715

HER HONOUR: Yes, please do.

PN2716

MR FREW: Do you feel that the selection panel has a responsibility to review the qualifications of the person as we talk in the framework of a TO3 to a TO4 over the qualifications as to whether they have, in fact, the most qualifications?---It hasn't been my experience that we've looked deeply at qualifications. More so, we've looked at people's skill sets.

PN2717

And is it the skill set technically or is it the amount of experience in application of that skill set?---I believe the decisions that we've made in the past have been based upon people's skill sets and they've demonstrated ability to apply themselves to the position.

PN2718

To the new - - - ?---To the higher grade.

PN2719

To the position for which they've applied?---Yes, yes.

PN2720

Is the decision made by one person on the selection panel - you talked about a committee or is it made by the committee as a whole?---It's made by the committee as a whole.

PN2721

Are there any mechanisms within Airservices that control the operation of those committees?---Yes, the Grievance Appeal Board.

PN2722

So, why would a committee be concerned about a grievance appeal board?---The Grievance Appeal - I'm sorry, can I have that question again?

PN2723

Why would a committee be concerned about a grievance appeal board - you've been a member of a committee, why would you be worried about a grievance appeal board?---Well, the - the object of the committee is to be as objective as possible in the selection of the person being promoted to the higher level. So, all documentation, questions and answers and suchforth that are associated with the process can be brought forward and submitted to the Grievance Appeal Board if one of the officers who hasn't been promoted feels that he should have been promoted. So, we would like to ensure that the process is transparent and objective.

PN2724

Thank you. Do TO4s, in your assessment as a supervisor or what we call a team leader - do TO4s have a distinct role in your view?---Yes, they do.

PN2725

And what would distinguish that role against other roles?---In my opinion the amount of responsibility that that officer has.

PN2726

In your statement, which is before you, under TO4 in item (1) you make a statement:

PN2727

TO4s are expected to supervise subordinate staff and external contractors as required -

PN2728

you've used the word, "expected", does it often happen that they have to supervise subordinate staff?---Yes.

PN2729

In what context would that happen?---In task allocation or in certain aspects where that - where the - sorry, where the TO4 may know - may have further information or

PN2730

they had a depth of knowledge than the TO3 or the person whose - - -

PN2731

There - in just the - about a course there would be other times doubtless when you would, because of technical competence, you wouldn't expect them to have to supervise?---That's correct.

PN2732

But it's not - not an all encompassing situation, it's an expectation but it's not necessarily always realised?---No, it's not - no, it's not cut and dried, no.

PN2733

In the same section under 6 - in item 6:

PN2734

The TO4 would have access to the supervisor for technical support in the event of a task becoming complex or difficult. I would envisage this to be a rare event. The TO4 may request technical support but should be capable of handling procedural issues without consultation at a higher level. I would expect the TO4 to be almost autonomous while dealing with the mass facilities. The TO4 would be required to accept a higher level of responsibility than the TO3.

PN2735

Does than often happen that they have to do that or is it more frequently, to your observation, a role that the MM1 assumes? Does he often have to - the TO4s can - you're saying here that TO4s are competent to take responsibility?---Yes.

PN2736

Do they often have to refer technical issues to your knowledge to the actual shift supervisor or can, because of their competence, can they proceed?---Not to my knowledge. I believe they can proceed in most instances without any assistance.

PN2737

Now, on the last - on page 22 in your statement, the last comment that you make there. You say:

PN2738

TO3s are sometimes off base by themselves. They sometimes travel together or accompanied by a TO4, sometimes, rarely, accompanies by a shift leader.

PN2739

Could you be perhaps a little bit more precise about that statement by indicating what might happen under the circumstances? Are you quite comfortable with the TO3 going off base by themselves?---Yes.

PN2740

On what occasions would they go off with the TO4?---Well, it may be that the TO4 - it may be that the task they're about to do requires two people. It may be that the TO4 or the TO3 requires site familiarisation and we have available staff for two people to be going.

PN2741

So some of it might be just pure muscle that's required - if I can use that term - for a task? I don't mean lifting and such but just the ability to be able to do something quickly, is that what you're saying, requires two people?---In a lot of events and in particular where this relating system is, yes.

PN2742

You say they're rarely accompanied by a shift leader. Why would they be rarely accompanied by a shift leader?---The shift leader's function currently is to be contactable at all times by the - from Melbourne TCI. The shift supervisors would go off site, again, for site familiarisation but would not really be called upon to do a great deal of fault repair or maintenance activities unless the staffing was such that there was nobody else that was available to go out and do that activity.

PN2743

And my final question is, do you ever sign forms for higher duties allowances?---Yes, I do.

PN2744

And if you get one where somebody has assumed additional responsibility would you approve it?---Yes, I would.

PN2745

Thank you very much.

PN2746

HER HONOUR: Mr Dwyer?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DWYER [12.01pm]

PN2747

MR DWYER: Yes, thank you, your Honour. You're a team leader of - I think the description is at Sydney Airport - an MMI, that's correct?---Yes.

PN2748

Are you not a not a shift leader?---That's correct.

PN2749

We note from your history you've got many skills in particular things like the voice switch?---I have a familiarisation with the voice switch.

PN2750

I think you were described yesterday as one of the experts on the voice switches?---That may have been taken at a bit of licence possibly.

PN2751

I'm not suggesting you've written any papers about the voice switch but certainly your technical knowledge is up amongst the best, isn't it?---I am aware of certain aspects of the voice switch because of my exposure to it but it may not be evident to other people.

PN2752

And you gained that while you were a shift leader?---I gained that knowledge whilst a shift leader but I was actually seconded to a project.

PN2753

Yes, but you had a bit of dual role, would you say?---Well, no. In point of fact I was taken off shift and I was seconded to the TAAATS projects to represent the organisation at AWI/Plessey in the event of the VSCS.

PN2754

You say you allocate tasks to shifts in your role and you would often give a task directly to TO3 staff, would you not?---Yes.

PN2755

And you'd agree that the - generally speaking the TO3 and the TO4 staff all have equal skills - - -?---I would - - -

PN2756

Currently at the Sydney Airport?---Yes, that's - yes, quite correct.

PN2757

You gave an example for Mr Frew that a TO4 might supervise a TO3 because the TO4 may have superior technical skills in a particular issue?---That could be the case.

PN2758

And the reverse could occur where the TO3 might have more skills than the TO4?---That could be the case but I would expect the TO4 would be the responsible person on the site.

PN2759

The Westminster principle still applies there, that is, there is a pecking order?---I guess there would be.

PN2760

If something - as they saw yesterday - if somebody stuffed up at the lower level the shift leader cops it whether he - it was his fault, or not. That would be right, would it?---I - well, yes, I assume that that is - yes, that is correct.

PN2761

Not because of any failure on the shift leader's part?---I believe that it's the role of the responsibility of the supervising officer.

PN2762

You heard some evidence earlier about the voice switch. Do you know if that - if there are any other systems in the world similar to Sydney?---Specifically the VSCMS?

PN2763

The VSCMS?---Yes, there are two others.

PN2764

Do you know where they are?---Yes, the Rotab system in Brunei - sorry, the Rotab system in Taiwan and the TCU system in Brunei, DSM 3000 - DSMS.

PN2765

And if we think in world terms there would be very few people in the world capable of maintaining that equipment would there not?---That would be a reasonable assumption.

PN2766

Even if you were sent to Brunei you may find it difficult to maintain that similar equipment?---I don't know what - to what extent the Brunei system would vary from the one in Sydney. I don't know.

PN2767

Thank you.

PN2768

HER HONOUR: Mr Waters?

PN2769

MR DWYER: I think that is it, your Honour. Yes, thank you very much. Your Honour, could I just indulge one more question?

PN2770

HER HONOUR: Yes.

PN2771

MR DWYER: When you sat on selection committees - there has been a number of down sizing at Sydney Airport?---Yes.

PN2772

And people were made redundant during the down sizing process?---Yes.

PN2773

And what happens to people who are redundant and want to stay with the organisation?---They can be - they can obtain a position at level, in another section.

PN2774

And as a selection committee, if say, a TO4 position was advertised and a person said: I'm a redundant TO4 - how would the selection committee deal with that?---The committee would take that on board and so long as the person was seen to be - could be trained in a reasonable period of time, that person would be selected without question.

PN2775

Automatically?---Virtually, automatically.

PN2776

Thank you. No further questions, your Honour.

PN2777

HER HONOUR: Mr Waters?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WATERS [12.07pm]

PN2778

MR WATERS: Mr Baker, I understand that you are promoted from a Technical Officer level 3 position, to the MMSS1 level. Is that correct?---That is correct.

PN2779

To your knowledge, were you competing with staff at the Technical Officer, level 4?---Yes, I was.

PN2780

So the selection panel obviously found that on merit, you met the selection criteria better than those people that you were competing against?---Yes that would be correct.

PN2781

Do you have a copy of the Airservices submission, in particular, attachment I, the job descriptions, in front of you? If you could turn to the Technical Officer level, position description. I can't make out on my copy, what page that is - not the work level descriptions, but the actual Sydney Airport radio maintenance TO4, position description?---I'm sorry, for what level?

PN2782

The TO4 level?---Is this - does that look like it?

PN2783

Yes?---Yes?

PN2784

Under "Specific Duties", the second dot point indicates that a TO4 when requested, will assist the shift leader in the resolution of any non schedule maintenance issues. That's fault investigation work, isn't it?---Yes.

PN2785

Could you turn now to the position description - it's a couple of pages on, I think, for the Technical Officer, level 3?---Is this the document? Yes?

PN2786

You will note in looking through the complete list of "Specific Duties" that there is no reference to: Technical Officer level 3 staff at Sydney Airport assisting in the resolution on any non schedule maintenance issues?---Can you just - is this the same document as you're - - -

PN2787

Yes, it is?---Yes.

PN2788

And the specific duties are listed in six dot points at the bottom of the position description - page 1 of the position description?---Yes, yes I've got that.

PN2789

And is there any reference in the Technical Officer, level 3, position description to TO3s assisting in the resolution on any non schedule maintenance issues?---No, there's not.

PN2790

Okay. If I could take you now to your statement. You indicate as the first point under the Technical Officer, level 3, that one of their roles is fault investigation?---Yes.

PN2791

But that's not covered by their job description?---That appears to be the case.

PN2792

Again, at point one under the Technical Officer, level 4, descriptions in your statement, you indicate at 1, that TO4s are expected to supervise subordinate staff and external contractors, as required. To you knowledge, do technical officer, level 3 staff, supervise external contractors?---Yes, they're called upon to do that.

PN2793

Do they sign them in?---Yes, they do.

PN2794

So they take the formal responsibility of signing on the dotted line form?---Yes, they do.

PN2795

Again, in terms of your statement, could you point me to where that is referred to as a duty for a TO3, or perhaps, I could phrase the question differently - that in the list of duties that you set out for a technical officer, level 3, that responsibility for external contractors and supervision of them, isn't addressed?---That's correct. Not specifically addressed.

PN2796

Is it fair to say that technical officer, level 3s and technical officer, level 4s in the Sydney Radio Maintenance, make the same level of input to technical policy, depending on their particular expertise, with a piece of equipment or system?---Yes that would be a reasonable statement.

PN2797

And that those recommendations have led to changes to the aeronautical engineering instructions?---Yes.

PN2798

Not all of them, obviously, but some of them?---No.

PN2799

Would it be a true statement to say that the TO3s and TO4s at Sydney Airport have all operated, at different times, as the contact point for particular systems by external groups, such as engineering?---The official contact point is myself.

PN2800

But in terms of the person they go to, to get the information that they're looking for?---Say - could you have that again, please?

PN2801

Is it true to say that engineering, contacts directly, Technical Officer, level 3 and Technical Officer, level 4 staff in Sydney Radio Maintenance, to gather technical information on technical issues?---The engineering point of contact for technical issues, is my position and they contact me directly.

PN2802

Are you aware though, of engineering staff speaking directly with Technical Officer, level 3 and Technical Officer, level 4 staff?---Yes, but that's not the protocol that's the normal situation. That would be a - a non normal situation - abnormal.

PN2803

But it does happen?---Yes.

PN2804

And it's an effective part of the process, in terms of getting the job done?---It can be effective, but I - I can't really comment on it because I - I'm not aware of those specific situations that you're relating to.

PN2805

When a technical issue is prominent enough for comment on the monthly report and I suspect that you all hope that technical issues aren't prominent enough to get commented on in a monthly report, either the technical officer, level 3, or the technical officer, level 4, who has been working specifically on the issue, or who has had prime coverage, would generally have input into the team leader's, or the manager's report. Is that a fair statement?---I use a number of sources to write the reports. Some are log, some are AMMS entries and some of them are from talking to the staff themselves - both level 3 and level 4, yes.

PN2806

And it's true to say in Sydney that the technical officer, level 3s, have more current experience on the TAAATS VSCS voice switch, and co-ordinate the operation in general?---That would be generally correct. There is, of course, a reason for that, but yes, that is correct.

PN2807

That has to do with the training they've had, doesn't it?---It has to do with the training, yes and that other people have come into the section without the relevant background yet.

PN2808

So, it's a sensible mode of operating to get the job done?---yes.

PN2809

I understand that at Sydney at the moment, there is no specified handover time between shifts, but it's a fair characterisation that where there is an issue, or a fault, or work that needs to be handed over from one shift to the next shift, that the staff themselves undertake a handover process?---That is correct.

PN2810

And that that handover is done by the relevant officer, be that a TO3 or a TO4, who is doing the work on that equipment?---That is correct.

PN2811

Now, at Sydney all of the TO3s and all of the TO4s need to be across all of the equipment systems that are under the responsibility of Radio?---It's not necessary for that to occur but it would be preferable.

PN2812

There is a policy at Sydney Radio Maintenance that each of the shift crews must be capable and responsible for the maintenance and fault correction of all the facilities?---As a team, yes.

PN2813

And that's one of the reasons why the aim is to have all of the technical officer level 3 and all the technical officer level 4 staff fully trained on all of the different systems?---It enables me to be in a position where people can go off shift, take leave, etcetera without causing undue strain on the other people that are there.

PN2814

I understand that it's an accepted practice to Sydney Radio Maintenance that staff amend the roster themselves when leave occurs on short notice and that you later confirm that decision?---That is correct.

PN2815

When you're assigning a task or a job, as in task in its general sense rather than in a specific sense in the work level descriptions, is the experience and capability of the staff the foremost issue in your mind?---It is one of a number of issues. The other issues are generally when the task is required to be completed. So, I look at the team that are going to be on that will be in a position to be able to complete their task. I also look at the shift levels to ensure that the team that are getting the task have got enough staff to be able to complete that task.

PN2816

But the issue of whether the staff member is a TO3 or TO4 isn't one of the issues at the forefront of your mind?---It's not in the forefront of my mind, no.

PN2817

In Melbourne, there are staff at TO3 level who aren't paid higher duties when they conduct flight checks, does that apply in Sydney - are TO3 staff who conduct flight checks paid higher duties at the TO4 level?---Not specifically because they're doing flight checks.

PN2818

But TO3 staff do perform flight checks?---Yes, they do.

PN2819

Do TO3s at Sydney Airport often take the responsibility for doing the - for returning instrument landing systems to service after performance inspection or after fault repair?---Yes, they do.

PN2820

In your view, for each of the four shifts and I would expect there to be some slight differences between shifts but for each of the four shifts the group of staff operate very much in a team manner and have an understanding of the professional capacity and capabilities and expertise of each of the other members of the team?---Yes.

PN2821

And focus far more on that as the guiding working pattern, if you like, rather than whether the person is a TO3 or TO4?---That is a reasonable assumption, yes.

PN2822

Thank you, your Honour.

PN2823

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FREW [12.23pm]

PN2824

MR FREW: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Baker, thank you.

PN2825

Would you classify fixing something that is broken as necessary maintenance?---Yes.

PN2826

Do you maintain an item so it will keep working?---That is correct.

PN2827

I would imagine you would also classify maintenance as something which you do to prevent a breakdown?---That is correct.

