WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION : 2021 WAIRC 00521

DELIVERED : TUESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2021

FILE NO. : PSA 12 OF 2020

Applicant

AND

WACHS Midwest

Respondent

CatchWords : Industrial Law (WA) – Public Service Arbitrator – Application for reclassification – Statement of Principles applied – Whether there has been a significant increase in work value – New duties – More responsibility – Increased autonomy – Increase in workload and an increase in work value – Broadened duties are of a higher level – Flow on effect – Overall change in the nature of work – Increase in the skill and responsibility – Changes and increases are significant so as to amount to an increase in work value warranting reclassification – Application upheld

Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) 

Result : Application upheld

Representation:

Applicant : Ms J Cooper, on her own behalf

Respondent : Ms S Waterton and Ms R Sinton

Case(s) referred to in reasons:

Shehade v Director General of Health as Delegate of the Minister for Health in his incorporated capacity under s7 of the Hospital and Health Services Act 1927 as the Employer [2015] WAIRC 00973; (2015) 95 WAIG 1786

United Voice WA v The Minister for Health in his incorporated capacity under s7 of the Hospital and Health Services Act 1927 (WA) as the Hospitals formerly comprised in the Metropolitan Health Service Board [2014] WAIRC 01098; (2015) 95 WAIG 178

Willers v WorkCover, Western Australian Authority [2010] WAIRC 00183; (2010) 90 WAIG 333

Reasons for Decision

Background

1         Ms Cooper has applied under ss 80F(2) and 80E(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) to review a decision that her position of Coordinator Patient Information and Clerical Services (Review Position) for the Midwest Region of the WA Country Health Service (Health Service) not be reclassified from Level G5 to Level G6. For the reasons that follow, her application is allowed.

2         Ms Cooper has been the substantive occupant of the Review Position for the Midwest Region of the Health Service, since the position was created in July 2013.

3         The Review Position falls under the WA Health System – HSUWA - PACTS Industrial Agreement 2020. The Review Position, as described in a Job Description Form (JDF) registered on 4 October 2017 (2017 JDF), was last reviewed on that date.

4         Ms Cooper applied for the Review Position to be reclassified on 28 October 2020. Her Form 8A – Application for Reclassification (Application) was filed with the Public Service Arbitrator (Arbitrator) on 5 November 2020 before she had received any response to the reclassification request from the Health Service.

5         The Arbitrator wrote to Ms Cooper and the Health Service on 10 November 2020 advising the Arbitrator could not consider Ms Cooper's Application before the Health Service had an opportunity to consider and respond to the reclassification request.

6         Subsequently, on 23 March 2021, the Health Service informed Ms Cooper and the Arbitrator that the Classification and Establishment Committee (CEC) had denied Ms Cooper's claim for reclassification. In making this decision, the Health Service relied upon an external Review of Classification Determination Report prepared by SWY Consulting dated 5 March 2021 (SWY Report) which recommended the Review Position remain at classification Level G5.

7         On 30 April 2021, Ms Cooper confirmed she wished to proceed with her appeal against the Health Service's decision not to reclassify the Review Position. She claims there has been a significant increase in work value since October 2017. She says the work has become more complex, more skills and knowledge are required to perform it, and the level of responsibility involved has increased.

The test for reclassification

8         The Arbitrator must determine whether there has been a significant net addition to the work value required of the Review Position since it was last reviewed on 4 October 2017. To do this, the Arbitrator will consider changes in the work, skill level, responsibility of the position, and the conditions under which the work is performed.

9         For a position to warrant reclassification on the basis of increased work value, the applicant, in this case Ms Cooper, needs to demonstrate that since the position was last reviewed, the work, skill or responsibility of the position, or the conditions under which the work is performed, have changed, and that such change constitutes a significant net addition to work value such as to warrant upgrading to a higher classification. Change of itself is not sufficient. The change must make the work of a higher level. The Arbitrator applies the test strictly. See Shehade v Director General of Health as Delegate of the Minister for Health in his incorporated capacity under s7 of the Hospital and Health Services Act 1927 as the Employer [2015] WAIRC 00973; (2015) 95 WAIG 1786 and United Voice WA v The Minister for Health in his incorporated capacity under s7 of the Hospital and Health Services Act 1927 (WA) as the Hospitals formerly comprised in the Metropolitan Health Service Board [2014] WAIRC 01098; (2015) 95 WAIG 178 at [11]-[12].

