C3562/100, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 1058 (25 March 2003)

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

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

C No 35621 of 2000

AIRLINE OFFICERS (QANTAS AIRWAYS
LIMITED) AWARD 1992

Application under section 113 of the Act
to vary the above award re rates of
pay and classifications

SYDNEY

1.38 PM, TUESDAY, 11 MARCH 2003

PN1

MS L. WHITE: I appear on behalf of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union.

PN2

MR J. McKENZIE: I appear for Qantas Airways Limited, QH Tours Limited, Qantas Superannuation Limited, Qantas Holidays Limited and Qantas Flight Catering Limited.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Yes, Ms White. Where are we?

PN4

MS WHITE: Well, Commissioner, you may recall that this was an application lodged by the ASU on 1 August 2000 to vary the Airline Officers, Qantas Airways Limited Award 2000. I think last time we met was something like January or February 2001. What I might do, Commissioner, is recap slightly on - about the application, but it is an application to vary now by consent that award. At the time that we lodged that application it was in two parts.

PN5

The first part of the application the Commission was being asked, in accordance with item 51 of the Work Place Relations and Other Legislation Act, and section 88A and 88B of the Work Place Relations Act, to set appropriate relativities, based on skill and responsibility of the work performed. As the award was a paid rates award, you know, it was subject to the paid rates review decision in print Q7761, and this was relevant to the setting of minimum rates.

PN6

Obviously that decision required the Commission to properly set minimum rates for this award, and provided the criteria for the conversion of the award. That was the first part. And the second part the Commission was being asked to vary the award to insert classification definitions. The first part of the application was dealt with by Commissioner Wilkes, firstly on 25 September 2000, in print T0935, and then after further submissions Commissioner Wilkes issued a decision on 3 November 2000 that the rates of pay in the award had been reviewed using the principles in the paid rates review decision, and the rates in the award reflected properly set minimum rates.

PN7

The relevant decision for that part of the application, which was also - we had issued an application, this application, but there was also C0068, I think, of '98, which was the dual. But the relevant decision which set the minimum rates was in print T3165, and the final simplified award order is in print T3166, which was made on 3 November 2000. Certainly these decisions established the key classifications and the relativities in the award. The decision on rates having been made, the remainder of the application then came before you, Commissioner, as you will recall, first on 7 November 2000 and then a number of times subsequently in conference.

PN8

The parties then went away and continued discussing the appropriate definitions. A range of working parties were arranged, with delegates and officials from the ASU ranks participating, and there were a range of Qantas managers that also participated during 2001. Unfortunately, the process did not proceed as quickly as the parties may have wanted, but this was really in no small part due to the turmoil in the industry during 2001/2002, both here, because of the Ansett collapse, and of course world wide.

PN9

Not surprisingly the classification structure descriptors went on hold, not for the first time, but this time certainly because of that intervening factor that no one could take account of. The task has been an enormous one as we probably signalled in 2000, and, like, 2000 and early 2001, as the classification structure in this award covers over 9500 people in a range of job functions, in a large number of locations, with a variety of sizes, and while there has been a lot of commonality, there has also been a number of differences that had to be accommodated in this structure.

PN10

The process also highlighted a range of positions that were incorrectly classified in the view of the ASU, and these anomalies were raised and resolved during enterprise bargaining discussions in 2002. Mr McKenzie will deal more fully with the agreement reached between the parties, but in essence the ASU and Qantas has agreed that as of 1 September 2002 positions in the classification structure are to be considered as correctly classified, unless they have been agreed as anomalies and reclassified. That arose out of Qantas EBA6, which was certified last year.

PN11

The range of positions that have been reclassified are detailed in correspondence dated 10 September 2002 from Qantas to the ASU. A copy of this correspondence was tendered in the EBA certification proceedings before Senior Deputy President Watson on 15 October 2002, but for completeness I have a copy of that so that you get the picture of the discussions. So this is a letter from Sue Bussell, General Manager, Industrial Relations, dated 10 September 2002, which I seek to tender.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark that - I think we are up to exhibit ASU3.