PN2828

Thank you. I wonder if you wouldn't mind turning to one of the documents that Mr Waters directed you to and that was the position description of a Technical Officer Level 3, do you have it?---I'm sorry, where?

PN2829

Position Description for Sydney Airport Group Technical Officer Level 3?---Yes.

PN2830

There is a primary job purpose mentioned there which says:

PN2831

To assist the Sydney Radio Maintenance team leader in managing the resources ...(reads)... and safety to the travelling public in an effective and efficient manner -

PN2832

is that what is says?---Yes, that's correct.

PN2833

Would you believe that fault rectification fell within that primary job purpose - is it fault rectification that ensures the safe guidance of aircraft?---Yes, it is.

PN2834

Thank you. Would you also in that same position description go down to the specific duties and there is a first bullet point which says:

PN2835

...will be responsible for the day to day maintenance and operation of all equipment in accordance with prescribed standards -

PN2836

is fault rectification part of the day to day maintenance work of Sydney Radio maintenance?---Yes, it is.

PN2837

Would you go to the second page of that same position description and go to the selection criteria and the first two bullet points are:

PN2838

...experience in the maintenance of major airways engineering facilities and associated equipment -

PN2839

and:

PN2840

A sound technical knowledge of the navigation/communication and associated facilities at Sydney Airport -

PN2841

you've located those two?---Yes.

PN2842

Do you believe that in order to perform those duties or, in other words, to satisfy that selection criteria - - -

PN2843

MR DWYER: I object.

PN2844

MR FREW: Sorry, rephrase?

PN2845

HER HONOUR: All right.

PN2846

MR FREW: Those two selection criteria I've drawn your attention to - in looking at those selection criteria, in order to have a sound technical knowledge of navigation/communication and associated facilities and to have had experience in maintenance of major airways engineering facilities would that require someone to be able to fix faults?---Yes.

PN2847

If you would go down further to the Key Relationship and Interactions and look at Internal and there it speaks of "internal relationships for a TO3". It talks about, "Central office engineering services and projects", does that encompass the person described in that TO3 dealing with engineering services personnel or projects personnel?---Yes, it does.

PN2848

In the next dot point, "External", it talks about direct and indirect relationships. Does that mean that a direct relationship for a TO3 may take place between a TO3 operative and personnel from Optus or Telstra?---Yes, it does.

PN2849

In Direct, it talks about a range of contacts indirectly including subcontractors for IMS and PAM and other outside service providers and regulatory bodies. From your statement to Mr Waters, it appears as though that indirect contact - - -

PN2850

MR DWYER: I object.

PN2851

HER HONOUR: Yes?

PN2852

MR DWYER: It's a number of objections that arise.

PN2853

HER HONOUR: I think your question contains a conclusion.

PN2854

MR FREW: Yes.

PN2855

Do TO3s have contact with those people mentioned, SACAL et al, directly and indirectly?---Yes, they do.

PN2856

And if you would go to the final page of that position description just for reconfirmation here - we have a listing of skills and competencies and it talks about maintenance of radio communications - Radio Communications and Associated Equipment to Published Standards - does that mean that a skill and competency expected of a TO3 is that they should be able to fix faults as part of that maintenance role?---That is correct.

PN2857

Thank you. One or two final points - Mr Waters and, I think, Mr Dwyer referred to your - particularly Mr Dwyer - to your expertise on the voice switch. Do you receive questions from TO3s and TO4s on the voice switch?---Yes, I do.

PN2858

Do you answer those questions?---To the best of my ability, yes, I do.

PN2859

Are they technical questions?---Yes, they are.

PN2860

Are they technical advice on the operation of the system?---Yes, it is.

PN2861

Thank you. You talked about training or becoming somewhat of an expert; Mr Dwyer certainly provided you with a number of plaudits for your expertise there. How did you gain that expertise - you said you were a member of a project - was most of your expertise gained by being a member of that project or undertaking any training?---Predominantly from being a member of the project.

PN2862

Did it build on your existing technical expertise - in other words, what you learned about the voice switch was based on your already available technical qualifications?---It was an extension of my knowledge base, yes.

PN2863

There was reference to TO4s, and Mr Dwyer asked you this question, who automatically moved to a position of TO4 within Sydney Radio Maintenance without competing on merit?---That's correct.

PN2864

Do you recall that question?---Yes, I do.

PN2865

What are the provisions under which that takes place - are you aware of those provisions?---My understanding is that it is a part of the memorandum of understanding that was arranged between, agreed between the staff associations and Airservices Australia. That, in the event that a person became potentially surplus or redundant at grade that they could move to another position or would not have to be judged suitable by the merit selection process.

PN2866

So, it is to your knowledge, it happened as a result of an agreement between unions and management?---That's my understanding.

PN2867

As a manager or a team leader in your training - have you had any training as a manager - have you attended any courses?---Yes, I have attended a course, yes.

PN2868

In that training that you have had, was there anything that had to do with the motivation of staff that work for you?---Yes, there was.

PN2869

Was there anything about delegation - - -

PN2870

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew, how does this arise out of cross-examination?

PN2871

MR FREW: It goes to a question that was asked about multi skilling.

PN2872

HER HONOUR: I don't remember a question about multi skilling. I remember an answer about it but not a question.

PN2873

MR FREW: There was a considerable amount - - -

PN2874

HER HONOUR: I will accept your word for it, Mr Frew. Please, proceed.

PN2875

MR FREW: Is it your belief as part of that training that it is beneficial for staff under your control to be given opportunities to learn and to develop?---Absolutely.

PN2876

Thank you very much.

PN2877

HER HONOUR: You are excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.34pm]

PN2878

HER HONOUR: Your next witness?

PN2879

MR FREW: Your Honour, one witness may take a little longer than others. Would you like the shorter one first?

PN2880

HER HONOUR: Well, who is going to be longest?

PN2881

MR FREW: Probably, Mr Todkill, I would imagine.

PN2882

HER HONOUR: All right and the shortest, Mr Hughes?

PN2883

MR FREW: Mr Hughes.

PN2884

HER HONOUR: All right, Mr Hughes and then we will have lunch.

<MARK HUGHES, SWORN [12.35pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FREW

PN2885

MR FREW: Thank you, Mr Hughes.

PN2886

Do you have a copy of your statement headed, Name Mark Hughes, Position Maintenance Services Manager Sydney Airport Airservices Australia?---I do.

PN2887

Do you have that in front of you at the moment?---I do.

PN2888

That is known as, within the documentation, attachment - - -

PN2889

HER HONOUR: R.

PN2890

MR FREW: - - - you have it, your Honour?

PN2891

HER HONOUR: Yes.

PN2892

MR FREW: I was doing that for your benefit.

PN2893

HER HONOUR: No, no. I have it.

PN2894

MR FREW: Attachment R within - K, is it?

PN2895

HER HONOUR: It looks like an R. Anyway, there is one page of it and I've got it in front of me.

PN2896

MR FREW: Attachment K.

PN2897

A number of questions about your background in the first paragraph, just very briefly - you talk about a career as a technical operative and "worked in technical and managerial roles". Could you, just within the space of no more than about sixty seconds, be more specific as to what studies you completed and where some of that experience in engineering and maintenance was gathered?---Certainly. I did a four year trade apprenticeship in the UK. After that four year period, you attained a trade certificate. That four year training covered - the first year was a basic mechanical/electrical services type skills with electronic and control. The next three years you covered more indepth your chosen field and mine was in electronic and instrumentation. The next two years I continued with my studies and attained an Associate Diploma. Four years after that I went to Manchester Poly Technic which was self funded and also in time in finance and did a four year degree in electronic studies. The company that I worked for ran an accelerated management training scheme. In parallel with that I was taken probably one month every year for a four year period away to - sort of HR finance and get a more rounded skill base than just technical.

PN2898

Thank you. Did you, during that period of time, experience any promotion in the work - I presume from your accent that wasn't here in Australia?---No, no, sorry - yes, we moved around. The training school was in Manchester. The TAFE was in Baildon and you moved to various locations within the power industry as I was training in at the time. I was promoted at 22 to what would be classed, I suppose, as a senior specialist here. That was mainly because I'd worked on a lot of new technologies because of my age and as Mr Baker did voice switch and specific skills in a very narrow area. I was promoted on two occasions, subsequently over the next four years before, sort of, leaving the UK and coming to Australia.

PN2899

Did where you lived have anything to do with your promotion and experience?---No. I moved - as I said, I worked, probably, in northern England and moved to two or three different geographic locations to attain promotion.

PN2900

When you came to Australia, did you immediately work for Airservices?---No, I did not. The first company I worked for was a small company that patented technologies, mainly from the CSIRO and my task was to work with the scientists for the company that I worked for, ..... Technologies and bring them to the market to see if they were buyable as a commercial business. The second company I worked for was Australian Defence Industries at which I was the South Australian services manager for 12 months before being promoted. I moved to Sydney. I became the national services manager for Australian Defence Industries.

PN2901

Was the Australian Defence Industries a private company?---At that time they'd been corporatised and they were going for privatisation and have subsequently been privatised.

PN2902

Who was the owner of ADI at the time?---At the time it was still classed as a government business enterprise if I remember correctly.

PN2903

So, the government was the owner?---Yes.

PN2904

Were there any positions in ADI that had or bore any similarity to positions that may be in Airservices such as technical positions - was it an engineering and technical organisation or was it not?---It was - it's an engineering based company as you're perhaps aware.

PN2905

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew, I had panel responsibility for ADI for quite some time. I'm very familiar with their function.

PN2906

MR FREW: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2907

The only question that I will then pursue in that particular area is were there any staff positions that you would consider similar to TO3 and TO4 - similar, not identical?---Yes, it's hard to draw exact parallels. ADI had bought other companies. They bought Stanilight, for instance. So, we did have a number of EBAs working within the workplace where you could suggest there were staff were doing very similar functions, technical type functions who were paid different rates and there was also staff who appeared to do similar functions but at different responsibility levels and that equated for the rates. So, they were going through - - -

PN2908

So, the distinguishing point, you say, there were different responsibility levels as you would expect?---- - - to some extent, yes.

PN2909

And was there a hierarchy, a promotional hierarchy?---Yes, there was.

PN2910

I wonder if you might now just go to a particular attachment - do you have the entire document in front of you?---I don't. I just have my submission.

PN2911

Your Honour, if you wouldn't mind I provide copy.

PN2912

I wonder if you wouldn't mind, Mr Hughes, turning to attachment C within that document - would you care please to identify what attachment C that you have in front of you is?---It appears to be a memo sent from Mr Dwyer to Mr Michael Burcher who was the maintenance services manager at Sydney Airport at the time referencing the upgrade of TO3 to TO4.

PN2913

Okay and would you also have a look at the next attachment which is a response, I believe, from Mr Burcher?---Yes, I confirm that.

PN2914

Would you identify please, if you wouldn't mind, going to that letter and identify for me the situation that takes place in - would you identify first the date of that letter?---Is it attachment D we're speaking of?

PN2915

Yes, attachment D?---Tuesday, 13 July.

PN2916

And would you identify again the last statement within the entire letter - the last paragraph, would you care to read that?---The one that starts, "Naturally, I would"?

PN2917

Yes?---The statement is:

PN2918

Naturally I would be happy to again discuss this issue with you or to have the matter raised for resolution through our local consultative committee.

PN2919

Thank you. I wonder if you might also please go to a subsequent attachment which in mine is a bit difficult to read as well, your Honour, I'm sorry - if you would go over several pages past a service of summons, past a notice of defendant and you'll arrive at the next attachment which appears to be attachment L - it may not be?---Which attachment, sorry?

PN2920

Attachment L page 1 of 2. It's past the summons - notice of respondent - defender?---Did you say attachment L?

PN2921

It looks like L - it may not. It's just immediately prior to attachment G. So, that will make it attachment F, sorry - attachment F?---And that is a letter from myself to Mr Dwyer, your Honour.

PN2922

Yes. Now, there are two pages of that - would you identify on the second page the date of that letter?---The letter is from Mr - from Mr Dwyer, no - from myself to Mr Dwyer.

PN2923

Would you care to read for me your words in the second last paragraph just to confirm that?---"A reason he reconsiders he is working as at TO4" and other examples setting out the circumstances.

PN2924

If possible, can you provide that - providing the following four hour meeting?---Mm.

PN2925

And then what do you say after that?---"I look forward to our meeting and hope we can resolve this issue".

PN2926

And would you also identify the date of the next letter?---Is this the first one of two we're talking of?

PN2927

Yes?---14 April 2000.

PN2928

Could you please also indicate what the second paragraph of that letter says?---"I again request a meeting and suggest due to the Easter break the first or second week in May. This will leave us little time to investigate the information requested".

PN2929

And the last paragraph?---"I look forward to our meeting and hope we can resolve this issue".

PN2930

Can you tell me please whether that meeting ever took place?---I don't believe it did - not to directly discuss those issues.

PN2931

What was the next item that you - the next communication that you had in terms of anything that had to do with that subject?

PN2932

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew, I believe these matters that are before me to be resolved but I don't understand the method by which they came to me; that is communications that took place that failed to resolve the matter are relevant. Why am I going - I mean I have read the material in the folder. I see there was a number of letters and memos between the parties as to this issue. There is some dispute as to who was chasing who and whose delay was responsible for what but now that is before me and I have to resolve it, why do I care?

PN2933

MR FREW: I simply wish to establish, your Honour, that there were indeed genuine endeavours made to resolve the matter at a local level and that they did not take it.

PN2934

HER HONOUR: Fault is not a matter that I get to take into account in resolving this. It's a no fault process this one. I don't think it assists me, Mr Frew.

PN2935

MR FREW: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2936

Can we now move to the fourth paragraph of your statement again and there is a sentence in that paragraph:

PN2937

The radar staff are all TO4s, one per shift and are supervised by a day radar team leader.

PN2938

?---Yes.

PN2939

Could you just for our benefit indicate the responsibility that is assumed by that TO4 on a 24 hour shift basis - is he there by himself in that radar speciality or is there someone always there that he reports to on that shift?---Within the overall shift team, the TO4 radar is basically - is self supervising due to the fact that it's - with the exception of one or two shifts, he is the only radar trained operative on that shift. Although, I would acknowledge there is probably peer group support but not technical support available on his shift.

PN2940

So, does he accept responsibility?---He is responsible.

PN2941

For that shift?---He is responsible for the radar functions on that shift.

PN2942

To whom does he actually report for supervision and management?---To the day radar team leader.

PN2943

To day radar shift person. Would you hold - as previously the manager there, would you hold that TO4 as responsible for what happened during his shift?---Within the context of his duties as a radar operative, I would, yes.

PN2944

Do you expect him to exercise a degree of independence during that shift?---Yes.

PN2945

And if he needed problem resolution, who would you think that he might seek assistance from during that shift?---Practically on that shift there is the MM1 and if he had that level of problem, I would expect his first port of call to be the MM1 on that shift.

PN2946

If there was a more technical problem than that, to whom would he refer his problem?---He would need to refer that to his day team leader or perhaps to the engineering specialist.

PN2947

There have been several statements made during these proceedings about what it is that governs the work of technical people both TO3s and TO4s - in doing their work, we've talked about competency and we've also talked airways engineering instructions. Your Honour, I have a number of airways engineering instructions here, some of which have already been submitted into evidence. My main point is purely to establish that these instructions exist and I'm happy to table a selection of them.

PN2948

HER HONOUR: I am sure that that is a point that can be conceded - Mr Dwyer, Mr Waters, do you concede that they exist?

PN2949

MR DWYER: Yes, your Honour.

PN2950

MR WATERS: We concede they exist. I hope there is no forensic investigation going into it because I just don't know what it adds at this stage.

PN2951

MR FREW: I have no desire to go into a forensic investigation - purely just to re-emphasise the fact and if it's accepted that they are - - -

PN2952

HER HONOUR: It would be about as useful to you as it would be to me.

PN2953

MR WATERS: Yes. They're directed at both TO3 and TO4. It's not that there is one written for the TO3 or the TO4.

PN2954

HER HONOUR: Well, you can make that submission.

