C2005/4652, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2197 (21 October 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13078-1

COMMISSIONER FOGGO

C2005/4652

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
AND
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
s.99 - Notification of an industrial dispute
(C2005/4652)

MELBOURNE

10.26AM, FRIDAY, 07 OCTOBER 2005

PN1

MS J DOYLE: I appear with MR JANSEN from the CEPU.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Jansen, where do you work?

PN3

MR JANSEN: DLC.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN5

MS G ROONEY: Commissioner, I appear with MR T BUTLER for Australia Post.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Doyle?

PN7

MS DOYLE: Commissioner, there are two elements to this dispute. We have a group of individuals who we fear will be greatly disadvantaged if their acting positions are not recognized. Secondly, we're trying to get Australia Post to abide by timely advertising and filling of hire duty positions and above base grade positions. The basis for our application is that we believe the Commission has powers under section 89A(2) of the Workplace Relations Act to deal with classes of employment and skill based career paths. A number of industrial instruments and customs and practice come into this issue with Australia Post.

PN8

It's actually very complicated. I don't want to delve too deeply into this issue because it really belongs at a national level and it could be very time consuming when really my only purpose is to make sure the individual people are protected and to hopefully set up a consultation process so we can fix up the abysmal situation that exists at the moment where within Australia Post in Victoria at least people do acting for very many years - you know, a decade - and yet their positions are never recognized, they are never classified into those positions.

PN9

To just go through some of the instruments that apply, we have the triple R agreement, which is retraining, redeployment, and redundancy. Basically, that provides for excess employees to be able to be given alternate employment. Where there's a vacancy they get first preference as long as they are assessed as being competent for the job after training.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll mark the triple R agreement as exhibit D1

EXHIBIT #D1 TRIPLE R AGREEMENT

PN11

MS DOYLE: We also have a promotion appeals board which is recognized in attachment A of EBA 6. That establishes the principle that Australia Post, if they have an acting position of three months' duration, they are supposed to advertise it and appoint someone and people can appeal it if they think they've been hard done by. We would argue that should be the principle for vacant positions. If Australia Post don't abolish an above base grade position they should advertise it, fill it, people can appeal.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Attachment A is exhibit D2.

EXHIBIT #D2 ATTACHMENT TO AGREEMENT

PN13

MS DOYLE: We also have the award, where at clause 15 it talks about classifications. That introduces the work level standards. I've brought along work level standards for the mail officer area, so you can see that the selection is done in accordance with procedures determined by Australia Post following consultation with the unions.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, where's that at?

PN15

MS DOYLE: That's 15.2.1.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: 15.2.1.?

PN17

MS DOYLE: Yes.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll mark that excerpt

EXHIBIT #D3 EXCERPTS

PN19

MS DOYLE: These are the work level standards.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll mark those as exhibit D4.

EXHIBIT #D4 WORK LEVEL STANDARDS

PN21

MS DOYLE: As well as that, there's quite a bit in the policy manuals which I won't really go into until if it becomes a point in question.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Mm.

PN23

MS DOYLE: Further, of course, Commissioner, there are a number of authorities that the Commission has found that when you're acting in higher duties continuously for six months in any continuous twelve month period that you should be reclassified into the position, but to move into the particulars - - -

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you going to provide those authorities?

PN25

MS DOYLE: I can, I haven't got copies of them at the moment, Commissioner, perhaps - - -

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, at some appropriate time.

PN27

MS DOYLE: Yes. If we could get to the particulars, and if I could refer you to my application, perhaps the letter of 5 September to Clint Draper is an outline of the individual people who are involved in this dispute.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Fifth or sixth?

PN29

MS DOYLE: Fifth.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN31

MS DOYLE: You'll be pleased to know we fixed up one person, that's the person at CSDC, right on the bottom. Mr Butler and myself came to some agreement while we were waiting for you, Commissioner, about Kenneth Murphy. You might remember, he appeared in the matter of the penalty rates and he produced a letter saying that he had been given this classification. Australia Post have subsequently said that's not the case, but we've now agreed to give Mr Butler a copy of that letter and to discuss it further.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, look, I'll absent myself for a couple of hours and you might, - no? Right, well, look. That's good.

PN33

MS DOYLE: The real issues, I think, if we could address DLC firstly. I'm actually a bit confused about the Melbourne gateway facility Port Melbourne, which I know that you've been dealing with Carol Gee and Adrian Celesco. So, I'm not quite sure whether these people most properly belong here or in that dispute.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Who are you referring to?

PN35

MS DOYLE: Across the page, the senior mail officer 2 positions at the Melbourne gateway facility.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, they're the people we have been dealing with in another dispute. There is a process in place to look not at all those people but certainly for the majority of them. Also, at the Melbourne parcel facility, that was on the list in the other matter, but we realized that it stayed here so the Melbourne gateway facility we don't need to make part of these proceedings.

PN37

MS DOYLE: Okay.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there's a process there. I mean, it may well
be - - -

PN39

MS DOYLE: No, I agree with the Melbourne gateway facility. I'm wondering about the Melbourne parcel facility, because ….. his matter has never been tested, basically he's never - - -

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's in these proceedings.

PN41

MS DOYLE: Yes, now.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. He was in with the MGF list and we decided he didn't belong there so he's deftly being dealt with in this matter.

PN43

MS DOYLE: Okay. Moving along to Dandenong letters centre. The administrative support positions. Dandenong's been open for six years and we have had extensive discussions and the parties have agreed that these positions will be classified as MPC 2 positions. Commonwealth - - -

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: How do you want to deal with these? I think it might be useful to go into conference, but I'll hear from Australia Post first.