10      The test the Arbitrator applies when considering work value changes is derived from the Statement of Principles – July 2021 at Schedule 2 of the 2021 State Wage Case Order [2021] WAIRC 00179; (2021) WAIG 101 477 which relevantly provides:

1.1 This Statement of Principles is to be applied and followed when the Commission is making or varying an award or making an order in relation to the exercise of the jurisdiction under the Act to set the wages, salaries, allowances or other remuneration of employees or the prices to be paid in respect of their employment.

….

7. Work Value Changes

7.1 Applications may be made for a wage increase under this Principle based on changes in work value.

7.2 Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification [emphasis added].

7.3 In addition to meeting this test a party making a work value application will need to justify any change to wage relativities that might result not only within the relevant internal award classifications structure but also against external classifications to which that structure is related. There must be no likelihood of wage "leapfrogging" arising out of changes in relative position.

7.4 These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed [emphasis added].

7.5 In applying the Work Value Changes Principle, the Commission will have regard to the need for any alterations to wage relativities between awards to be based on skill, responsibility and the conditions under which work is performed.

7.6 Where new or changed work justifying a higher rate is performed only from time to time by persons covered by a particular classification or where it is performed only by some of the persons covered by the classification, the new or changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new or changed work is performed by an employee and not by increasing the rate for all employees working at that classification.

7.7 The time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is any date that on the evidence before the Commission is relevant and appropriate in the circumstances.

7.8 Care should be exercised to ensure that changes which were or should have been taken into account in any previous work value adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise are not included in any work evaluation under this provision.

7.9 Where the tests specified in 7.2 and 7.3 are met, an assessment will have to be made as to how that alteration should be measured in money terms. The assessment should normally be based on the previous work and the nature and extent of the change in work.

7.10 The expression "the conditions under which the work is performed" relates to the environment in which the work is done.

7.11 The Commission should guard against contrived classifications and over-classification of jobs [emphasis added].

7.12 Any changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which the work is performed, taken into account in assessing an increase under any other provision of these Principles, shall not be taken into account in any claim under this provision.

Evidence

11      The Arbitrator received into evidence and considered the following documents in determining this application:

(a) Applicant’s Outline of Submissions filed on 10 September 2021 (Exhibit A).

(b) Applicant’s Response to SWY Consulting’s Position Evaluation Questionnaire on the Review Position contained in the SWY Report (Exhibit B).

(c) Applicant’s Comments on the Comparison of JDFs used by SWY Consulting (Exhibit C).

(d) JDF for the Operations Manager at Geraldton Hospital (Exhibit D).

(e) Witness Statement of Mr Stephen Young filed 27 August 2021 with the following annexures (Exhibit E):

(i) Email chain between Bronte Shiosaki and Stephen Young appointing SWY Consulting to undertake an independent classification review and assessment process of the Review Position;

(ii) 2017 JDF;

(iii) Email chain between Ms Cooper, Grant Patrick and Tamara Sweeney regarding the Position Reclassification Request with the following attachments:

(A) Organisation Structure Charts of the WA Country Health Service - Midwest Geraldton Hospital of "Operations", "Facilities and Assets", "Facilities and Assets - Maintenance", "Health Information", "Patient Information & Clerical Services", "Support Services", "Support Services - Catering", "Medical Imaging" and "Pharmacy" all registered on 17 March 2015;

(B) Matrix – Proposed Position and Comparative Positions;

(C) Proposed JDF drafted by Ms Cooper for the Review Position, undated (Proposed JDF);

(D) Form E3 Position Evaluation Questionnaire completed by Ms Cooper dated 14 October 2020;

(E) Form E4 Position Reclassification Request completed by Ms Cooper dated 14 October 2020;

(F) JDF for Manager Administration Services at Albany Hospital ‑ Operations registered 19 July 2019 (Albany JDF);

(G) 2017 JDF;

(iv) Form E4 Position Reclassification Request completed by Ms Cooper dated 14 October 2020;

(v) SWY Report with the following attachments:

(A) Form E4 Position Reclassification Request completed by Ms Cooper dated 14 October 2020;

(B) Organisation Structure Chart of the WA Country Health Service - Midwest Geraldton Hospital of "Patient Information & Clerical Services" registered on 17 March 2015;

(C) 2017 JDF;

(D) Proposed JDF;

(E) Position Evaluation Questionnaire completed by S Young dated February 2021;

(F) Form E3 Position Evaluation Questionnaire completed by Ms Cooper dated 14 October 2020;

(G) Albany JDF;

(H) JDF for Coordinator Administration at Nickol Bay Hospital registered 3 May 2017 (Nickol Bay JDF); and

(I) JDF for Coordinator Patient Support Services at Kalgoorlie Hospital registered 4 July 2013 (Kalgoorlie JDF).