PN2955

MR WATERS: All right.

PN2956

HER HONOUR: But we will make the concession.

PN2957

MR WATERS: Well, I will make the concession to save some time.

PN2958

HER HONOUR: Excellent.

PN2959

MR FREW: So, I won't table those, your Honour. Again, your Honour, I make a concession for the time. Previously, it's already been established from witness evidence from Mr Dwyer's witnesses that full rectification times sometimes span from immediate rectification through to 90 days.

PN2960

HER HONOUR: Yes.

PN2961

MR FREW: I'm happy to submit hard evidence to that fact but if my colleagues accept that, I would short circuit it by not submitting it.

PN2962

HER HONOUR: Is that the evidence to date, Mr Dwyer?

PN2963

MR WATERS: Yes, I think there was one mentioned yesterday - it's been five years it's been - in the voice switch in the tower the witness - we concede that, yes.

PN2964

HER HONOUR: But generally I think the evidence - - -

PN2965

MR DWYER: We concede that there are varying times.

PN2966

MR WATERS: Some take longer than others.

PN2967

MR DWYER: Yes, yes.

PN2968

HER HONOUR: Except for possible exceptions to establish the rule, it can be up to 90 days?

PN2969

MR DWYER: Yes.

PN2970

MR FREW: Yes, thank you. Your Honour, that's all the questions I have of Mr Hughes.

PN2971

HER HONOUR: Mr Dwyer?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DWYER [12.54pm]

PN2972

MR DWYER: I won't converse the exchange of letters.

PN2973

HER HONOUR: Good.

PN2974

MR DWYER: As you would expect I would probably want to say some things but I will - - -

PN2975

HER HONOUR: Restrain yourself.

PN2976

MR DWYER: - - - you have restrained me. Only one question, Mr Hughes - one topic, really.

PN2977

There was recently a lightning strike at Sydney Airport which took out one of the instrument landing systems?---That's right, yes.

PN2978

And radar staff were given a message - let's say, you're in a new - you've left this area now and work for someone else, that's correct?---I work for the people that that lightning strike affects.

PN2979

You work for Air Traffic Control section and when the lightning took that out, the radio staff were given a message to get it fixed ASAP - that it was costing Airservices $1 million a day, is that a bit too much or have they got the message wrong?---I can't - unless you can tell me who that message came from I couldn't confirm.

PN2980

I'm saying the message has been attributed to you - the fact that the instrument landing system, one of the six was out of service was costing Airservices significant moneys per day?---I had a conversation with one of my peers who works for maintenance services and gave him that message. That message was not intended to be given to the technical staff to apply any pressure to them if that's what you're implying.

PN2981

Well, notwithstanding I think the importance of fixing that nav aid was stressed and the figure of $1 million a day was given to the staff?---I can't confirm from the industry what impacts it had upon them.

PN2982

But it's quite significant?---I would imagine so.

PN2983

It would be a major corporate impact, wouldn't it?---Not necessarily. As you're probably aware, the relationships we have with our major customers - it's a fact of life that we do get main facility failures. So, from a corporate view point it's a matter of informing the industry how long we perceive the impact is going to last upon them and keeping them well informed. It is undesirable but - the first 10 minutes, as you'd be aware - when planes are on final approach, there may - the first 10 minutes is the most important critical factor for us. After that operation, we can deal with it and then, as I think Mr Baker alluded to earlier, he said, "then a business decision as to how best we can the situation resolved".

PN2984

But what you did stress - the message you are giving to the staff or has been given to the staff is that the cost to industry of having that one - one of those six instrument landing systems out can be considerable?---Not just that particular nav aid. If you lose any number of nav aids, they have varying impacts.

PN2985

But even that one nav aid - but one of those six instrument landing systems can have an impact this big?---I think the point you're making I didn't make - I didn't make that known to the staff.

PN2986

I understand that?---I made it to a manager at my same level.

PN2987

But you made the - I won't proceed. Thank you.

PN2988

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Waters?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WATERS [12.57pm]

PN2989

MR WATERS: Mr Hughes, you were the manager before you moved to Sydney in South Australia. On the day shift in South Australia at Adelaide, how many TO4s would you have on duty at any one time on day shift?---I couldn't recall.

PN2990

You wouldn't like to give us - you don't recall how many staff you had working for you in South Australia?---I'd like to guess but I don't know what your next question is obviously.

PN2991

What I'm aiming to do here is a comparison between the number of TO4s who are on duty at one time at Adelaide Airport?---It's changed over the last few years. There were approximately 50 TOs I recall in that letter. I think that's down now to about 34. I couldn't tell you what the levels were, generally it's a 50/50 mix. If you said, roughly, between 15 and 20 TOs I would imagine that would be pretty close.

PN2992

So, you know, it'd be fair to say that there would roughly be 10 to 12 TO4s on the day shift in Adelaide Airport on a day?---If we agreed that's approximate.

PN2993

It is approximate?---Yes.

PN2994

And you would agree that Adelaide Airport is a smaller site with less systems that Sydney Airport?---Yes, I would.

PN2995

At Sydney Airport at any one time under the current arrangements there are three TO4s on, excluding the services area - three TO4s in radar and radio on at any one time maximum; one in radar - - -?---Yes.

PN2996

Two in radio?---Two - that's the shift levels, yes.

PN2997

So that allows at Adelaide for some greater specialisation among the TO4 staff - - -?---Well, as you're aware - - -

PN2998

- - - particular equipment systems?---Adelaide doesn't just look after Adelaide, it looks over to Western Australia to the Nullarbor, down to Victoria, into New South Wales. Although staff may not be available on that site, they look after a lot of the continent, not just Adelaide, so a direct comparison isn't available.

PN2999

The question was about specialisation. Is there greater specialisation in systems at Adelaide Airport?---I couldn't answer that question to be honest, sir.

PN3000

You can't answer that question because you don't recall whether the TO staff were more specialised on Adelaide or - - -?---I'm not across the individual technical abilities of individual staff to say whether they are or aren't specialists in certain areas.

PN3001

The manufacturer of - there's a rasp radar system in Adelaide, isn't there?---There is a primary and secondary radar system in Adelaide.

PN3002

The manufacturer of the rasp radar system has specified that it's to be worked on by technical officer level 4 staff?---I'm not aware of that.

PN3003

Given that the manufacturer of the rasp radio system has specified that it's to be worked on by a technical officer level 4 staff, would the reason for that be the greater level of technical competence of technical officer level 4 staff as opposed to technical officer level 3 staff?---Not - you know, why the manufacturer specified that I couldn't answer.

PN3004

I have got no further questions.

PN3005

HER HONOUR: Any re-examination?

PN3006

MR FREW: Very briefly, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FREW [1.01pm]

PN3007

MR FREW: You were asked a question about Adelaide, Mr Hughes. When you were in Adelaide what was the reporting structure to you as the manager for Adelaide; was your direct report an MM1 or was it a more senior?---It did change over the two years, the structure as it currently is. There would be two MM1s reporting through to the maintenance manager.

PN3008

That is what it is today?---That's what it is today.

PN3009

What was it when you were there?---Three years ago there was, as at more sites, an MM2 in between the MM1s and the maintenance services manager.

PN3010

What was his title?---He was - he was a radio trained manager.

PN3011

And Mr Waters has asked you some difficult questions. Would you expect that radio manager to have been able to answer those questions?---I'm sure, because of the way we've changed the business, that the radio manager was generally of 30, 35 years experience in radio whereas then he would be a cross at a level down - across those issues.

PN3012

The point that it went to was the number of TO4s and number of TO3s and the split of technical officers. You raised the question of the board area in which the work was done. You mentioned Victoria, New South Wales and so on. Did that area also include Alice Springs?---It does include Alice Springs. At Alice Springs we have a unit. That comes under the wing of Adelaide, based in Alice Springs.

PN3013

There are both TO4s there and TO3s?---Yes, there are.

PN3014

In those locations?---Yes.

PN3015

A question which arises both in the Adelaide consideration and I guess in Sydney for the period that you were manager there - just remind us, how long were you manager in Adelaide?---Two years.

PN3016

And manager in Sydney?---Roughly 12 months.

PN3017

So your 12 months in Sydney encompasses the period up to this hearing and beyond?---Up until December.

PN3018

Until December of this year?---2000.

PN3019

One final question. Both in Adelaide and in Sydney, if you were to process an application for an HDA, higher duties allowance - - -

PN3020

MR DWYER: This doesn't arise - I object to this.

PN3021

HER HONOUR: Well, it's his last question, Mr Dwyer. Don't you want to eat lunch?

PN3022

MR FREW: Has your behaviour in approving HDAs, when you were called upon to approve them or to authorise a subordinate officer to approve them, has it changed in the last three to four years, which is the period in which you have both managed Adelaide and Sydney?---No.

PN3023

Thank you.

PN3024

HER HONOUR: Well, we will make this arrangement: my associate will give you my Chambers number. When you are ready to resume you can call me and I will sit again, that way you can accommodate your luncheon arrangements and we will sit as early as possible because the earlier we sit the earlier we finish. I'll be in my Chambers.

PN3025

MR DWYER: Would you expect us to go straight to submissions?

PN3026

HER HONOUR: Yes.

PN3027

MR DWYER: I have no problem with that. I just wanted to know, the arrangement.

PN3028

HER HONOUR: Straight to submissions after the next witness.

PN3029

MR DWYER: Your Honour, I am sorry to interrupt again but yesterday you said you would provide us with time to complete our submissions.

PN3030

HER HONOUR: Yes, if you want it, yes. It's my preference that we go straight to submissions but if you want some space, you can have the space.

PN3031

MR DWYER: I would think that that would be useful.

PN3032

HER HONOUR: The amount of space you get is, of course, always space we have to add onto the end of the day but that's a matter for you.

PN3033

MR DWYER: Thank you.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.06pm]

RESUMED [2.31pm]

PN3034

HER HONOUR: Mr Todkill?

<WILLIAM VICTOR TODKILL , sworn [2.32pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FREW

PN3035

MR FREW: Mr Todkill, do you have in front of you your statement which is found at attachment J of the Airservices submission?---Yes, I do.

PN3036

And you are the Bill Todkill mentioned there who is presently maintenance services manager Combined Northern and Southern Airports group?---I am.

PN3037

Just a number of questions that I want to draw your attention to. In the third paragraph there you indicate you have been employed by Airservices for a very long time. Could you confirm that that is 35 years?---It will be 35 years in December this year.

PN3038

If we go to your statement where you talk about work level and your statements there, based on those statements there, are they related to your experience of Sydney alone or are they related to the work of technical officers level 3 generally?---Well, they originally relate to Sydney but they do relate to the area I presently govern.

PN3039

Based on that statement there, is it your assessment that the majority of technical work performed at Kingsford Smith Airport by - - -

PN3040

MR DWYER: I object. The question is: Is it your assessment that the - etcetera, etcetera. I think it should be properly put as it is a contentious - it could be a contentious issue.

PN3041

HER HONOUR: What is your assessment?

PN3042

MR FREW: What is your assessment of the work conducted at Kingsford Smith during your - the work performed by technical officers; what level do you consider the work performed by technical officers at Kingsford Smith Airport to be at?---From a technical point of view, tech officer level 3 is appropriate.

PN3043

If you would go to technical officer level 4 and the description of technical officer level 4, during your eight years of managing that work is it your - at what level do you assess - sorry, how much work is done at that level 4, technical officer level 4, at Sydney Airport?---Well, there's a percentage of technical officer work 4 carried out there and it's mainly due - mainly in accepting the responsibility for getting work done by a number of people on a task.

PN3044

Have you been involved in selection panels for TO4s?---From what I can recall I've probably had two or three instances of selection committees.

PN3045

In your involvement in selection committees, what are the factors that are considered in selecting TO4s?---Well, the directions that - that I give to staff applying for a job would be I base it on three to four aspects; one is their write up, bringing forth their documentation as to why they feel they should be promoted to level 4, one would be their history of work as either a member of the committee or I knew, the other part would be referees' reports bringing in some evidence that would support their claim, performance at interview is also a part of it, able to accept - or how they react to certain questions as we go through the selection process.

PN3046

Is there any guidance given in any form of documentation to members of selection panels as to how they should conduct themselves on a selection panel?---I'm probably not aware of those but I give directions to my committees that they have to look at everything in isolation and try to get together a full picture.

PN3047

Is there any compelling reason why a selection committee has to be very careful in its selection process?---Justice has to be seen to be done as well as being done and there are processes for grievance appeal for staff if they feel that they haven't achieved their promotion for some reason because the process wasn't followed, then they're entitled to either seek resolution with the selection committee chairman or take it further into a grievance appeal situation.

PN3048

So, in your experience could a selection panel be criticised for its selection processes?---In the experiences I've had we've had a couple of grievance appeals on process and neither of those have got up.

PN3049

When you say "got up", there have been a number of grievances appeals?---Well, they weren't successful in the grievance. They weren't successful in overturning the decision of the selection committee.

PN3050

So the decision of the selection committee - - -?---Stood.

PN3051

- - - was upheld?---Yes.

PN3052

During your time as maintenance services manager in Sydney, did you do anything to improve the managerial or supervisory capacities of your TO4 level staff?---Well, as you - like any organisation is always looking - they're always looking to develop new staff or staff for succession planning and at one stage, when I was at Mascot, Barton College ran a course to help people in supervision and management role.

PN3053

Did you place any of your people on that course?---There were, I think, three to four TO4s and one TO3 recommended to go on that course.

PN3054

The TO4s were TO4s, the TO3 that sought to go on that course, was it through your own action or were there other circumstances in which you put forward a TO3 to attend this supervisory management course?---The TO4s, some of them had only just got to that level and we felt we could develop their skills in their management role or responsibility for looking after staff. TO3s, there were some TO3s that showed promise and it was thought that it would be a good thing for that person to - you know, for a TO3 to go down there to see how that developed.

PN3055

You have mentioned the word Barton, I presume that's Barton TAFE?---Yes, an external organisation.

PN3056

And the first line of management - first line of supervision course?---Yes.

PN3057

If you go to the second page of your statement, it commences with:

PN3058

I was an operative in the following maintenance areas at charts or history as a technical officer.

PN3059

Then it talks about RTO1s and RTO2s. There's a whole range of information that you have supplied there and I don't plan to go from that but in your rehearsal there of your experience at those various levels you were able to get a good view of what was required of you over the years of a technical officer?---It was certainly expected in those roles - as RTO1s and RTO2 - by my supervisor. It was made very clear that it was all part of your role, to meet their expectation.

PN3060

Do you use that experience in your appraisal of the abilities of technical officers?---It's probably not totally as important to me now as it was when I was a tech manager at Mascot because I'm, sort of, up - I've got technical managers doing that role for me now but, yes, the experience that I gained at all those - those out stations certainly helped me understand what TOs, in the varying levels that I had under me, were going through and how they needed to be developed.

PN3061

If we go to the Sydney Shift Arrangements paragraph there on that same page, you refer to the establishment of a variety of shifts which provide 24 hour coverage. Can you give me some indication as to who, during your time there - you refer to '89 which is when you began the process of managing Sydney's Technical Maintenance Base. Can you give the Commission some idea as to how the shifts were constructed; was it by - well, just how were they constructed? How did you arrive at the shift mix that existed there?---Well, the - the history at that time was that we were - we were trying to get a structural efficiency so we were putting together two groups - a Nav Aid and Communication Group - at Mascot which were two entities and there was a need to put the shifts together and we did that with consultation with the union, albeit under industrial action at that time. There was a threat of a strike and the three - or the two - unions and myself sat down and the staff constructed a shift that we called the interim shift that actually put the Nav and the Com groups together.

PN3062

Was the manning of the shift by classification - and I'm aware that it was under the, you mentioned, Structural Efficiency Principle which converted the old RTO and senior RTO classifications but was the actual structure of the shift the subject of those discussions and consultations with the union as to how many RTOs, how many RTO1s, RTO2s, SRTOs, were to be on shift?---We were trying to achieve a cross training of the Nav people in communications equipment and the communications in navigation aids so we put them together basically as they were at their grades at that time.