PN45

MS DOYLE: Could I perhaps just outline our case first.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, absolutely.

PN47

MS DOYLE: These positions are commonly called PL or MPC 2 positions. The parties have agreed that that's the correct level which they should be paid. The four people who are listed there have actually been doing the job for five and a half years, five years, three years, and two years. The difficulty arises in that there are some unattached people of the same classification. The union needs - and Australia Post need - to be fair to both the unattached people and the long term acting people. Our claim is that these people should be appointed to this classification by direct nomination, that the actual people who get the job is done on merit so that there will be some additional unattached people out of that process. We have been working with management to try to find a position for everyone who we believed was due that classification, because there are a number of unfilled MPC 2 positions in the facility. There's a dock position at 2.30 pm.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, don't take me through the details of those now.

PN49

MS DOYLE: Okay, all right. We thought this protected both parties. There's an appeal process so that if anyone wanted to appeal there was a fair process for establishing their positions but we do think it's totally unfair for these people who've been doing the job for this long just because management in spite of the union's urging have never created the positions advertised and filled them but just allowed people to act in them for these extensive periods of time. Similarly, with the time keepers position, I understand Nigel has just informed me that the latest position is that we have been arguing about what classification level it should be, where time keepers are usually AI 3s in other processing centres but we understand management have now accepted that they can be MPC 2 positions and the union nationally and at a state level prefer to keep mail officer classifications rather than administrative officer classifications so that we can provide a career structure for mail officers.

PN50

We're happy if that is Australia Post's commitment, we are happy with that classification, but we would need to have that confirmed. Just to substantiate these people's claims to it is that these people have been working in them - two of them - six years, James and George. Danny's been working four years. Commissioner, I've got statutory declarations from the people involved just to substantiate their claims. Again - - -

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment. I'll mark the bundle of statutory declarations.

EXHIBIT #D5 BUNDLE OF STATUTORY DECLARATIONS

PN52

MS DOYLE: With the time keepers positions, we've raised the issue that these positions needed to be created and filled since DLC opened. We managed to get Australia Post to actually do a review of them, where they assessed them at one stage two years ago, but still nothing happened. As you can see, we've agitated this matter locally and at a state joint consultative committee and basically Australia Post just let the matter ride and hoped we'd forget about it. They never act on it. We don't think they have any excuse for not acting on these particular positions because they are newly created positions and they are vacant.

PN53

My last submission is that we believe the parties need to consult about a review of all the current acting positions in Australia Post and set up a process by which the vacant positions are filled if they are only acting positions because they belong to someone else then there has to be a mechanism for regularly updating that and checking whether the incumbent who owns that position has been reclassified into another one or has left Australia Post or whatever. There has to be a regular updating so that this indefinite acting in higher positions doesn't go on. We would put in a claim that at some point in time you have the right to be classified into that classification because you've been doing the job, you've been trained, you've got used to getting that income, and then suddenly because Australia Post do a restructure five or six years down the track and say we don't want to use you any more - that's not a fair process.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Ms Rooney?

PN55

MS ROONEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, as Ms Doyle has noted, there are a number of instruments that pertain to higher duties and I know it's a vexed issue for the staff involved; however, in the award, and in our HR policies manual, there isn't a maximum period defined for higher duties. I know in other public sector organisations in their awards and conditions there often is a maximum period; however, in Australia Post that's not the case and it's not anticipated in any of the documentation we have at this stage other than, you could say, under the triple R agreement, which has been submitted to you as D1. In clause 9 of the triple R agreement it does recognize where people have been on higher duties for a period of time that if they're redeployed then that's recognized and they have some salary maintenance.

PN56

There are many and varied reasons why staff are on higher duties. Quite often, it is something that occurs and appears to be of a temporary nature. It might be a project, for example, we've had a number of people who have been seconded onto a project setting up a new time and rostering system so the people who then backfill their positions might find themselves on higher duties for a period of twelve to eighteen months, because that's how long that project is taking. So there are a number of reasons, obviously there's long term leave and so on.

PN57

In the operational areas, in processing facilities, we have tended to use what we call higher duties lists and as Ms Doyle has pointed out we do have provisions in the EBA where vacancies beyond three months need to be advertised. The way we manage that in the large facilities is to have higher duties lists where people are ranked on an order of merit and are offered higher duties opportunities in accordance with that merit ranking. Someone who is at the upper ends of those higher duties lists may find themselves acting for quite long periods of time but it may be across several positions. They're sort of the first reliever and they do get quite long periods of higher duties, so I guess that indicates the complexity
Ms Doyle has alluded to. There's a lot of complexity in the higher duties issues, it's not necessarily the same situation for all people.

PN58

The other important thing I just note, and it's already been raised as well, is that we don't always create a new position. We can pay higher duties using a generic number and it is used. That's where we really pay people higher duties to perform work of a higher function without actually creating a position. Going to the specifics, with the people at Dandenong - - -

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, is this something we could discuss in conference, when we go to the details of each of these pieces?

PN60

MS ROONEY: Yes, certainly, Commissioner.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that would be my preference.

PN62

MS ROONEY: Yes, all right, then.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, so is there anything else, generally, that you want to add?

PN64

MS ROONEY: No, we can discuss it in conference Commissioner.

<NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #D1 TRIPLE R AGREEMENT PN10
EXHIBIT #D2 ATTACHMENT TO AGREEMENT PN12
EXHIBIT #D3 EXCERPTS PN18
EXHIBIT #D4 WORK LEVEL STANDARDS PN20
EXHIBIT #D5 BUNDLE OF STATUTORY DECLARATIONS PN51