EXHIBIT #ASU3 LETTER FROM QANTAS TO THE ASU DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2002

PN13

MS WHITE: Commissioner, I don't intend to take you to it in any great detail, save to say that it talks about the anomalies, the basis of the agreement and 1 September 2002 cut off point that I have talked about. So what we have - the background is of the anomalies being settled and we have yesterday filed a draft order with your associate, which provides for the insertion into the award of the definitions at each level of the classification structure for employees other than nurses.

PN14

It also provides for some consequential changes to other clauses to make those clauses consistent with the classification structure. I don't know whether it is appropriate to tender that amended draft order, but if it is I will do so.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I will mark that exhibit ASU4.

EXHIBIT #ASU4 AMENDED DRAFT ORDER

PN16

MS WHITE: If I take you to that amended draft order the substantive variation is to insert the classification structure definitions as new clause 15.3.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Wait a second.

PN18

MS WHITE: That is at A2 of the amended draft order. And if I can take you through it.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN20

MS WHITE: The descriptors cover levels 1 through to senior professional level 2. The existing award has 13 levels and two classifications for level 1 and 2. The effect of this application is to replace levels 10 and 11 with senior professional level 1 and levels 12 and 13 with senior professional level 2. I will deal with the way in which the minimum wage are to be dealt with later, but that is how the scheme is. So this classification - classification descriptors only cover levels 1 to 9, senior professional 1 and 2 and senior professional level 2. Level 1 and 2 managers are not covered by descriptors.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Wait a second. Now, senior professional level 2 is covered?

PN22

MS WHITE: That is right.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: But not the manager?

PN24

MS WHITE: Level 1 and 2, but not the 2 managers.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Not those two. Okay. Thank you.

PN26

MS WHITE: So senior professional level 2 was the old 12 and 13, and 1 was the old 10 and 11.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN28

MS WHITE: We have got rid of two levels, by name only. They still exist but they are in this two level structure, not four as previously. If I take you to the clause, the new clause provides an introduction, which outlines how the generic classification descriptors should be read and applied. They are outlining what is to be taken into account when determining the generic descriptors of knowledge, problem solving and accountability required at each level. Each level also provides a list of typical duties by business, which although not exhaustive provides assistance when interpreting the generic descriptors.

PN29

So at the front we have what the generic descriptors are, knowledge, problem solving, accountability, and the typical duties and how they are there. The first part is an explanation if you like about how it operates. At the senior professional level 1 and 2 levels we have also acknowledged that at this level the roles may be even managerial or involve specialist technical functions, or a combination of both. As a result the senior professional 1 and senior professional 2 descriptors they take account of typical management duties, which are outlined there as well.

PN30

Finally in the introduction there is an outline of how the skill descriptors should be applied. Importantly, the positions are to be rated at the level of best fit. Typical duties are cumulative, and may be required at a higher level, even though they are not mentioned specifically. There is some repetition of skills at different levels. For example if I take you to accountability at level 3 and level 4, which on my copy is page 6, and then subsequently on page 8, under accountability, which is a generic descriptor as you can see, that those two, the first point for accountability is the same.

PN31

And there are a couple of other instances where that occurs. This was done really to give context to the levels, such skills not to be used as the differentiating factor to place the position above the first level where a repeated skill is mentioned. All of this is explained in the introduction, but that was an example of it. What we found when we were constructing these descriptors was that there were not changes necessarily in every single generic descriptor at every level, and so at key levels we did repeat them, just for ease of understanding, given the vast number of people who were going to, we hope, consult this classification structure. Well, we would hope that that is the case.

PN32

The parties have discussed the length of time to be spent at a lower level, so, the other thing that is covered by the introduction is that it confirms that the skill descriptors describe substantive roles, not training roles.