PN3063

Did it end up with a hierarchical structure or what you might consider to be, in today's terms, a collection of TO1s, TO2s, TO3s, TO4s?---At that time in the early period there were two SRTO1s, either two or three RTO2s and the other - the remainder people, about four shifts, six people, were RTO1s so there was a hierarchy.

PN3064

And that was agreed with the two unions involved?---That was signed off by the unions.

PN3065

Did it - was it a matter that was registered with the Commission or was it an agreement before the matter came before the Commission?---I'm not quite sure where that got to but I - it's my belief that the regional director, or whatever Peter Evans was called at that time, signed off with the unions.

PN3066

So the structure was an agreed issue. If you wouldn't mind looking over a number of pages in your statement to a document called "A local procedure" and it talks about a call-out procedure and it talks about nominal staffing levels for each shift and that document is a somewhat four page document which is - you've signed at the end of it. Do you recall whether this particular document was raised at all during their time there at a local consultative committee level? Was it ever challenged by the unions as a document in the workplace?---Well, it's my belief that it was an agreed procedure. Even though this one was signed in 1997 there were earlier versions of that because as we move forward from '89 there were various structures that were happening at that time and - so this was the final forwarded. It was signed in March '97 but we didn't, say, have official local consultative council meetings but it was agreed with by the staff at that time. They would've helped in the construction of it.

PN3067

So it's not been raised to your knowledge?---Well, not while I was there.

PN3068

At the end of the document before your signature in the very last paragraph it speaks about:

PN3069

Staff are not expected to work on equipment for which they are not certified.

PN3070

Then it has:

PN3071

(Tech cert) although there are emergency provisions contained within DHO103 to cover off incidents where certified staff are not available.

PN3072

There has been quite a lot of discussion of tech cert during these hearings and some evidence produced on that. Can you just, from a management perspective, just describe for us very briefly what you see tech cert being?---Well, tech cert in itself means that the staff are certified to work on pieces of equipment have been assessed as being competent and I guess that is all part of assuring our management team and the staff themselves that they are competent to work on it. And the process for tech certification is that a staff member may wish to be certified on say, a DOPLA VOR and if they feel they've had the training, they feel they're competent to work on it, they can ask for an assessment and that assessment is carried out by a workplace assessor who we've trained over the last few years. Tech cert has been around for quite some time now.

PN3073

So the - your understanding is that there is a training program for assessors that are required to complete this process of tech cert or techs application?---Yes, the tech cert assessors actually go away and do - my belief is a national accredited trainer course and it would give them the ability to assess in other industries if they had to - if they wanted to.

PN3074

So that skill could be carried to another organisation?---Yes, the assessor doesn't have to necessarily be an expert on that piece of equipment. All they have to be - to do is to make sure the documentation being presented to them satisfies their criteria for competency.

PN3075

So it's a separate skill from the actual competency - - -?---Competency on the equipment?

PN3076

Of the technical competency? It's a skill in assessment as opposed to a technical skill?---They're quite freely available at TAFE - most TAFE colleagues anyway. They're probably level 3 or level 4 trainers.

PN3077

Do you know whether the process of technical certification was discussed with the unions before it was introduced?---There were quite extensive discussions with the union at - I mean, that's back to the days when David Jarrett first was asked to run that program.

PN3078

Do you know whether there was anybody who - in setting up the arrangement - from the unions involved at all in the development of the system?---I don't know.

PN3079

The other item that I would just like you to go to from the document that is in front of you is attachment M if you wouldn't mind. The attachment M is 9, "Higher Duties" and is an extract from the staff policy manual. I'd just like to - I mean, is that a document - the staff policy manual, is it a document that has been available to you during the - your years as the technical manager at Sydney?---Yes.

PN3080

Can I just ask you to cast your eye down to item C:

PN3081

When deciding whether or not a group fo duties should be performed by an employee the authorised officer must be satisfied that" -

PN3082

Who would you understand to be an authorised officer who has to look at the situation associated with higher duties?---The instances that - if we're talking about the period between '89 and '97 when I was as Mascot it was me.

PN3083

Is it your belief that it is the role of the authorised officer to approve higher duties?---I approved higher duties at that time.

PN3084

That is all, your Honour.

PN3085

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Dwyer?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DWYER [2.53pm]

PN3086

MR DWYER: Mr Todkill, in relation to the last question on higher duties, are you aware of an investigation that took place in 1997 by a Sue Kelly from Human Resources?---To do with?

PN3087

Sue Kelly?---To do with what?

PN3088

To do with higher duties at Sydney Airport?---I don't recall.

PN3089

Do you recall Ms Sue Kelly in 1997 interviewing you in relation to payment of higher duties at Sydney Airport?---No. You've got the document. I don't recall.

PN3090

No, but I'm asking if you recall?---No, I don't.

PN3091

And do you recall - would you recall stating about that time that TO4 positions are filled if a vacancy exists for more than five days?---Well, I don't recall the interview with Sue Kelly, I'm sorry. A lot of water has passed under the bridge by then but I do know of five day higher duties.

PN3092

So there was a rule of five days higher duties?---There was a direction from the general manager at that time that we should very seriously consider putting people into positions for less than five days if it wasn't appropriate.

PN3093

Can you just repeat that slowly? There was a direction from a senior manager - - -?---Yes, the general manager.

PN3094

The general manager?---Of FMD at that time.

PN3095

And the direction was what?---That we should carefully consider the - putting people on higher duties for periods of less than five days.

PN3096

That you should carefully considered it?

PN3097

HER HONOUR: Carefully consider doing it, or not doing it?---Consider whether it was worthwhile doing. Whether it was appropriate to do, might be a better way of putting it.

PN3098

Would you mind speaking up just a bit, Mr Todkill?---I'm sorry.

PN3099

MR DWYER: Now, you've sat in and hear the evidence and it hasn't been contested at any stage that all the staff believed there was five - there was rule there where they would not be paid higher duties unless they exceeded five days. Are you aware of that evidence you've heard?---Yes.

PN3100

Do you say that's wrong?---I'm not saying it's wrong. Why would I say that?

PN3101

There's just the - you have no problem with that evidence that's given by the various TO4s and MM1s?---All I did was implement a direction by the general manager to consider five - higher duties for less than five days, whether it was appropriate or not.

PN3102

No further questions.

PN3103

HER HONOUR: Mr Waters?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WATERS [2.57pm]

PN3104

MR WATERS: Mr Todkill, the manufacturers of the RASP radar specify TO4 practitioners to work on their equipment, is that correct?---That wasn't in my area at the time. I was the Technical Manager of Sydney Radio Maintenance, which was Navencom, that - the radar was looked after by Graham Hall.

PN3105

Sorry, the question is, is it correct?---I don't know.

PN3106

Thank you?---I was not involved.

PN3107

On the first page of your statement under work level, there is a description there. If you could just read out the heading following the Technical Officer Level 4 - what's in the brackets following that?---It quotes the old Senior Office Grade C.

PN3108

Could I take you to table B of the Airservices exhibit 1 - it's the last two pages of the exhibit?---What's the heading of it? Has it got an attachment?

PN3109

It's a classification table?---I don't know whether I've got that here.

PN3110

It should be the last two pages, I think?---Well, I don't know. The last two pages here is attachment M.

PN3111

Okay?---I don't think I've got it.

PN3112

MR WATERS: May I approach the witness?

PN3113

HER HONOUR: You may.

PN3114

MR WATERS: You will see that table B sets out the current classification structure for technical officers - if we ignore the bits on the two pieces of paper that have had a line put through them?---Yes.

PN3115

What's the level that is above - the first level above the technical officer level 4, level?---Senior Officer Tech - senior officer technical grade C.

PN3116

So, in fact, a senior officer grade C is a level above a technical officer grade 4?---Sorry, I may have meant S - senior radio technical officer grade 1, then - I'm not sure.

PN3117

So, a senior officer grade C is above a technical officer grade 4?---I'm not so - I'd have to go right back through where we were at ROR and SEP to know the exact transfer.

PN3118

Senior officer grade C is a current classification?---Okay, well, I'll accept that. Where does MM1 fit it?

PN3119

I think I'm doing the questioning.

PN3120

HER HONOUR: Well, you had better not answer it, Mr Waters.

PN3121

MR WATERS: Sorry?

PN3122

HER HONOUR: Don't answer it. Mr Todkill, you will have to speak up. I can hardly hear you.

PN3123

THE WITNESS: Okay.

PN3124

MR WATERS: Mr Todkill, Mr Frew asked you a number of questions about being on selection committees. The fundamental process about being on a selection committee is making a decision on the basis of merit, isn't it?---Yes.

PN3125

In terms of a MMSS1, in a technical maintenance role, what are the key attributes you would be looking for?---For an MMSS1?

PN3126

Yes?---You're talking about a - a sort of a senior specialist, or were you talking about a tech manager?

PN3127

I'm talking about a shift supervisor - Sydney shift supervisor?---I think it - well, I did select the - okay, the - an MM1, Sydney shift supervisor, should have technical capabilities and should be able to accept the responsibility for running a shift, which means resource allocation, cost efficiencies, all those sorts of things. Operating a system in a safe manner.

PN3128

How would you test measure the amount against that - for that responsibility?---I mean, there is a selection criteria that we use and there is some - without seeing what the latest one is, you would have to look at what their primary responsibilities are and what their selection criteria are. So, if you'd present - you know, if you want me to read a present one, I could make some assessment.

PN3129

In terms of the selection exercises that you have made for shift supervisors in Sydney, what's your recollection?---Well, certainly being able to be a technical operative, which is one of the selection criterias of that time, having the ability to - to manage staff, or supervise staff and that - - -

PN3130

Would you expect them to be able to demonstrate that?---Yes, when this - I mean - to demonstrate that at that time, if you want to talk about the time I made some selections for shift supervisors, my role was a technical manager and as such, I was a lot closer to the work face, than being a maintenance services manager. So, I was involved sometimes as an operative, myself, or assisting with people doing operative work. So, I was closer to the - closer to the work face and was able to - to do some, I thought, reasonable selections.

PN3131

And in terms of the issue of responsibility for the MMSS1, are there other factors that would go into the responsibilities that you could be looking for, or assessing candidates against, at the MMSS1 level?---Well again, I'd need to see the - the current one, but at that time we were - we were interested in their - their ability to implement processes and procedures we had in place at that time, whether it was at the higher level, or whether it was at local level.

PN3132

I will put it to you that the fact that, at least, two of the current shift supervisors and team leaders at the MM1 level in Sydney Radio Maintenance, were promoted to that level from the TO3 level - indicates that the TO3s carry the same levels of responsibility as the TO4s at Sydney Airport?---I don't agree with that statement.

PN3133

Do you believe that they carry greater responsibilities?---No, what I'm - what the selection process at that time, I felt that they would be more able to accept responsibility and accountability. They showed that promise, more than others that applied.

PN3134

So, the TO4s - it's just a matter of promise to the TO4s?---What do you mean promise?

PN3135

You used the word, "promise"?---As in promise - - -

PN3136

It's matter of assessing "promise"?---- - - as in their ability to fulfil that role there is some TO4s that at interview and documentation and with my experience amongst them that would not - would not be able to accept that responsibility - unwilling to accept that responsibility.

PN3137

I have no further questions.

PN3138

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Frew?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FREW [3.06pm]

PN3139

MR FREW: Just an issue of clarification - the question of the five day rule was raised in cross-examination - - -

PN3140

MR DWYER: It was also raised in examination, your Honour.

PN3141

HER HONOUR: Well, it was raised.

PN3142

MR FREW: I would just like to approach the witness, your Honour, to direct his attention.....in attachment N - I was directing the witness to attachment N which, again I referred to earlier on as higher duties and the role of the authorised officer being satisfied in order to approve the higher duties. Page 5 of 5, would you look at that, Mr Todkill?---That one?

PN3143

That's the one - the question of the five day rule was asked about you - do you believe that that document might represent the five day rule?---This particular document here?

PN3144

Yes - you talked about the general manager having issued a statement?---It could be it.

PN3145

What does the first paragraph or item 1 say on that particular document?---

PN3146

Technical services division will abide by the staff policy manual where it has been determined that payment of higher duties is warranted.

PN3147

So, that as a policy within division would direct the manager to look at the staff policy manual?---Yes.

PN3148

Item 2, as a manager reading that, would you believe that those are guidelines that are issued to the manager in his administration of the higher duties policy as an authorised officer?---Well, it refers back to paragraph 1 and talks about, the following criteria should be applied when you're looking at whether the higher duties are warranted and some of those points reflect what's in 9(1)(c).

PN3149

So, the first one says: Higher duties should not be paid if there's already someone at the appropriate level who could handle the functions?---Yes, that's correct.

PN3150

When you have considered the payment of higher duties at Sydney Airport, have you considered - - -

PN3151

MR DWYER: I object to that. It hasn't been established that Mr Todkill considers the higher duties at Sydney Airport or who else - - -

PN3152

HER HONOUR: All right. Ask those questions.

PN3153

MR DWYER: - - - or who else does. I clearly recall his answer before saying the supervisor or some other people who have to make these decisions.

PN3154

MR FREW: I beg to differ, your Honour.

PN3155

HER HONOUR: All right.

PN3156

MR FREW: I asked during that period of time in which he was manager whether he was the authorised officer who approved IDEs and I believe if we were to go to - - -

PN3157

HER HONOUR: Perhaps, it would have been, "when you considered", not, "when you consider". Maybe it should have been a reference to the past then.

PN3158

MR FREW: Yes.

PN3159

When you considered the payment of higher duties as you expressed in your earlier comment did you take into account that higher duties should not be paid if there's already someone at the appropriate level who could handle the functions?---It was one of the - one of the considerations that there was or there may or probably it was already at - a TO4 at level - if you're talking about TO3 to TO4.

PN3160

Well, if there was a TO4 on duty on the shift and did you consider there was a TO4 on shift and if there was necessary to pay a second lot of higher duties on the shift, for instance?---That would have been part of the consideration. The other consideration is that at that time a lot of the TO3s were only in their development stage and whether they could accept the full accountabilities of a TO4 position was debatable. Sometimes, there was - you needed to give them opportunities and a chance to prove that and that was done in a measured way when there was over five days.

PN3161

In the last point it talks about:

PN3162

During the current ROR exercise, staff are taken to the revision on HCO will remain although action to fill these positions should be taken as soon as possible.

PN3163

What was the ROR?---Review of Resources.

PN3164

Was that an exercise in up sizing or down sizing?---Certainly wasn't up sizing. It was the opposite.

PN3165

What was the reason for it - to contain cost or was it because of changing - - -

PN3166

MR DWYER: I object, your Honour. If we're going into areas of limited relevance anyway, they will - ROR was never canvassed in cross-examination. We're talking about something in 1991 at this stage.

PN3167

HER HONOUR: Yes. Mr Frew, what do you say about that?

PN3168

MR FREW: We have discussed with Mr Todkill his period of management of Sydney Radio Maintenance and during that period of management there was an awareness of costs and there were cost pressures on the managers and they took those into consideration.

PN3169

HER HONOUR: I think it is a fairly wide bow, Mr Frew. I think I will disallow the question.

PN3170

MR FREW: I have no more questions, your Honour.

PN3171

HER HONOUR: That is productive. Thank you. Do you have any documents, Mr Frew, that you want to provide to me in closing your case?

PN3172

MR FREW: Do I have any more documents?

PN3173

HER HONOUR: Yes.

PN3174

MR FREW: Only my final submissions.

PN3175

HER HONOUR: No - apart from your final submissions, are there any more documents you want to tender as exhibits?

PN3176

MR FREW: I think we agreed on the fact that there would be other documents that I would have submitted were taken as having been adequately covered.

PN3177

HER HONOUR: All right, good. Have you had a discussion about who goes first here - it's a bit of a difficult situation. It's not the usual situation this matter - who's going first - sorry, Mr Todkill, you are excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.14pm]

PN3178

MR DWYER: I am.

PN3179

HER HONOUR: You are?

PN3180

MR DWYER: Unless you have a preference, I will go first, your Honour.