(f) Respondent's Outline of Submissions dated 27 August 2021 with the following annexures (Exhibit F):

(i) Email chain between Commissioner Matthews’ Chambers, Ms Cooper and Rebecca Sinton confirming that no determination had been made regarding the Position Reclassification Request, and that it would take some time;

(ii) Coordinator Patient Information and Clerical Services Employee Initiation Reclassification WACHS Midwest Human Resources Review dated 18 March 2021; and

(ii) Email from CEC with Submission Outcome Statement advising the Review Position to remain at Level G5 after reviewing the Position Reclassification Request and the SWY Report.

12      The Arbitrator heard oral evidence of:

(a) Ms Cooper, via telephone;

(b) Mr Derek Fraser, Operations Manager at Geraldton Hospital via telephone; and

(c) Mr Stephen Young, SWY Consulting via telephone.

Ms Cooper's case

13      Ms Cooper gave evidence and called Mr Derek Fraser as a witness. Mr Fraser is the Operations Manager at Geraldton Hospital. The Review Position reports to Mr Fraser's position of Operations Manager, although this does not appear to be reflected in Mr Fraser's JDF (Exhibit D) which makes no express reference to the Review Position.

14      Ms Cooper explained that the Review Position is responsible for the oversight and coordination of two principal areas of hospital operations. First, the staff performing clerical services within various departments in the hospital, reception and telephone operations. The second area of general oversight and coordination is patient record management.

15      Ms Cooper's experience of performing the role is that the most significant demands relate to the coordination, supervision and support of a large number of clerical staff. She also emphasises the demands associated with liaison with operational managers and managers within various hospital departments in the course of fulfilling the coordination of clerical staff that support those departments.

16      Ms Cooper described the demands in this regard as having increased since 2017, primarily as a consequence of a restructure undertaken at the behest of a previous Operations Manager which was designed to centralise clerical resources in the hospital. She was unable to pinpoint precisely when this centralisation process commenced or was completed. Mr Fraser explained that it was underway by the time he commenced in the Operations Manager role in 2017, and continued to evolve through 2018 and 2019.

17      This restructure of operations involved Ms Cooper physically relocating from the Medical Records Department to the Operations Centre as well as joining the Hospital Management Committee and taking on additional departments, including Medical Imaging. The general gist of her evidence was that the role transformed from one that primarily focused on liaising with the clerical team itself on day to day operational issues, to being part of the Hospital Management Team and focused on liaising and negotiating with the managers of other hospital departments, so that it was more strategic.

18      Ms Cooper accepts that her workload is a separate issue to increased work value and insists that the two issues ought not to be confused. In other words, she says the increased workload should not be equated to an absence of, nor negate, an increase in work value.

19      In summary, Ms Cooper says there has been a significant increase in the Review Position's work value because:

(a) there has been an increase in FTE positions reporting to the Review Position;

(b) there has been an increase in staffing management due to staff movements and secondments;

(c) there has been an increase in liaison regarding service delivery with other managers;

(d) the Review Position requires a higher level of communication, negotiation and liaison with managers;

(e) there is an increased requirement to develop procedures to reflect constant changes and activity;

(f) there is an increased need for knowledge of industrial awards and policies;

(g) more time is spent with staff looking after conflicts and wellbeing;

(h) there is greater complexity around knowledge and understanding of many departments and services; and

(i) there are new duties not listed on the 2017 JDF.

20      Ms Cooper says the Review Position should be reclassified because of these new duties and because increases in the demands in relation to existing duties amount to a significant net increase in work value.

21      Ms Cooper also placed emphasis on the similarity between the Review Position and the Level G6 position of Manager Administration Services at Albany Hospital – Operations (Albany Hospital Position).

22      Ms Cooper completed a Form E3 Position Evaluation Questionnaire on 14 October 2020. In it, she indicates that the Review Position requires a certificate of secondary education (Year 10 equivalent) as the minimum essential level of education plus one to three years' practical experience. She describes the scope of activities as consisting of supervision of a large group that perform similar activities, with substantial knowledge of activities and problems of other functional areas within and/or outside the agency being necessary. She assessed the Review Position as requiring "maximum" interpersonal skills for internal contacts. She describes the role as responsible for managing and delegating work to subordinates, independently drawing up guidelines for working methods and having considerable influence on outcomes of activities and functions.