PN33

It is recognised that a current or new employee who is training for entry to a position in a work area may be classified at a lower level until they acquire the skills and knowledge for the substantive level. The parties have discussed at length the time to be spent at a lower level when training occurs as it applies to a particular position. The detail of those understandings are contained in correspondence from Qantas to the ASU dated 7 March 2003, and - as I said, the substantive matters about training are dealt with in the descriptors, but I will also tender the letter Sue Bussell, General Manager, Industrial Relations, dated 7 March 2003, to myself.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I will mark that exhibit ASU5.

EXHIBIT #ASU5 LETTER FROM QANTAS TO THE ASU DATED 7 MARCH 2003

PN35

MS WHITE: The purpose of this letter was, again, to just talk about training. It gives us some indicative training time for the various - for common positions where training occurs. It isn't exhaustive, but the sort of levels where training occurs at a lower level are encompassed by this letter. So that is how the introduction fits into the descriptors and then the descriptors I guess speak for themselves at each level, as we have described, knowledge, problem solving, accountability, and then you will see that typical duties are described at various areas in Qantas.

PN36

Mr McKenzie will take you further, I think, into that, but it certainly goes through a range of positions. It is not every position covered by this - the typical duties don't cover every position covered by this classification structure. I think it is around 200 positions which are encompassed as typical, and we picked, in this exercise, positions that were populous and also had attracted skills that could be interchangeable to other positions. As I indicated, there are some consequential changes as a result of this proposed variation. The application creates two new levels, senior professional 1 and senior professional 2.

PN37

The wage rates proposed for these levels are a range which reflects previously determined and set minimum rates for the previous levels 10 and 11 for SP1 and 12 and 13 for SP2. The progression at these levels is based on both skill required and performance. Such a scheme at this level is consistent with the paid rates review decision and with subsequent decisions of this Commission, which allow for either increments or range. That is - so we have placed a range at this level, but with the previously set minimum rates.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Where is says a range, does it mean that it is not those rates, it can be anything in between?

PN39

MS WHITE: That is right. Sorry, the minimum. It is the minimum is the bottom rate, but it can be any rate in between, yes. The range proposed, as I said, reflects previously arbitrated minimum levels for the previous classification, and so it means that it might have changed the way in which the rates are expressed in 15.1.1, which is the first clause in the draft order. There are also a range of other consequential changes. Clause 15.8 is deleted, as it is now covered off by clause 15.3. Existing clause 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6 and 15.7 are renumbered because of the insertion of a new clause 15.3. You will see that at part 4 of the proposed draft order.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN41

MS WHITE: And clause 18.38 the words "level 11" are replaced by "senior professional level 1". That is at part 5. Clause 21.2.3 is deleted as clause 21.4 covers this off, and it is replaced by a new clause 21.4. We have had some last minute change however on the 21.4 and I have a proposal, and amended clause 21.4, which I will send through to you by email. So what - I probably should tender that as well, as the amended page.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and I have marked it exhibit ASU6.

EXHIBIT #ASU6 AMENDED CLAUSE 21.4

PN43

MS WHITE: The change is - all we have done now is in fact insert the words "senior professional level 1" where the words "level 11" previously was. Finally in clause 24.9.1 we are deleting the words "level 5 to 13" and they are replaced with the words "level 5 to senior professional level 2". Again these are consequential changes that come from the change in wording at the front of the draft order.

PN44

There are other matters that are dealt with by the parties. We have agreed to a testing period for the new classification structure, which commences on 1 February 2003. The process for testing is outlined in a letter from Sue Bussell, dated 7 March 2003, to me, and I will tender that letter. That is a letter of 7 March from Sue Bussell, General Manager, Industrial Relations.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark that exhibit ASU7.

EXHIBIT #ASU7 LETTER FROM MS BUSSELL TO MS WHITE DATED 7 MARCH 2003

PN46

MS WHITE: So this letter outlines the process for testing, and it provides also for how new jobs will be graded, and how during the testing period they will be checked on a monthly basis by members of the working group at monthly meetings convened for that purpose, for a period of six months. What the parties have felt is that, despite our best efforts, these things, the complexity of them always mean that there is going to be something that falls through the cracks.