PN3181

HER HONOUR: All right. I think, in fact, although the application was originally filed by Airservices that the way this matter has developed, you are the applicant for a change. Yes?

PN3182

MR DWYER: Yes, your Honour.

PN3183

MR FREW: Your Honour, prior to the luncheon adjournment I did signal that I would require a little time to prepare submissions and unfortunately in my state I don't write as quickly as I normally do and I would seek your indulgence for a an adjournment in order to just complete the whole submission.

PN3184

HER HONOUR: Do you want to do that now or do you want to wait until after you've heard what Mr Dwyer and Mr Waters have to say?

PN3185

MR FREW: I'm quite happy to hear what they - - -

PN3186

HER HONOUR: I think it might be more advantageous to you to wait until then, that's all and then we could have a break and then you can make your submissions and they can have the right of reply.

PN3187

MR FREW: I am happy to do that.

PN3188

HER HONOUR: All right, then. Mr Dwyer?

PN3189

MR DWYER: Thank you, your Honour. As you have indicated, this matter has come before you in an interesting way. I'd like to stand here and say this, it's common ground that there is TO3 and TO4 work being performed at Sydney Airport. The uncontested evidence of all of the TO3s and some of the shift supervisors, the MM1s - two of them have given evidence - is that TO3s and TO4s perform all the functions that comprise TO3 and TO4 work, uncontested. At no stage was any issue put - was any statement put in issue in compliance with the rule in Browne and Dunn, for example. Nor, in the evidence that has been given by the witnesses of Airservices to contradict that statement.

PN3190

HER HONOUR: What is it you say that is uncontested - that all of the TO3s do the work - all the TO4s do all the work of the TO3s?

PN3191

MR DWYER: The TO3s and the TO4s do the same work of - - -

PN3192

HER HONOUR: Well, I don't think you can put that, Mr Dwyer. I think the evidence of at least Mr Ward is and Mr Todkill that they do the same work with the added burden of responsibility. Isn't that their evidence - so, it is contested to that extent?

PN3193

MR DWYER: Yes. I will come and deal with that - I will deal with those two issues but I'm putting the broadest proposition.

PN3194

HER HONOUR: All right but that, as I understand, is the contest.

PN3195

MR DWYER: Yes. So, I see what you're saying - I've put that in the broadest sense. I will go back to, perhaps, the beginning. What I did last night was type up just a summary of where the position should be and I will give you both a copy.

PN3196

HER HONOUR: All right. Do you want that marked?

PN3197

MR DWYER: No, it just forms part of my submissions. It is just more convenient.

PN3198

HER HONOUR: All right. Would you like me to read it first?

PN3199

MR DWYER: If you - - -

PN3200

HER HONOUR: All right, I will do that. Has Mr Frew a copy?

PN3201

MR DWYER: Yes, he has a copy.

PN3202

MR FREW: He's just given me a copy now.

PN3203

HER HONOUR: All right, I've read that.

PN3204

MR DWYER: Thank you, your Honour. I will address that as I go through it. Your Honour, the base document that should be used in determining classifications is, of course, the award. The award contains at attachment I of the Australian Airservices exhibit various descriptions which have been read a number of times to you and, in particular, at the second page of the exhibit that is before you, work level descriptions - of the work level descriptions the role of the Technical Officer Grade 3 and Technical Officer level 4 are set out as I read through these today putting it to witnesses.

PN3205

You will recall that the documents describe the work of the Technical Officer 3 and Technical Officer 4 and is specifically in relation to technical practitioners in terms of moderately complex tasks or activities or a function versus, for a Technical Office Grade 4, undertake a range of very complex activities with limited guidance and so forth. The word "complexity" is mentioned through that.

PN3206

Mr Ward, in his evidence, alluded to his view that responsibility was the predominant factor when determining whether a Technical Officer Grade 3 - determining the difference between a Technical Officer Grade 3 and Technical Officer Grade 4. In contract to that, Mr Baker, in his evidence, spoke more of the technical abilities of the staff. In further contrast with that, Mr Todkill, in his statement - I will just get the words correct - in his statement which is attachment J page 1 at the very bottom says:

PN3207

The subtle difference between a Technical Officer level 3 and level 4 is the incumbent's ability to supervise multiple staff or multiple tasks.

PN3208

They've got all these views on exactly how you're supposed to determine the difference a TO3 and a TO4. What most of them have missed is we already have - we have a binding predominant document and that is the award. The award is an agreed document that was negotiated between the unions and Airservices some time ago.

PN3209

Mr Todkill has quoted some definitions there - I'm not sure where he has got them from, but they certainly haven't come from the award. I think Mr Ward has referred to some documents called Position Classification Standards which are subordinate documents, or local documents, drafted, but in all of these, the award is the document that must be relied on and in a perfect world, the Position Classification Standards must be consistent with, of course, the award. The award determines the classification.

PN3210

It may be, that in the Position Classification Standards that have been drafted up locally, more emphasis has been put on other factors. I would suggest that the Commission should discount what I've called the local interpretations of the documents and rely only on what is provided for in the award.

PN3211

We have not set out to say to you, or to find precisely, what the TO4 work, the TO3 work is. Now, there's a body of TO3 and TO4 work at Sydney Airport. The evidence of our witnesses, is that whatever the work, there is no discrimination between who does that work. It could be either a TO3, or a TO4 - we do not discriminate who does the work, nor could we.

PN3212

And perhaps, on that point, I think the roster show what reality is, compared to what might be drafted in Canberra as to how it should be and the rosters really, I would submit, demonstrate vividly what reality is, when it comes to allocating work. If I could refer you briefly to those sets of roster diagrams that were provided by us in CPU 10 - exhibit 10 - while in theory, there are five people on the shift, a glance across those rosters will show it's very rare that you have five people on the shift. Very common, there's four and equally common, you'll find there are only three people on the shift. Reality is, they don't have that pool of people where they can say: It's easy here, you guys just do that work and you guys just this TO4 work. They don't have that flexibility because they have insufficient numbers to be able to do that.

PN3213

The team leaders, Mr Thyrd and Mr Verdich, both indicated the difficulties they have in trying to assign work. They said it would be impossible to assign only TO4 work to TO4s the place wouldn't operate. You saw on inspections, not only is the equipment diverse, but the geographic diversity even on the airport and even travelling across and around the airport involves significant time, as you travel through gates and around the enter runways. You are aware of course there is also equipment off the airport at other locations.

PN3214

Mr Ward, in his statement and this is at page 204 near the bottom, talks about his TO4s in Melbourne and he also provided an exhibit about the TO4s in Melbourne. One stark difference between Melbourne and Sydney is that Melbourne has lots of specialist teams. Sydney has Sydney Radio Maintenance. Melbourne has a dedicated team for navigational aids. Sydney Radio Maintenance looks after all the navigational aids. Melbourne has a dedicated team for the tower and communications. Sydney, that is all done by one group within Sydney. Indeed, the evidence you heard from, particularly Mr Thyrd, was that apart from radar which is separate, Sydney looks after the rest of the equipment on the airport.

PN3215

Your saw satellite equipment, you saw the tower equipment, you saw voice switch equipment. You saw the TAAATS equipment on the inspections. Melbourne has dedicated teams for that. Sydney doesn't. Everybody in Sydney does everything, but I say the radar censor issue - leave aside the radar censor issue, where Sydney still has a separate section for that.

PN3216

So you have a very much different situation in Sydney. We don't have a TO4 for every group. We expect our TO4s and TO3s to be equally qualified and equally able to work on any of our equipment. They must hold themselves ready to act and do that work whenever they're required by the employer. As you will have seen in this, most of the TO3s have done significant time on higher duties as technical officers, grade 4, in any case. Some have acted as MM1s during the course of the last few years.

PN3217

Indeed, it was common ground that the TO3s and the TO4s technically can be considered equal in terms of their skills. They are very highly skilled people. There's variations of course. Some of the T03s are rated to provide technical certifications, some are TO4s. You have got a pool of people who have been there a considerable amount of time and who all have equal qualifications. The reality is Airservices uses all of those staff to perform all of the work. It is not discriminated against at all. Now, the work is not assigned on a basis that it is T03 work and should be given only to TO3s or that it is TO4 work that should be given to TO4s.

PN3218

Mr Ward, in attempts to distinguish his Melbourne people, who remember these are the specialists, at Melbourne TO4 is the promoted level for practitioners who are additionally required to be the primary practitioner for specified systems, that is, T04 Eurocat, TO4 voice switch. Additional responsibilities include, "On site supervision of work allocation to TO3 practitioners." Well, I suppose that's different because the TO3s just do it - the TO4s just do it in Sydney, they don't delegate it.

PN3219

"Input to technical policy." You've heard that evidence from the TO3s of their involvement in that sort of role. "Technical issues contact for the specified system." Again, you've heard various people have contacted who are maintaining equipment at Sydney Airport directly in order that their input can be given to people in Canberra or the day staff. "Technical input for monthly management reporting". You heard that from the Sydney people. "Conduct of techcert". You've heard plenty of that from the Sydney people. "Conduct of on-the-job-training." You've heard that from the Sydney people. "On site technical expert to co-ordinate and supervise software upgrades or modifications". You heard that from the Sydney people. The Sydney people do it. They don't delegate it to someone, they do it. "Technical liaison point with engineering support." You heard that from the Sydney people.

PN3220

Remember we're talking about a day staff here who specialise in one role only versus shift people who were performing work across all roles, and if faults or issues arise on their shifts they're the people who need to be involved in providing input to the day staff or to the engineering people in Canberra.

PN3221

In terms of the work of the technical officers, grade 3, in Sydney, we submit their evidence has not been contradicted or even put in - challenged by Mr Ward or Mr Todkill on a proper basis. We submit that reference to documents other than the award is an improper way, is not an allowable way to determine what classification these Sydney staff are working at. We have not set out to quantify the amount of work that would be done at TO3 or TO4 work. I don't think that would be a useful exercise.

PN3222

Your Honour, there has been a recent decision of Senior Deputy President Williams in a case called Kilpatrick Green Facility Management Propriety Limited v CEPU, print number T4155, and I would like to hand you a copy of this.

PN3223

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

PN3224

MR DWYER: I am not submitting that this case is on all fours with ours. The case involves an interpretation of the NECA Award and classification levels within it. Perhaps why it is significant, it was a section 99 matter and the method of approach to classification is discussed through the case, and at the end the determination of classifications was not an issue decided by Senior Deputy President Williams as that was left to the parties.

PN3225

But there are a number of references in there to the task of classifying staff. In short, the facts were the union had suggested that the people working at Kilpatrick Green should have been classified at a electrical worker, grade 8 position, when they were in fact classified as electrical worker, grade 7, so it's a very similar sort of issue to this. But in the approach taken, again it was more of an interpretative case. There's references to several other cases. At paragraph 26, for example, the issue of temporal measurement, as you see the Deputy President states:

PN3226

There is no longer any requirement that the employee be mainly engaged on specified tasks ...(reads)... the employee's duties.

PN3227

That's the theme of that, plus another case which is reviewed in there. They do not set out to determine whether it's a 10 per cent or 15 per cent or 50 per cent issue. We submit though there's ample evidence before you that the TO3s are performing at that TO4 work.

PN3228

In the document I provided to you a short time ago, I have indicated there that this matter has come before you as a result of the dispute resolution process. The dispute resolution process provides that:

PN3229

The Commission is empowered to arbitrate to resolve matters relating to specific commitments within this agreement, including those relating to terms and conditions of employment.

PN3230

Should there be any question of jurisdiction, it would be our submission that that would give you an extended ability - - -

PN3231

HER HONOUR: I don't think there's any question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not being disputed, Mr Dwyer. The matter has been put to me with the questions itemised by the parties. When I was recently reviewing the file it appeared to me that those questions were set out in the transcript on 6 June and in the correspondence in the summary document that was tendered on that date.

PN3232

MR DWYER: Yes. I would not expect a challenge on those grounds. We're asking firstly as a matter of fact that you find that T03s at Sydney are performing significant work at the TO4 level. Secondly, that the T03 work have been performing significant work at the T04 level for several years. Thirdly, that a rule existed at Sydney Airport whereby staff at the T03 level would not be paid for higher duties unless the period exceeded five days. Now, on that issue most of the TO3s have indicated their knowledge of that rule and indeed, not one instance has been brought to your attention or to the Commission's attention where higher duties have been paid for less than five days during the period up to the commencement of these proceedings, if I could use that form.

PN3233

We have acknowledged that since these proceedings have commenced any higher duties now for less than five days have been approved and looking into the future of that, we don't anticipate that will be a problem, but as a matter of fact we ask you to find that there was a rule in existence prior to these proceedings. I won't put a date on it but generally I'll say prior to these proceedings.

PN3234

And four, the relevant award provides for higher duties after half a day. Should the Commission make those findings of fact we then ask that the following determinations be made: That the Airservices shift staff at TO3 level in Sydney be classified at the TO4 level immediately; that the ASA shift staff at TO3 level in Sydney be recognised as having worked at the TO4 level for a number of years - and by that I mean that we're saying there merely recognised - I'm not trying to go to the money aspect there but the first thing we want to do is at least recognise that they've been working at that level for a number of years.

PN3235

Thirdly, the dates vary from TO3 to TO3 but all were performing TO4 work since 1 January 1997. It's as you say in the evidence in that various people received qualifications and started higher duties for various periods at different times. But at least from that level I believe every one of them had established that they had commenced doing TO4 work.

PN3236

And fourthly, that the TO3 staff should be moved to the top incremental point in the salary range immediately, that is, had they been promoted or had they been on higher duties from that time, they would automatically be at the top increment - this award still has incremental points, I believe - it certainly did at the commencement of these proceedings and that, we submit would be a logical consequence of the findings of fact.

PN3237

One further issue which we put forward which might resolve the whole of this matter, which we submit would be the useful thing to do, that in settlement of the dispute generally, TO3 staff - we ask that you make this recommendation and that they be linked recommendations - if I can put it that way. TO3 staff should be paid a backpayment equal of 12 months higher duties and I suggest there, they be calculated from the top increment of the TO3 to the top increment of the TO4 and secondly, as a link to that, is that the union and the staff cease any action in the Magistrates Court and refrain from pursuing claims, either in the Magistrates Courts or other Courts, relating to higher duties at Sydney Airport.

PN3238

Perhaps, I should finish this way. There are many rabbits we could chase down holes that have arisen during this matter - as to whether the work's got easier, or whether the work's got more complex, or whether there is a supervisor nearby, or whether there is a supervisor in Canberra, the fact is, there is TO3 and TO4 work at Sydney Airport being done by both TO3 and TO4 staff. It's really irrelevant, once you've come to that conclusion because it affects everybody equally.

PN3239

Consistent with that, unless I'm pressed to do it, matters such as airways engineering instructions, don't provide answers to people. Airways engineering instructions are there TO3s and TO4s. The fact that you have an airways engineering instruction outlining some procedures generally you should follow, doesn't distinguish whether you're a TO3 or TO4. They don't have more detailed ones for a TO3. A TO4 and a TO3 are both subject to, and should follow the guidelines directions - in some cases, suggestions, within the airways engineering instructions. Some are detailed. Some are extremely vague.

PN3240

If I could, for example, take someone coming out of the TAFE College reading a - this airways engineering instructions before he was a - Airservices 2, but I think we put it in as a CEU30 - I think it's the identical document. At paragraph 9 of that - page 5, at 12, it says:

PN3241

Note that resetting a CSN then the active plane would be disastrous, especially if the system is manually locked on that plane. Node resets should be avoided if there is a less intrusive method of restoring service following a fault.

PN3242

Now, these are not guidelines on how to fix it. These are warnings and suggestions, but it underlines the fact that before you would even go near this equipment, you would need significant knowledge of skill to do it. I think the main point is, this document applies if you are a TO4 - properly classified as TO4 and you are subject to this document as if you're a TO3. I think, given the brevity of it, I think it's better I stop there, rather than redo the position classification standards, or sorry, the work level definitions as we have done several times, I will rely on what's been put during our submissions, your Honour.