PN47

We are pretty confident that it is pretty right, but there are a large number of people who will have to administer this classification structure, and during the first six months it was thought that we should seal the new positions that are created, check them through, make sure that the methodology is okay, and, I guess, at that time if there are some misunderstandings as to what we have written, we will be able to either correct that within the organisation, and within our organisation, or, alternatively, come back to you because it is some error that we have found after that six month period. I think it would be fair to say that we are reasonably confident that we have got it right, but we are not cocky enough to think that we shouldn't do this process.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN49

MS WHITE: So that is certainly detailed here. There is this review - so there is generally the award grading process that explains what will happen in any event. But there is this review process, and the six months, where we will meet on a regular basis. That is starting from 1 February, because we are aware that there have been some positions created, and they will provide us with an opportunity to have a meeting in the near future to start looking at the methodology.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: And has there been any meetings?

PN51

MS WHITE: No. No, there hasn't. There haven't been that many positions created in the period since September. But I presume that we will look at sort of what happens probably next week, the week after, and look backwards to 1 February.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: The current positions have remained unchanged, haven't they?

PN53

MS WHITE: That is right, yes. So it is anything that is new, so that there are new positions that are created, which in Qantas there are restructures and, you know, new areas that are created. Those are the positions that will come before us. It won't be old positions, it will be new positions.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: So the old positions stay where they were - - -

PN55

MS WHITE: That is right.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - just that now there is a comprehensive description of them?

PN57

MS WHITE: That is right. Well, the old position, subject to the anomalies that have been settled, yes. Yes, the old positions stay.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes, that is right. There were anomalies settled?

PN59

MS WHITE: There was.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That is right. That is where current positions were basically fitted into the new definitions, yes.

PN61

MS WHITE: And where they didn't fit, they were re-graded.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN63

MS WHITE: And so that was that process.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I understand.

PN65

MS WHITE: But this is about - this is the ongoing process for the next six months, if there are new positions that are created or changes to existing positions, that will come before us for the next six months and we will look at it and make sure that those that are administering the classification structure understand the process.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN67

MS WHITE: Qantas has a - I can't speak for Qantas, but I understand has like a central group that does it, the quality control, some of whom might be here with us today. But they, you know, nonetheless there can be things on the ground that get mixed up. So the idea is we have done this jointly together, and this review process is also to do that. The letter also talks about - as I have said, it also talks about if there are any drafting errors or inconsistencies or omissions, then they will be corrected six months after the award variation. We will have had plenty of time to test it.

PN68

This also provides, in ASU7 at point 4 we have agreed on a comprehensive implementation scheme, where there will be joint meetings of staff and managers by operational area to look at - to explain to them how it all operates. This has been a long time coming for us and for Qantas, and so we felt it was important that we convey to those who it effects what it all means. It has been long anticipated. So, in summary, the application to vary is to insert the classification structure and consequential changes, and it is by consent of the parties.

PN69

We submit that the variation meets the Commission's principles. The proposed variation is an allowable matter as it related to classifications of employees and creates a skill basis career path, and it gives effect to what is a current practice in relation to classifications for employees covered by this award, and it is not covered off anywhere else, in any enterprise agreement. The variation represents the culmination of a significant amount of work by the parties over a long period of time, dating back, in the first instance, to the creation of the predecessor award to this award in 1992.

PN70

It is a momentous day for us to have completed this task, and it had been - certainly was done in the last 10 months, with a significant amount of good will from Qantas. And for that - it would be rare for me to thank Qantas, but we certainly had a lot of access to a lot of people who provided the ability to get the words together to finalise this matter. The ASU asks that you grant this application in accordance with the amended draft order that has been filed.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Ms White. Yes, Mr McKenzie?

PN72

MR McKENZIE: Thank you, Commissioner. Well, Ms White has covered in some detail the requirements in relation to the Work Place Relations Act, particularly sections 88A and 88B in relation to the requirement that awards contain properly set minimum rates of pay, as well as the paid rates review decision. I have, for completeness, the decision which Ms White referred to in relation to the review of pay rates, of the award which was conducted by Commissioner Wilkes, which is, as she indicated, print T3165. I would seek to have that, not necessarily tendered and marked as an exhibit, but for Commission reference, if I may, I will just take you to it.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN74

MR McKENZIE: Commissioner, there was as a result of the review of the award by Commissioner Wilkes a decision which was issued on 25 September, and Commissioner Wilkes determined throughout standing matters in relation to award simplification and, as well as the minimum rates, the decision on the minimum rates is referred to here, which is T3165. You will see from the decision that the Commission has looked at the requirements of the WROLA Act as well as the requirements in relation to conversion of paid rates awards to minimum rates.

PN75

The award was a paid rate award at the time of the review by Commissioner Wilkes. Therefore the review was conducted. You will note, if I may take you to paragraph 6, the Commissioner looked at the principles of firstly identifying a key classification and looking at that assessed against in B, a proper award for hourly basis against C10 of the Metal Industry Award, and in C, after establishing the proper minimum rate for the key classification then the other rates in the award were adjusted. And you will note in D, if there are - the properly fixed minima are lower than existing rates the difference is identified as a residual amount.

PN76

All that was done as a result of the decision of Commissioner Wilkes, and Commissioner Wilkes issued an order in relation to that decision and the other outstanding matters, which was print T3166. So, Commissioner, it is somewhere we would say in relation to the requirement that the award reflect properly set minimum rates. That has been met, and as Ms White has indicated, what we are looking at now is the second part, which is the implementation of the classification structure to support that new rates of pay.

PN77

As Ms White has indicated, there has been extensive discussions since 2001 and it is fair to say that during the course of these discussions there was some concern by Qantas about the prospect of work value claims, which may arise from any finalisation of any new structure. The award contains about nine and a half thousand employees employed under the award and the range of administrative, clerical, operational and managerial functions. So Qantas sought to ensure during this process that the definitions reflect current practice in terms of classification levels, and for its part, as Ms White has indicated, the ASU raised certain anomalies in relation to a relatively small number of classifications and sought that they be resolved.

PN78

And during the last - as the parties agreed in last September that essentially that the position, as outlined in - well, which is contained in the ASU EBA6 was that the parties agree that the outcome of this review has addressed all anomalies and work value changes as at 1 September 2002, and as a consequence the parties agreed that all positions covered by this agreement are correctly classified. That is contained in part B of ASU EBA6, number B4 for the Commission reference.

PN79

We would say therefore, Commissioner, that B4 is the bench line for the classification structure. There has been, as Ms White made mention, a skills matrix of classifications in levels which applied within Qantas. That was developed and was tendered in proceedings before Senior Deputy President Watson for the certification of EBA6, so that remains on the Commission file, in a sealed envelope, as it is commercial in confidence.

PN80

So, Commissioner, the process, as Ms White has indicated, to finalise the classification descriptors involved forming a representative group of employees, manager, together with officials of the ASU, and looked at the essentially the classifications, looking at typical duties, knowledge, problem solving and accountability at each level. In this process, as Ms White has indicated, the representative group assessed around 200 position descriptions against the classification definitions, which are outlined in the application.

PN81

The application which is before the Commission, as Ms White has indicated, there is an introduction I should say in relation to how the descriptors should be read and applied. And if I can take you to the application, which is part A2, you will note in the application it refers to what are essentially generic descriptors, which cover knowledge, problem solving, and accountability. Each level contains typical duties for each operational area, and you will note, Commissioner, that the application of the award is quite wide.

PN82

It covers a range of classifications, as I have indicated, but within a number of operational areas across Qantas and the other parts of the business. The knowledge part covers the knowledge and skill required to complete the job in a satisfactory manner, and that includes both the level and type of knowledge and experience. Problem solving is essentially the complexity of the job, and that covers the complexity inherent in problem solving, and includes the matters listed there, which are the extent to which guidance is available and the extent to which rules and precedents apply, the level of analysis required and the extent to which judgment is required.