PN3243

HER HONOUR: Thank you Mr Dwyer. Mr Waters?

PN3244

MR WATERS: Your Honour, in consideration of the three issues that were put to you in a joint position, I understand it, between Airservices and the CEPU on 6 June last year, it would be the CPSUs submission that the TO3 shift staff at Sydney are not classified at the appropriate level; that the appropriate level that they should be classified at is the TO4 level and that, in terms of the duration, the comments made in the submissions of the CEPU document has been tabled today relating to, I think - all of those staff have been performing TO4 work, well and truly, since 1 January 1997.

PN3245

HER HONOUR: Could I just ask you one question Mr Waters? What do you say is meant by question 3, just so that I understand what it is it's asking: What duration is appropriate to any other level?

PN3246

MR WATERS: I assumed - I have assumed that their question was asking, how long the backpay should be for, or - it's possibly going a little too far.

PN3247

HER HONOUR: Should I be persuaded to make such a recommendation?

PN3248

MR WATERS: Yes.

PN3249

HER HONOUR: All right. Is that your understanding as well Mr Dwyer?

PN3250

MR DWYER: Pardon?

PN3251

HER HONOUR: It says, what duration is appropriate to any other level?

PN3252

MR DWYER: Yes, it says: Are they working at the - they are TO3s - are they working at the appropriate level? If not, what is the level and then it said thirdly, what is the duration at that level which we gave the issue of that recognition of that level, yes.

PN3253

HER HONOUR: Sorry Mr Waters. I just thought I'd get that straight before I listened to the balance of what you had to say. Thank you.

PN3254

MR WATERS: In 1990, the Civil Aviation Authority was created as a statutory authority of the Government. It was separated out from the then, I think, Department of Transport, as a statutory authority and a process of award making was commenced for the then civil aviation authority. As part of the negotiations and I understand, by consent, the parties included a number of work level descriptions within that award at that time.

PN3255

Those work level descriptions were the outcome of a negotiation with the management of the then, Civil Aviation Authority and while they may have drawn on the position classification standards of the Department of Finance, they are not an identical document and for particular reasons. Both sides chose to remove, alter and add, to leave the current work level descriptions that are contained in the award. It's our view, in common with our CEPU colleagues, that it is the work level descriptions contained in the award that must be the document primarily considered in reaching a view as to the appropriate classification of these TO3 staff in Sydney.

PN3256

I will spend a very short time, I hope, talking about the particular work level descriptions.

PN3257

HER HONOUR: I seem to have made everybody very nervous about time. There's no need to be brief. You just have to stand there today and do it, that's all. Please don't hesitate to say anything you think will be of assistance, Mr Waters.

PN3258

MR WATERS: I won't your Honour. It is just, there is only so much you can say about work level descriptions.

PN3259

HER HONOUR: There is and I have probably heard most of them.

PN3260

MR WATERS: Yes. When you consider in definitions which are now contained in clause 23(9)(1) of the Airservices Australia Award 2000, the terms, task, activity and function are all defined at some length. As Mr Dwyer has pointed out previously, those definitions of task and activity do not go to the question of responsibility. Function, does, to the extent that it could include responsibility for different classes of equipment mentioned in responsibility.

PN3261

The focus, we would submit, in the definitions that are provided for those three terms, goes very much to the competent performance of technical work and the competent performance of that work on pieces of equipment. If you look at the definitions for activity, it is an area of work comprising relating tasks and it gives a number of examples - maintaining or installing a particular class of equipment and it's the work on the equipment. And when you take those definitions and look at the particular definitions contained in 23(9)(2) for technical officer level 3 and technical officer level 4, the difference is between moderately complex and a mixture of moderately complex and very complex, activities.

PN3262

Those activities can be quite clearly defined, in our view, in terms of the particular classes of equipment. There is no question and I don't think this has been contended in any of the evidence, that Sydney Airport has some of the most complex systems operating in Australia. It has those systems, in common with some of the most complex systems that are operated both in Sydney and Brisbane and at other ports around Australia. But there is, I don't think, any contention that those systems such as the voice switch - the two voice switches here, such as the instrument landing systems and such as some of the other systems that have been mentioned in evidence by the TO3s - are among the most complex systems that are operated in airservices.

PN3263

At every port or site in Australia, there are TO4s who work on those systems. If we look particularly, at Brisbane and Melbourne, which are the two largest sites and certainly larger than Sydney, their staff do specialise in particular classes of equipment, or particular systems of equipment. There, you do have TO4s, often with TO3s working alongside them. There, because there is a day shift, you have a significant number of TO4s available during the course of the period of time that people are at work. So, when a fault comes up, or when a particular inspection needs to be carried out, there is a technical officer level 4 there and involved. If the permanent TO4 is on leave, one of the TO3s will be acting as the TO4.

PN3264

The situation is very different in Sydney, because at any one time there are only four, maximum - maximum of four staff, and we have seen from the evidence and, I think, this again, is uncontested, a lot of time we have less than four TO4s and TO3s operating at the airport. It means two things. It means firstly, that the TO3s and TO4s need to have a great deal more specialised knowledge across a wider range of systems than is the case in those ports that are operating on a day shift - primarily on a day shift basis.

PN3265

It also means that, and we have had this evidence both from the TO3s and from Mr Baker, that for the efficient operation of the radio maintenance shift team, each of those staff need to be able to go independently and work on that equipment and bring that equipment back into service.

PN3266

We have had very significant evidence from the TO3s and again, I don't believe that this evidence has been challenged, that they do take responsibility for the setting of priorities and the allocation of work, but when the fault phone goes, then they make decisions about whether they are the best person to go and deal with that fault; whether they should be passing that on to somebody else; that they are making those decisions, they're doing that allocation and work prioritisation task.

PN3267

We have had evidence from Mr Baker again, that decisions on how work is allocated is made on the basis of the experience and particular expertise of the staff members, rather than on the particular classification levels; whether they are a TO3 or a TO4 and, that it is generally recognised within the Sydney Radio Maintenance that there are particular TO3s who, on particular systems, are the best experts and the best people to go to. That evidence, certainly in terms of evidence that has been led by the TO3s, if we can group them altogether, the ten of them, I think each of them has pointed to particular areas where their colleagues seek their help and assistance and seek their advice with respect to particular systems.

PN3268

On that basis and given that they are covering the most complex systems, it would be very difficult to find in terms of the work level descriptions, that the technical officer staff at Sydney Radio Maintenance, are not all performing at the technical officer level 4, level. By way of an example, if I could, is if we look at the radar section in Sydney. There are seven technical officer level 4 staff, who work in the radar section in Sydney. That broadly flows through to one radio TO4 being on shift at any one time. There are some overlaps when there are two of them on at once. But in the broad, what it provides them with, is enough cover so that there can always be a radio technical officer level 4 person at Sydney.

PN3269

Sydney is the only port in Australia that has got seven radar TO4s. The evidence that we have had, that came up under Mr Ward, indicates that in Melbourne, and I understand this to be the situation in Brisbane as well, there are radar TO4s who lead those teams and they are supported by TO3s. Now the reason again, is that it is a day shift working arrangement, the TO4 is there at the same time as the TO3s are there. In Sydney it's different, there's only the one of them on. And I think that flows through when you look at the radio area as well as the radar area. There are only four staff and when you have those four - - -

PN3270

HER HONOUR: Mr Waters, I'm not necessarily sure that, in determining this matter, I have to make a comparison to Sydney, to Brisbane or Melbourne and to distinguish Sydney from those places. I am just looking at Sydney. There is no evidence before me, except in a very cursory fashion, as to the arrangements in those other places and I'm not necessarily sure that, to determine the question, in relation to these two classifications in Sydney, a comparison that distinguishes the other two ports from Sydney, is necessary. Do you see it as necessary?

PN3271

MR WATERS: Well, I think a significant amount of Mr Ward's evidence, does draw comparisons particularly between Sydney and Melbourne.

PN3272

HER HONOUR: So, for the purpose of this submission, you're dealing with Mr Ward's evidence, but do you say that, whilst you are making that submission for greater caution, do you say that, I need to do that task?

PN3273

MR WATERS: No, I don't believe you do need to do that, your Honour.

PN3274

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew may have another view and may persuade me otherwise, but at the moment, I'm not sure that it's necessary.

PN3275

MR WATERS: I would agree with you, your Honour, that it isn't necessary.

PN3276

HER HONOUR: But in any event, you might as well deal with those distinguishing features in case Mr Frew persuades me to the contrary, Mr Waters.

PN3277

MR WATERS: Just in case, yes. Perhaps I should move on. I think that in terms of Mr Todkill's evidence, again the issue of the distinction that's drawn between TO3s and TO4s does not fit within the terms of the work level descriptions. And I think Mr Todkill's comments, we would submit - that Mr Todkill's comments, noting that he has selected TO3 staff at Sydney Radio Maintenance to move into MM1 roles, again points to the fact that the responsibilities that are held have, in general, been considered to be the same for the TO3 and TO4 staff at Sydney.

PN3278

The staffing situation in Sydney has changed over the last ten years. There has been down sizing and a reduction in the number of staff that have been in Sydney. Mr Thyrd, and to an extent, Mr Todkill, both provided evidence about the changes in the combination of sections and also, consequent reductions in staff.

PN3279

The break down, we would submit, between TO4 and TO3s, 50/50 TO4s and TO3s, in part, is a hangover from those earlier, who were highly staffed structures, when there were greater numbers of TO4 staff that were available to lead and be the leading practitioner on particular pieces of equipment, but the fact is, that that situation has changed and when you are trying to run an Airport the size of Sydney, it isn't possible for those leading and assisting roles, to be maintained by the technical officer level 3s and 4s and to make the function work properly, it's important that all of the people are out there doing all of the functions and, that that's clearly the way the work practices have developed in Sydney over the past few years, as those reductions in staff have impacted on the situation in Sydney.

PN3280

The CPSU would broadly endorse the findings of fact proposed by the CEPU to your Honour; endorse the determinations proposed by the CEPU and we would endorse with one caveat, the linked recommendations that are proposed by the CEPU. We would suggest that there may be some value, in earning a third link recommendation that the parties explore a joint approach to the consideration of reclassification issues raised by employees, or their representatives.

PN3281

Mr Frew has referred to, and it is included in Airservices exhibit 1, a number of the documents that have been exchanged between the parties with regard to the issue of reclassification of the staff here, in Sydney. There doesn't appear from the evidence provided by Airservices to have been a serious attempt that involves speaking directly with the staff involved to ascertain the particular claims with regard to reclassification - that is something that is concerning to the CPSU.

PN3282

I would say that, in our experience, we have normally found when issues of reclassification are raised, managements have - Airservice managements, in particular at ports, have normally been prepared to go through a reasonably open and rigorous process that did involve these staff that were seeking to have their classification, or when the representatives of those staff when the CPSU raised it on their behalf, to sit down and go through in some rigour with the staff, the classification process.

PN3283

That hasn't happened in these circumstances and we think it may be worthwhile to add that further recommendation that the parties explore a joint approach to the consideration of reclassification issues raised by employees, or their representatives.

PN3284

In conclusion, the CPSU would submit that the evidence from Airservices' witnesses with regard to the appropriate classification of these TO3 staff and the differences between TO3 and TO4 staff in general, in Airservices, has been contradictory and not based on an objective assessment of the particular work that these particular TO3 staff do. We would submit that the evidence led by the TO3s, demonstrates clearly that they are performing work at the TO4 level.

PN3285

Thank you, your Honour.

PN3286

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Frew, I'll adjourn and await your phone call.

PN3287

MR FREW: Thank you, your Honour. I will assess that it will take up to two hours to be ready.

PN3288

HER HONOUR: To be ready?

PN3289

MR FREW: Yes, your Honour.

PN3290

HER HONOUR: There's no need to write it down in sandscript or anything Mr Frew.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [4.08pm]

RESUMED [6.12pm]

PN3291

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew?

PN3292

MR FREW: Thank you, your Honour. As you're all aware, the genesis of this particular hearing is associated with a section 99 procedure where Airservices became the applicant and the matter was expanded beyond the question of the original dispute into its limitation to a number of items - three items which have been presented by the CPSU.

PN3293

On visitation of the exercise in its completeness, my submission, I see no reason to alter the submission made originally by Airservices which was contained - which in front of the various attachments that have been presented through these proceedings. Much of my submission would be, rather than repeat all of the issues that are there, would be in fact, contained in my original submission made for submission to the hearings between 14th and 15 August 2000.

PN3294

In that particular submission, in item 3.4 and 4.3, two to three very salient points were made. In 3.4 the submission was that supervision is always available, either at the MM/SS1 level, or on rare occasions at the TO4 level, which is provided for in work level descriptions. In 4.3 reference again to the radar shifts, which provide 24 hour coverage by way of one operative duty specialist radar TO4, who performs fault rectification. The shift TO4 personnel, refer to the unit manager for administrative and resource issues and to Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra specialists at their level, or above, for technical guidance on specific problems. Nothing has changed to alter that submission.

PN3295

Failure to address the proper grievance procedures as set out within the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, or local consultative processes whilst superseded in the course of these submissions, should not be ignored in consideration of these approaches. Neither should the fact that, again, attached to my submission, was a letter from a Mr Michael Burcher who was, on the 13 July 1999, the Installation and Maintenance Services Manager at Sydney.

PN3296

In that particular letter he makes a very strong plea, in that he says:

PN3297

One other outcome of our investigation is our finding that much of the work of our current TO4s has changed as a result of improved technology and approaches to fault rectification and simplification of preventative maintenance.

PN3298

It should now be said that a number of these officers are over classified and should be the subject of a review with respect to the complexity of the work they perform, or the supervision that they are required to give.

PN3299

You may recall at the recent restructuring discussion and negotiations, that this question was raised with respect to our continuing need for MM1s in their current numbers. It was agreed at the time to leave present arrangements and disposition of positions, in place.

PN3300

Naturally, I would be happy again, to discuss this issue with you and to have the matter raised for resolution through our local consultative committee.

PN3301

That again, a letter from Mr Burcher, as an attachment to my original submission.

PN3302

Our bona fides with respect to Airservices in the question of reclassification in place and classification of positions at Sydney Airport, I don't believe can be challenged for we have offered on a number of occasions, to address this matter in accordance with the procedures established for resolving these issues in the workplace.

PN3303

These proceedings have changed the focus from the original one in terms of seeking to resolve the issue. The focus has been on something else and it moved to the question of the method of classification. I would recommend, your Honour, in your deliberations that you examine the method of classification and perhaps, give us some advice as to how we should proceed with that respect.

PN3304

I would believe, and I shall address this question in a little more detail, that union witness evidence is deficient as to time, place and the actual days of working as a TO4. Rather, it is a blanket claim and reference to witness statements and to the transcript will indicate that there is very little reference to specific times, other than when being paid higher duties that these officers worked or did TO4 work.

PN3305

In that respect, we have put it within the context of accepting responsibility and accountability for duties. Generally speaking, I have repeatedly heard comments which, again, are recorded on transcript, that after a short period of time a TO3 is a TO4. It's agreed that, within the provisions of the award, that a TO2 can automatically proceed to the position of TO3 after first having completed their associate diplomaship and then, virtually, what is a two year internship, and at the end of that internship, based on their performance, they were automatically promoted to a TO3.

PN3306

In that situation there is a provision of a six year incremental scale which provides for a TO3 the possibility of a tenure career, at least, with annual increments within that scale. But I have heard repeatedly from witnesses who have attended these particular hearings, that they believe that after the completion of the one, or two year internship, that they have already become a TO4.

PN3307

Aside from one witness, the majority of the service in the case of TO3s is at this point in time either, well short of, or at the top increment of TO3, indicating that the officers in question have progressed through this stage. One would have to argue that after the acquisition of a diploma in electronics, the provision of a two year's experience time which, as put forward in management evidence, achieves a competency level as a technical officer, one would have to argue that that period of time one would expect a very competent officer who can deal with a wide range of maintenance and fault rectification issues associated with technical equipment involved in the airway system.