PN83

And that includes both the degree of difficulty and freedom to think. In terms of accountability, it cover the responsibility or what is expected of the position, and it covers the extent to which the position is accountable for producing an identifiable, measurable end result and has the authority to act and to approve or make decisions. And includes as well the type and extent of impact over organisational resources, freedom to act, impact on end result, and the scope and breadth of responsibility, including degree of responsibility for the work of others.

PN84

The rest of the introduction is broken up into typical duties and also applying the skill descriptors. Those parts are important, we would see, as to outline as to how you would actually apply the skill descriptors in a general sense to respective classifications. And you see as outlined in typical duties, typical duties are provided at each level, the working group has assessed the typical duties after looking at position descriptions for representative jobs at each level. As outlined in the award introduction by providing examples and contextual information the typical duties provide assistance in interpreting the generic descriptors.

PN85

Typical duties are a representative of core functions and activities performed, and at a particular level on the business area concerned. And the award does not contain an exhaustive list of those duties. In terms of the application of the skilled descriptors, an important part of this introduction, as I have said, is how the skill descriptors are to be applied and evaluated. There are a number of points in that, and the positions are evaluated as a whole after being reviewed against each of the descriptors from knowledge, problem solving and accountability, and tested against the typical duties, starting with a relevant business area and then looking at each other areas concerned.

PN86

And importantly the introduction goes on to say that the evaluation should be consistent with other evaluations conducted using these skill descriptors, and also take into account the bench line established in clause B4 of the ASU Qantas Airways Limited EBA6. As Ms White has said, the descriptors are cumulative, and the descriptors for knowledge, problem solving and accountability are in graduated scales, and positions should be rated on these scales at a level of best fit working up the scale.

PN87

So skills that are required at a lower level may be required at a higher level, even though they are not specifically mentioned. Whereas, as Ms White has indicated, where a skill is repeated it is mentioned at a higher level for context. Where this occurs a skill should not be used as a differentiating factor to place a position above the first level, where the repeater level is mentioned. And Ms White has covered the training requirements, as the skill descriptors describe substantive roles, not training roles.

PN88

So the understanding between the parties in relation to training is also outlined in the correspondence which she has tendered, which is ASU5. The current or new employee who was trained for an entry level to a position in the work area may be classified at a lower level until they acquire the skills and knowledge required for performance at the substantive level, and in relation to training levels, that correspondence refers to the approximate times for training in the various operational areas.

PN89

The over-riding principle is that the time required for the employee to acquire the skill and knowledge necessary for the substantive position concerned. You will note also, Commissioner, that the introduction refers to functions that are undertaken in accordance with the Qantas performance management requirements may continue to be performed at the level and each operational area that accords with the practices as at September 2002. There was certain discussion between the parties in relation to this.

PN90

The practice in relation to the implementation of the Qantas performance management system does vary from area to area, and therefore the relevance of this paragraph is that the practices that applied are the reference point. So the practice that applied in September 2002 is the reference point. The introduction also outlines criteria detail, and the descriptor is not to circumscribe the right of the company to arrange work to meet operational needs, and to require appropriate standards of behaviour in compliance with company procedures and legislative requirements.

PN91

There was also certain discussion between the parties in relation to that, as to how that should be spelled out in the awards, so that is also an important paragraph for the introduction. Rearrangement of work by the company does not preclude the reassessment or classification of positions. In relation to the SP1 and 2, Commissioner, Ms White has adequately covered that, I believe, as well as the consequential changes to the existing award. She has also covered, I would submit, adequately, the testing, grading and appeals process, which is outlined in correspondence, ASU - I am sorry, correspondence to the ASU, which is exhibit ASU7.

PN92

That spells out a number of points which have been discussed between the parties, the award grading process, the review process, the testing period, and also, as Ms White has indicated, that there will be review of parties of this classification structure to reviewers, which is outlined in the second dot point in number 4, drafting areas, inconsistency and omissions, six months after the award variation. So, Commissioner, we would submit that the award variation meets the requirements of the Commission's principles, as they relate to the classification structure.

PN93

The award contains minimum rates previously determined by the Commission in accordance with the paid rates review principle. As the Commission would be aware, the paid rates review principle also outlines the process to convert paid rates awards to minimum rates awards. In terms of the other requirements of the Work Place Relations Act, as Ms White has indicated, they are allowable as they relate to classifications in 89A.

PN94

The provisions in the application are not contained in the enterprise agreement, and as I have outlined previously the matters contained in the application give effect to what is a current practice in relation to the classification structure. Therefore, Commissioner, we would submit the Commission grant the application.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. This is - the Commission knows that this application is essentially, perhaps the next step, perhaps final step in a process of dealing with classifications and rates of pay that was commenced some time ago and within the Commission certainly dealt with last year by Commissioner Wilkes, when what I might call a simplified, an appropriately conforming award was established, and also when the specifics of the rates of pay were dealt with by him.

PN96

Essentially the process undertaken by the parties over the past few years is one anticipated by the current provision 15.8, that is, having determined the appropriate rates of pay the parties have embarked upon the next phase of attempting to provide sophisticated descriptions of what each classification or each pay level encompasses. The Commission notes that there is agreement that at September 2002 employees of Qantas at the time were appropriately classified. Those that were not were dealt with, or have been dealt with by agreement, by some administrative re-grading.

PN97

The immediate application, or the immediate effect of this proposed variation is in respect of what I might call new employees, although it will, of course, apply to all employees subject to the award, and just because no current employee is re-graded up or down does not, and should no minimise the importance of now having a much more enhanced clause 15, particularly clause 15.3. I note that the rates of pay contained at 15.1, referrable to the new definition structure, were, or have been found to be properly fixed minimum rates, and therefore in all of that context the Commission is satisfied that the variation reflected in exhibit ASU4, with a minor amendment, which I think is evidenced by exhibit ASU6, that it first of all satisfies the Commission's wage fixing principles.

PN98

It also is in accord, or does not contradict the provisions of section 89A. More importantly, it, to my mind, fits squarely within the objects of part 6, particularly those found in section 88A and section 88B. The only matter that I make some additional comment on is the rates now set out for senior professional level 1 and senior professional level 2. They are somewhat, at first blush, at odds with the other rates, or the other levels in the classifications and rates applying thereto.

PN99

But on the basis of the submissions, and my own knowledge of this award, or this variation, together with the award itself, I am satisfied that the range of payments that can be applied to senior professional level 1 and 2 are not of a type where they are dependent on service and other such considerations, which I think the Commission has indicated its disapproval of. Rather, that range is squarely in accord with the skill and responsibility already applied to what were the predecessor for classifications, levels 10, 11, 12 and 13.

PN100

The current award, those previous classifications, applied certain rates of pay to certain skills and responsibilities and accountabilities. All that this variation does is to provide the employer with the ability to pay persons within a range and that range itself is one that has been determined previously as the confines of appropriately set minimum rates of pay. Consequently, there is, in my mind, no reason why the award should not be varied in the manner sought.

PN101

It will therefore be so varied. The variation will come into force from the first pay period to commence on or after 11 March 2003, and it will remain in force for a period of six months. The Commission compliments the parties on reaching agreement which, quite frankly, the Commission had forgotten about, but had thought that perhaps you had given up. So it is pleasing that the matter has finally been resolved. On that basis these proceedings are now adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.27pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #ASU3 LETTER FROM QANTAS TO THE ASU DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2002 PN13
EXHIBIT #ASU4 AMENDED DRAFT ORDER PN16
EXHIBIT #ASU5 LETTER FROM QANTAS TO THE ASU DATED 7 MARCH 2003 PN35
EXHIBIT #ASU6 AMENDED CLAUSE 21.4 PN43
EXHIBIT #ASU7 LETTER FROM MS BUSSELL TO MS WHITE DATED 7 MARCH 2003 PN46