PN3308

Within these proceedings, much has been made or has been referred to in terms of the five day rule, but reference to the transcript will demonstrate that it has become no longer an issue. The question of whether or not there has been a change since the lodgment of the dispute notification and the commencement of proceedings, is one of great interest, but we have both examined evidence provided by Mr Hughes and Mr Baker, who have indicated that whenever they have had a submission for a higher duties allowance, to be paid, regardless of the length of the period involved, they have paid it.

PN3309

It is simply not a fact, that since the beginning of these hearings, we have begun to pay higher duties for periods of less than five days. Mr Hughes indicated that he had been in the position of 12 months - in that position of 12 months and the transcript will show that Mr Baker has also been in his position for in excess of that period, when he has been involved in approving higher duties allowances.

PN3310

Even now, there is more or less a requirement for us to examine those classifications. We do not deny that time moves on and that, to use a colloquialism "there are long times between cups of tea", and Mr Burcher in his own admission said that there is a need to examine classifications at Sydney Airport and has offered to do so. There was an offer to talk, but that offer was not accepted, rather it was greeted ultimately, with a presentation through the Chief Industrial Magistrates Office, of a subpoena to appear.

PN3311

Going to the evidence that is provided during the course of these proceedings, one will notice that, as I have previously said, much is made of a blanket claim for a movement to the position of a TO4, rather than for specific point by point justifications by those making their claims for the fact that they have been performing responsible work, or accepting responsibility at that level.

PN3312

We suggest that it may be inappropriate, but certainly up to the officers of the Commission, it may be inappropriate to make an order in the terms of the CPU and the CPSUs request. They seem to be seeking a claim of some magnitude to satisfy their rights. One of the issues that I believe that we should go to in this issue, is the question of fairness. It gives me some cause for concern that over the years there have been a number of cases places before the Commission, where the question of fairness emerges.

PN3313

One must consider the impact of such a claim on officers who currently occupy the rank of technical officer 3 national. And whilst we have sought to exclude and we have agreed that this matter is associated with Sydney only, we do have technical officers 3 located throughout the countryside and I would suggest that an observance of what may have happened in Sydney, may in fact, lead to some distress and some concern about fairness.

PN3314

But even bringing it to a local situation, I would have to say that officers who have proceeded through the agreed merit-based, rather than automatic translation to the position of TO4 - officers who have gone through the interview and selection process and have become TO4s in their own right as a result of a successfully won promotion, would be distressed about the fairness of a decision that led to an automatic placement of nine of their colleagues into the position of TO4.

PN3315

There have been a number of cases and whilst I haven't provided copies, there is a case in point where the HSU, in fact the Health Services Union of Australia, involved with Dorevitch Pathology, C number 328 and 27 of 1999.

PN3316

HER HONOUR: Do you have the print number?

PN3317

MR FREW: Yes I have a print number for that, which it's print number S2949.

PN3318

HER HONOUR: S2949?

PN3319

MR FREW: 2949, where it was noted in that particular decision of the Commission:

PN3320

It is noted that there is no entitlement provided under the award for a scientist to be ...(reads)... appoint a scientist at a higher grade.

PN3321

The provisions for movement from one grade to another are fairly spelt out that there is a process of moving from a TO3 to a TO4 and it is not an automatic one, or an obligation on the employer, it's an obligation to go through a particular process. It is, as I say, merit based selection, not automatic and that is consistent with the award.

PN3322

The question remains of whether or not higher duties have been paid and, in fact, time and time again in questioning, those providing evidence as to whether they had received higher duties - whilst the question of the five day rule which has been put to one side has clouded the issue, repeatedly there is a response to the question as to whether, when people were actually appointed to the position formally to perform, were rostered to perform the duty of a TO4, they received a higher duties allowance.

PN3323

There is a fact however, that has caused a problem and that is, that there seems to be little differences technically between the competence of TO3s and TO4s in many circumstances. And that, of course, gives rise to the comment made by Mr Burcher when he says that it appears as though there is grounds for reclassification downwards from a TO4 to TO3 and rather than to excite particular speculation as to whether that would be a technique that we would be engaged in, in the future, it should be noted that in Mr Burcher's correspondence he did indicate that it was agreed in consultation, to put that issue to one side at the time.

PN3324

Going to the specifics, Mr Thyrd in his evidence, has indicated that when he faces a shift, he works as a team and I'm sure that working as a team in a technical environment, where the safety of people who are travelling, using the airway system, is important, rather than disconnected effort that could result in fault and in failure to communicate. He has indicated the group works as a team.

PN3325

He's indicated, however, that in reference that there has to be a leader and, again, in the transcript there were a number of occasions where he was asked as to what the difference between an MM1 and the rest of the crew was concerned and he indicated that he imagined that there had to be a leader. He also alluded to particular duties that he had to perform and the question of being a fire warden and being necessary to be there on site was quite critical and automatically fell to the team leader. Again, Mr Burcher in his evidence, asserted the fact that as a team leader - or as a shift supervisor rather - he was responsible for what happened on that shift.

PN3326

So, there is a declaration of difference that is close there in terms of responsibility. Again, it is admitted by us that frequently there is a comment made by these two officers, one who happens to be an appellant and the other, who happens to be a delegate of the union, that they work their group as a team, they accept most of the responsibility themselves.

PN3327

It is clear, however, from the submissions that there is management responsibility built into this network of teamwork. Yes, it is established at the shift leader level and, in fact, the team leader level and the management of the particular maintenance area. The question of management responsibility is there. Management in turn has indicated on a number of occasions that they believe that the TO4 accepts some of that responsibility, that the difference, in their view, between a TO3 and a TO4 is their responsibility and accountability.

PN3328

HER HONOUR: Mr Frew, however, if Mr Burcher thought that there was some cause to move from TO4 to TO3, might that not support the view that the distinction in relation to responsibility is not a real one?

PN3329

MR FREW: What it might suggest is that there were - and in the context of their discussion the alternative was given to either the removal of the MM1 situation and replacing the management responsibility with the TO4.

PN3330

HER HONOUR: I don't know about that but if the view is that TO4s could move down to TO3s, doesn't that support the proposition that I just put to you? Isn't that one of the available inferences? I'm not sure what I can draw from Burcher's proposition other than that.

PN3331

MR FREW: Mr Burcher's proposition says that there is a need to address the classification level with the changes of technology. Perhaps there are too many TO4s. The other alternative that was proposed in that, that perhaps there should be a reduction of the number of MM1s and that like the radar shift, which is the shiftwork, is managed by the TO4 who accepts all the responsibility, perhaps there was not a necessity to have an MM1 there on shift.

PN3332

There is no proposal at this point in time for us to reduce the number of MM1s. In fact, there is a proposal for restructuring where we are talking about enshrining the role of the shift leader in Sydney but the question in that letter is raised about whether the need for so many TO4s remains. I purely cite that as part of our willingness to discuss in detail, as Mr Waters suggests, the question of classifications.

PN3333

HER HONOUR: Thank you.

PN3334

MR FREW: Perhaps reinforcing responsibility level and as demonstrated in our presentation - in Mr Hugh's evidence in particular - was the responsibility attached to a radar TO4 in Sydney and whilst we have made comparisons with other places, those were purely made and on the basis of a demonstration of the type of responsibilities that are accepted by TO4s in other places.

PN3335

Reference to the various statements I have mentioned that were provided by the witnesses and by their evidence, I again say that no-one specifically details the place, the time, the actual work that they performed that they considered to be TO4 outside the higher duties arrangements and careful study of the transcripts, I believe, would demonstrate that.

PN3336
In fact, again, in the transcripts one will find that there is on record on or around the PN770 that there is an indication that those who were seeking reclassification of TO4s was based purely on the fact that they want a promotion, being the motivation behind seeking that and whilst no-one is criticising people who wish a promotion, that seems to be the motivation behind many of these claims.

PN3337
Again, one will find that in PN937 there is a belief that a TO3 should be capable of turning off the airways system, the TO3 believing that his job is sufficiently competent to allow him to turn off the airway system. There is an acknowledgment in PN1295 1302 and 1306 of the fact that TO4s take the responsibility.

PN3338

Again, one must draw some conclusions from the fact that this desire for a promotion for many of the officers who brought their claims to this place is based on the fact that they are keen to be promoted, they are keen to get on, they are keen for development, but one of the inhibiting factors facing many of them and in a down sizing situation, which has been mentioned again in this place, is a constant desire that they should remain in the Sydney basin rather than move elsewhere.

PN3339

Unfortunately, with the changes that have taken place, the opportunities for promotion often time only occur in remote sites where people aren't so interested in moving. It is difficult for an organisation such as Airservices, who are faced by pressures from its clients or customers - principally being the airlines - to create more TO4 positions. Whilst it might be desirable to provide promotions purely for promotions sake, the numbers and costs we are forced to keep under control by the airlines themselves and we are faced by the same cost price pushers that are faced by many others in management at the moment.

PN3340

So we do not have unfettered ability to provide the opportunities that we would have liked to have provided perhaps, in days gone by. Management has endeavoured to provide development opportunities in other means and one of the points that was made by Mr Todkill was that he had provided some management training and supervisor training opportunity to TO4s and that, in fact, an interested TO3 had also been given that opportunity because he had particularly expressed a desire to receive supervisory training in addition to the normal course of the technical training that he gets.

PN3341

We have visited the question of selection and we have talked about selection panels. In fact, it was suggested from time to time that the process, other than that through an industrially agreed process as enshrined in our memory and understanding, is a merit selection, that there are some determining factors and that there is concern by those who are members on selection panels that they should do the exercise in an objective manner for fear that there the matter might be appealed and should they not follow that process, it could be the subject of a grievance appeal.

PN3342

Mr Todkill, in his evidence, re-emphasised the fact that there had been a number of grievance appeals associated with selections. These had been heard by retired Commissioners or retired Commissioners from the AIRC and he could not recall any of management's decisions being overturned as testament to the objective way in which the selection committees have approached their particular task.

PN3343

In my submission to your Honour, I do ask that you close the door on the Local Court action that has been made.

PN3344

HER HONOUR: I am not sure that that is a power that the Chief Industrial Magistrate would allow me. I can't imagine him acknowledging any power in me to do that unless it was by agreement or the parties had agreed to accept a recommendation in relation to those matters. I don't have any power by any finding order I make to affect any matters conducted before Mr Miller - it is Mr Miller, is it?

PN3345

MR FREW: Yes, it is, your Honour.

PN3346

HER HONOUR: So, you know, that would have to be a matter that the parties agreed to.

PN3347

MR FREW: Your recommendations may provide for some course of action that we might take that would resolve that issue.

PN3348

HER HONOUR: Well, I am happy to render that assistance but otherwise my affect on Mr Miller's jurisdiction is non-existent.

PN3349

MR FREW: Thank you. If I visit just briefly the Airservices evidence. I don't believe that we have heard anything that has destroyed Mr Ward's credibility as an expert with considerable experience. The fact that he has been called upon by our regulator to assess positions and the work that he has done has been accepted by CASA, the fact that he has had long experience in that area is not necessarily overturned by whether or not he has presented papers on the subject and we believe that that hasn't been overturned.

PN3350

The evidence delivered by other management representatives have gone to the distinction between TO3s and TO4s and have been consistent in many ways when they refer to responsibility and, to use the words of Mr Baker, it is the TO4 that he expects to carry the can even when working with the TO3 who may in fact technically be more competent in specific items of equipment. The TO4 is still expected to carry the can in the exercise of responsibility.

PN3351

The question of position classification standards has been raised, not as Mr Dwyer holds forth of these local arrangements. We did establish or mention within transcript that the position classification standard was a document produced by the Australian Government. Reference was made to the Department of Finance and whilst that document has not been produced in evidence - unfortunately time didn't allow us to procure a copy of it in time today - but it is in fact a document that has been used by a range of government departments, not excluding Airservices, in position classification standard reviews.

PN3352

The document was used quite extensively in the implementation of the Structural Efficiency Principle, in the translation of officers that Mr Waters referred to, and in fact was used by retired and in fact late Commissioners of this place in the review through Grievance Appeal Boards in determining whether or not an officer should be translated to a particular technical level.

PN3353

I also draw the attention of the Commission to Mr Todkill's evidence on the question of how the structure of the current shift was arrived at and that structure which today of course includes a succession from the earlier agreement is a shift that is structured with a supervisory level equivalent to today's MM1 with TO4s and TO3s and on oath Mr Todkill has indicated that that matter was a matter industrially agreed between the unions and management.

PN3354

The question of the use of the word "responsibility" within work level descriptions has been made. Whether the word appears that or not, a careful reading of the position description and in fact the work level descriptions must infer that there is responsibility accepted by an officer who performs those duties. The fact that an officer is required to perform technical maintenance both at the TO3 level and TO4 level on elements of the National Airway System, indicates that he must accept responsibility and that if that officer in fact has the overriding responsibility of carrying the can, as it is so eloquently put, there is responsibility. Regardless of the word used, these officers are responsible. The TO4s are responsible. The MM1s are responsible for the National Airways System and they're responsible to supervise those under their care, be they acting at a higher level or be they at their level in the maintenance of that National Airway System with its importance in safety.

PN3355

I have mentioned already that the claim is of real magnitude. I have mentioned again and re-affirmed that the TO3 is a competent level and is looked at as such and great store is placed on the competency of a man who has a diploma, who has had two years experience at a particular entry level and many years of experience in the job. A great deal of store is put on that. If a man who has had that much experience - - -

PN3356

HER HONOUR: A person.

PN3357

MR FREW: - - - is not able to do things - - -

PN3358

HER HONOUR: A person, Mr Frew.

PN3359

MR FREW: A person, yes, but unfortunately they're all men in this case, your Honour. I have for many years been trying to change that. For many years I've tried to change that with - - -

PN3360

HER HONOUR: I'm sorry, I ought not to have interrupted you. I just can't resist.

PN3361

MR FREW: Thank you, we are of a similar mind. I welcome the useful suggestions made by the CPSU that a joint approach to questions of work classification and job classification is a much more useful and fruitful approach rather than the visitation of this matter within the Commission.

PN3362

It has been said that we have not contested the evidence that was put before you by those on the other side of this table. In fact, I just repeat that we have established a point that there is a differentiation between that and a TO3, a TO3 and TO4 and that the emphasis has been on responsibility and accountability. We have established that all have a basic electronic competency. We have established that with this sort of experience that TO3s can do most of the technical work that is required in Sydney.

PN3363

It is said that the base documentation is the award and whilst we don't dispute that, there are subsequent industrial agreements. There is in place an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. There have been agreements with the unions on the construction of shifts. In fact, if one was to look at the current Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, there is a specific reference that varies duties associated with the award and it says in that particular document that when it comes to the technical staff assessment program, which is referred to as Tech Cert, that a work place assessor - and this is in the registered agreement, item 25.2.1:

PN3364

From the commencement of this agreement the responsibility of work place assessor would be formally incorporated into the prescribed duties of selected technical and engineering staff.

PN3365

So, in fact, the award is impacted by an enterprise bargain and whilst it is the base document for position classification standards, there are agreements made from time to time beyond the award that perhaps take it further and that is one example of a variation to include the role of technical assessor within the position descriptions or the job classification of selected technical officers.

PN3366

The question of protocols has been arranged and, to a certain extent, disputed during these hearings. The question of whether a TO3 has direct access to engineers over matters associated with the system and the question of protocols there. The fact is that whilst engineers, discovering a problem with the system, may ring a technical officer at level 3 directly over the particular problem, the protocol established by Mr Baker - and Mr Baker reinforced this - is that he is the contact point over issues associated that have the need to be referred to engineers or system problems referred to engineers.

PN3367

The contribution of TO3s to management reporting has been raised in this place. In fact, they do but that that is done through the completion of regular log sheets which are put together by, again, Mr Baker who actually draws up the monthly report. In fact, the TO3 does not prepare the monthly report, the contribution is through the log sheets. He draws that up and puts that through his manager, which in previous cases would have been Mr Hughes and today is Mr Wheatley.

PN3368

We have talked about the situation of rosters and shifts. The shifts that these officers work on was designed as a self relieving shift. It had the provision for minimum staffing levels and the provision to work within an agreed structure. It has provision where some do get HGA for performing higher duties and in fact that has happened.

PN3369

There are situations and if I might quote the figures where an analysis of the shifts will indicate just how many shifts have been manned at particular levels and I would refer again to my original submission in which there is a chart that reflects the percentage of shifts. There is some - just some 13 per cent of shifts out of 504 shifts, 66 shifts are manned by the minimum number of two which was the agreed number. The balance of the shifts are manned by between three and five officers. So there is many of the shifts that have that diversity of level within them. A lot has been said about the VSCMS, however we have established that the bulk of expertise comes from Mr Baker and Canberra based engineers.

PN3370

Mr Baker is the technical liaison point for the VSCMS and whilst TO3s do work on that system, the technical liaison point is Mr Baker. The National Airway System has a structured hierarchy in dealing with its systems and that hierarchy is a systems engineer, a configuration management plan, AEIs and associated support documents. The point has been made again and I must re-emphasise this point because I fear that there is some misunderstanding of this point, the point that was made that these particular hearings did result in Airservices paying HGA for half days, for single days, that sort of thing. If it were required, the pay records for each of the officers could be produced and that will show occasions within those that go beyond the beginning of these hearings where HGA has been paid for periods of less - for very short periods of times.

PN3371

The question of the writing of AEIs has been written - has been raised. AEIs are written in a language that any competent technical officer can understand. They are a technical officer - a technical document directed at technical officers who have some training and who have had some practical experience in a technical environment. The question of a number of technical officers level 3 who have jumped over the TO4 ranks and the point that they had - whether they had or had not received HDA for acting as TO4s was not raised or mentioned, but these officers had some acting responsibilities. Mr Verdich, the records will show, has acted as a TO4 on quite a number of occasions.

PN3372

But Mr Todkill made the strong point that he had assessed their promise and potential to become a manager and concluded with his selection committee that those particular officers had the requisite potential or promise to perform the role of a shift leader or an MM1 successfully. Drawing to a conclusion, the question of RASP TO4s has been raised and whilst it escapes the management teams understanding as to why it has been raised in the context of these hearings, I am told that there are RASP - there is RASP equipment in Sydney and the officers who look after that equipment are in fact TO4s who are on the radar shift.

PN3373

The question of contractors visiting the site with the TO3s dealing directly when the issue of direct and indirect dealing with these within the position descriptions was raised, I am assured that they are there as any TO3 is there for. The TO3 is to make sure that the National Airway System at Sydney is protected in their work area and certainly if there was any threat because of the presence of a contractor to the National Airway System, we would expect a TO3 as a competent technical officer to speak with those contractors.

PN3374

There are also established principles within Airservices associated with occupational health and safety and there is a requirement that all officers regardless of their level, work within the established arrangements for occupational health and safety within the organisation and there would be a requirement under those circumstances for a TO3, more generally he would speak to his supervisor, a TO4 or union 1 if he had concerns over safe operation of contractors, but again because of the conscientiousness of our TO3s, it would not be beyond our understanding that they would speak to contractors over occupational health and safety concerns that they would have. So in that respect they would deal direct with contractors visiting the site.

PN3375

In most employment situations employees are trained or operate for at least part of the time the next level up. It is an established practice in a lot of industries for people to be given development opportunities so that they are ready for promotion when the opportunity presents. And in that respect Airservices is no different to many employers who provide opportunity for exposure and for acceptance of those additional responsibility so people are capable to move up when the opportunity presents.

PN3376

We have had some questions about the relationship of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Suffice as to say that I do not expect or intend to explore those matters at great length other than purely and simply to say that the Melbourne, from a technical sense and also from an air traffic control sense, manages half of Australia including the Sydney flight information region. Brisbane manages the other half of Australia and dictates the magnitude of the role that is performed by those locations within the TAAAT Systems. Those areas, whilst there is TAAATS equipment in Sydney, the TAAAT System today, with changes in technology, is a much larger system than those located at other individual sites within the network.

PN3377

In Sydney we have established that a TO3 is never truly on his own. He always has someone that he can refer to. There are situations in the network where TO4s are solo and by themselves. Their indication of the responsibility in such a place as Tamworth or in Moorabbin could be sought where we find that the TO4 there is responsible for quite extensive dealings with outside clients and alone without direct reference to somebody else situated within that site, is able to manage particular systems.

PN3378

I just return again to my statement which I have made on several occasions that within the transcript there are assertions by a number of officers that they believe they are TO4s. It is our assertion that they are not. We have asked within my original submission and I can but repeat what that submission was and rather than provide unfortunately in an alternative option might satisfy my colleagues with their current substantial claim before this Commission is that I submit to the Commission the union's claim on higher duties and reclassification are without foundation and should cease immediately and looking to your good officers to make other recommendations or directions that the Commission may feel will assist with creating better harmony and resolution at Sydney, thank you.

PN3379

HER HONOUR: Thank you Mr Frew. There is one matter about which I would like you to respond. The union has asked in their submissions, well at least the CEPU has, for a payment that I make a recommendation and they specify an amount of time, yes once I think. Do you have a response to that or do you make no submission about that?

PN3380

MR FREW: This is a matter of time for back pay, on transcript your Honour, I believe in re-reading transcript that you have mentioned that the payment of back pay was not within your jurisdiction, I may have misunderstood that.

PN3381

HER HONOUR: No, it is not, but you also said that a recommendation from me might be a matter that is taken into account in resolving the matter. There is in fact a request that I make such a recommendation by the union and I would like to know whether or not you have a view about the quantum that is sought in that recommendation.

PN3382

MR FREW: If I have reviewed it or - - -

PN3383

HER HONOUR: Or whether you have a view about the quantum sought in that recommendation. If you do not have a view, you do not have one or if you prefer not to express one, that is a matter for you.

PN3384

MR FREW: My official view of course is that which you expressed on transcript already, your Honour.

PN3385

HER HONOUR: If you have some other view you would like to express, I am happy to go off transcript.

PN3386

MR FREW: Is this off the record or on the record, your Honour?

PN3387

HER HONOUR: Not yet, but it will be.

OFF THE RECORD

RESUMED [7.01pm]

PN3388

HER HONOUR: Do you wish to respond?

PN3389

MR DWYER: Yes, just very briefly of course. Your Honour, back in 1998 - - -

PN3390

HER HONOUR: You are not going to start that far back are you?

PN3391

MR DWYER: No, I just want to give this scenario, the TO3s at Sydney Airport came to the union expressing the view that they were doing the TO3 work and they were giving examples such as you have heard in the evidence of being on the runways, doing flight checks by themselves without reference to other people, fully qualified to do it all and expected to finish it and sign it off. So we left our people sitting on the runway there and started the process of writing, in September, formally raising the matter and by July 1999, I get a letter back saying: Having fully investigated your claims I set out a response. I am not going to go through all the submissions that were made or meetings that took place: Having now fully investigated your claim, I now set out the response. And the response was no of course.

PN3392

A new manager came along who invited me to come and do the same thing again and by then of course you could imagine some members might be saying let's get on with it if we've already got the answer. Some how or other Mr Frew says we should still punish those poor guys out there on the runways because Mr Dwyer failed to take - to discuss locally, not nationally, locally with the new manager what this issue is all about. And in fact my recollection was I did meet with him, probably not really relevant and I do not think that should be used as a reason to reject this claim. Let us look at it on its merits and on the facts.

PN3393

And if we do, if there is somebody at fault here, it is all very well for Mr Frew to say when they lodged the claim for higher duties, we approved it. No body lodged claim because they knew the rule. The rule was you are not going to get higher duties if it is less than five days. Over and over again, our witnesses have given that evidence. I know you asked the question and made that very point yourself in proceedings. People did not lodge claims in the end because they knew they would not get paid. Now who is at fault here. The award says half a day. This is a blatant repeated and deliberate breach of the award and Mr Todkill says, yes we had the rule, but sheeted it home to the senior manager.

PN3394

HER HONOUR: Mr Dwyer, I am not George Miller, that is the matter you have to run in the Chief Industrial Magistrates Court and - - -

PN3395

MR DWYER: Yes, I understand, but if fault is to be attributed to any one - - -

PN3396

HER HONOUR: But I have already told you Mr Dwyer, that this is a no fault matter.

PN3397

MR DWYER: Yes.

PN3398

HER HONOUR: Whatever has happened in relation to the dispute resolution procedure is over and done with and the matter is here and the issue is to be determined and perhaps there is lessons to be learnt for the conduct of future claims by both sides in relation to this particular matter.

PN3399

MR DWYER: Yes. I will move on. Mr Frew talked about promotions to TO4. I remind you that the job - the work level standards in the award do not talk about TO4s as a promotion - sorry, they do not talk about a TO4 work in questions of years. That is you need to have so many years or that done. A TO4 is described in terms of the work that is to be done. It is a skill factor. The matter has come before you, we have not said to you these people are qualified to be TO4s, we have come to you and said these people are qualified to be TO4s and in fact are doing TO4 work. Now we would submit it is axiomatic in this Commission that if you are doing work at a level, you must be paid at that level. There are very few exceptions to that rule can be found.

PN3400

The final matter around the area submissions on motivation. It seems to be submitted our people are motivated to be promoted. Our people are saying we want to be paid for the work we are doing. Yes they have applied for jobs. Sydney Basin is not the only place there has been a downturn. There used to be a lot of remote stations once, but the downturn has been across Australia. There are not those jobs around. But the claim is not we are after a promotion, the claim is we are doing the work at this level, we would like to be recognised for that and want to be paid for it. I think I will end there.

PN3401

HER HONOUR: Thank you.

PN3402

MR WATERS: I am afraid I will not go on for a little longer than Mr Dwyer this time. The CPSU rejects absolutely any assertions that the work performed by technical staff in Airservices has been simplified through the process of technical change. Technical change has been an ongoing element of aviation for very many years. Change does not necessarily mean simplification, it means that things change and we reject absolutely any of the assertions made in submissions by Airservices regarding some simplification of the work that our members throughout Australia perform. Clearly that applies to Sydney as well.

PN3403

The issue of HGA has come up on a number of occasions. I think it is pertinent to go to the award and to clause 21.1 of the Airservices Australia Award 2000 which states:

PN3404

And employee will be eligible for the payment of higher duties allowance when he or she temporarily performs duties at a higher level.

PN3405

Mr Frew has, on a number of occasions, taken us to the record of higher duties payments that have been made at Sydney. All of those payments have been, it would appear to us, all of those payments have arisen because of a structural vacancy where there has been a vacancy within the shift structure, the MM1, TO4, TO3 structure and there has been a decision to fill one of those vacancies, it has been on that basis that a decision on payment of higher duties has been made. Clearly in those cases staff have been being asked to perform duties at a higher classification level. The fundamental matter that this case is about though is that those staff have been being asked on an ongoing day by day basis, asked to perform duties at a higher classification level. I think that is the assertion both of ourselves and of the CEPU in this matter.

PN3406

I would reiterate that it is the evidence that has been presented by technical officer level 3 staff regarding functions that they have performed, flight checks on aircraft is an example that has been used on transcript, higher duties of the technical officer level 4 is paid by Airservices to staff performing that function at other sites around Australia. Working one off on ILSs, staff are paid as TO4s for doing that sort of work elsewhere in Australia. On the day shifts there are the examples by comparison in Melbourne and Brisbane, TO4s lead the work on those pieces of equipment. The voices switches, again, are at the highest level of complexity in terms of Airservices Equipment, staff who are working one off on those systems, particularly doing things like the software upgrades and making suggestions back to the supplier, such as Boeing, of those equipment should be being paid at the TO4 level for doing work. It is clearly, in our view, work at a higher classification level than a TO3 level.

PN3407

Mr Frew asserted that TO3s have claimed repeatedly that after one or two years they have become a TO4. Firstly, from the higher duties records that are available to us, Airservices managers have certified by paying higher duties when there has been a structural vacancy, that those staff are fully capable of performing all of the duties of the higher classification.

PN3408

There is, in performance of higher duties, in the award the capacity for partial duties where staff are not able to perform or are not asked to perform all of the functions.

PN3409

HER HONOUR: Mr Waters, with respect, there is a difference - nominally in your argument you say that if you find in SDP Williams' decision that was handed up by Mr Dwyer that what we are talking about here is not somebody who has had the skills in that job but was available to do the job if he was asked or she was asked but somebody who had the skills and was doing the job and now you are saying that they acknowledge that the people had the skills - the employees had the skills - because on occasions where there was a structural vacancy they were asked to do the job and fill it.

PN3410

That really isn't the basis of your argument, as I've understood it to date. You argument, as I've understood it to date, and at least the witness called by the CEPU, is that on a day to day basis whether or not they are filling in or not, and they are performing the work that the - as particularly I understood the evidence of Mr Thyrd who has been instructing today, that on a day to day basis, day in and day out, whether working as TO3 or a TO4, that the work is the same.

PN3411

There is no distinguishing between the role performed whether you work enough or not. That is not exactly the case you are now running in these submissions.

PN3412

MR WATERS: Well, in that case I've been unclear, your Honour, and I'll try and clarify that. It is our position that the work that the TO3 staff had been doing on a day in and day out basis is work that is the same as the TO4s and is at the TO4 level. I was responding to an assertion that was made in the summation by - - -

PN3413

HER HONOUR: I think you should be careful though in responding to - - -

PN3414

MR WATERS: Sorry, a submission.

PN3415

HER HONOUR: Yes, in responding to a submission, that you don't change your own case.

PN3416

MR WATERS: One of the submissions from Mr Frew was to the point that staff had indicated that after one or two years they had become a TO4. I was simply, in response to that point, indicating that there is, through the higher duties records, evidence from management that they acknowledge that those people are capable of doing TO4 work because they paid them TO4 money.

PN3417

It doesn't got to the - perhaps I'm firing one of those rabbits down a hole that I should have left alone.

PN3418

HER HONOUR: Yes, you might get down there and find it's Alice's rabbit, Mr Waters.

PN3419

MR WATERS: Mr Frew raised an issue with regard to the automatic placement of TO3 staff at the TO4 level or the promotion of staff from the TO3 level to the TO4 level without going through a merit selection process. I would say that that is an issue with do have some sympathy with.

PN3420

I think the fundamental matter here is the recognition that the work that the TO3 staff have been performing on an ongoing basis is at the TO4 level and is the same as the work that the TO4s have been performing on an ongoing day by day basis.

PN3421

We dealt previously, I think, with the issue of responsibility and again submit that the evidence provided by the TO3s and by one of Airservice's witnesses, Mr Baker, indicates that the responsibility of the staff on shift is at the same level. Certainly TO3s at Sydney Airport do a significant amount of work one out by themselves and they carry the responsibility clearly in those circumstances.

PN3422

Mr Frew has returned a number of times to a question of the Aeronautical Engineering Instructions. The Aeronautical Engineering Instructions are documents that are binding on all technical officers in Airservices including the technical managers at their stations.

PN3423

One of the points that Mr Frew took one of his witnesses to in terms of the technical officer classification structures was a statement at the opening of the work level descriptions contained in the award that points out that the work of technical officers is within a set of developed procedures and that statement applies equally to each of the technical officer classifications contained in the award from the technical officer level 1 to the senior technical officer grade B.

PN3424

With regard to the issue of TO4s being the level of practitioner to work on RASP equipment, it's acknowledged that that equipment is worked on by TO4s. The point is that a number of the Airservices managers have asserted that there is little difference in terms of the technical work performed at the TO3 and the TO4 level. Clearly, there are others who have a different view to that, including the CPSU.

PN3425

That view is also shared by suppliers of equipment to Airservices whereby they specify that the level of technical practitioner that they want working on their equipment is at the TO4 level. They recognise that their equipment is a highly complex piece of equipment. I will conclude there, thank you.

PN3426

HER HONOUR: I reserve my decision.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED [7.20pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

ANTHONY WARD, ON FORMER OATH PN2352
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2683
BOB BAKER, SWORN PN2685
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2878
MARK HUGHES, SWORN PN2885
WITNESS WITHDREW PN3178