Increase in FTE positions and staffing demands

23      Ms Cooper says that the centralisation of clerical administration has resulted in an increase of nine FTE reporting to her, bringing the total number of FTEs reporting to the Review Position to approximately 35 FTEs or 60 individual employees.

24      The increase in FTEs reporting to the Review Position has increased the workload of the role. However, more significantly, Ms Cooper says the increase reflects the increased complexity of the role because the reports are required to work within a greater number of multidisciplinary departments.

New duties

25      Ms Cooper argues that the Review Position has the following new duties:

(a) obtaining feedback about services, assessing and reporting against measures of performance;

(b) participating as a member of the Operations Management Team;

(c) participating in hospital working groups, committees and projects;

(d) undertaking assignments on request from the Operations Manager;

(e) managing the administrative requirements for Geraldton Hospital;

(f) ensuring compliance with all WACHS Midwest policies and procedures; and

(g) liaising with external providers for supplies and contract services.

26      Ms Cooper noted that in taking on the Medical Imaging Department, she has necessarily also become involved in ongoing communications with an external third party, being the I‑Med Radiology Network (I-Med). She said this private provider's program is "not entirely compatible" with the Health Service's systems, requiring liaison with the State Manager of I-Med, the Contract Manager and WA Administration and Partnerships Manager.

27      Additionally, the clerical arrangements of the Visiting Specialist Department are now under her management, having previously been managed by the Medical Administration Department. This department requires extensive intervention, including management support to implement and maintain because private visiting specialists have their own procedures, software and Medicare billing requirements. A particular additional requirement she has identified as a result of managing the Visiting Specialists, is a requirement to manage the waitlist.

28      She says it has been necessary to develop new policies and procedures.

29      Ms Cooper says the additional duties add responsibility and increase the level of knowledge required and have increased the skills and complexity required to perform the Review Position.

Responsibility

30      Ms Cooper gave evidence that the Review Position is expected to liaise with other managers in relation to service delivery and contribute to operations management meetings and so has a higher level of responsibility associated with it. She said:

…My contributions affect not just the administration of the clerical component, but provide stakeholders with a comprehensive overview that can contribute to the overall outcome. Much of what I do doesn't focus just on the clerical side of things, the - you understand that the organisation is reliant on your experience and expertise to achieve organisational key performance indicators and goals…

…So when I was situated downstairs, I was be - I was handling more day to day, um, issues within the team, and - and facilitating that, whereas now, I'm handling more, um, overall change of, um, how we do things, um, more liaison with incorporating the other - like, the - the clinical teams, because - and I wasn't doing any of that. So if there's a problem now, that's identified and brought to me, I will go to the head of that team, it might be the medical director, um, or the coordinator of nursing (indistinct)  and try and source the solution encompassing, you know, from their side as our side, whereas I wasn't doing that, I was fixing, as best I could within the clerical team, at the time, whereas now, I'm encompassing and I'm working with those people.

31      Mr Fraser's evidence was to the effect that there is greater reliance upon the Review Position for coordination of patient information and clerical services and a greater scope of outpatient work compared with 2017.

Business International Position Evaluation Remuneration System (BIPERS)

32      Ms Cooper's own Form E3 Position Evaluation Questionnaire responses equate to a BIPERS score of 403, placing the position at the bottom end of a Level G8 classification.

33      Ms Cooper says that the Health Service gave the Review Position too low of a BIPERS score.

34      In particular, Ms Cooper says the Review Position should have received higher scores for Factor 3 - Scope of Activities, because her role requires substantial rather than limited knowledge of activities and problems outside the position holder’s functional area. She gave examples of the requirement to understand St John of God's services and processes in order to implement offsite clerical services to SJOG for public patients, and to understand outpatient reform in order to service the Visiting Specialist Service.

35      Ms Cooper’s evidence was:

…[Y]ou can't just have a limited knowledge of activities and problems outside of the functional area to do the job. I need to have a comprehensive knowledge of that, um, to be able to manage, coordinate, apply resources against the activity across multiple directorates that provide a diverse range of service provision. Um, I've got to consult and contribute toward how our budget and funding streams can, should and will work, and consult and contribute to previous and current reforms, clinical redesigns, strategic planning, facility redevelopments, forward procurement, so you - you have to have - you have to be able to comprehend the business and the developed corporate knowledge to understand the trends and identify the changes to those trends and react accordingly. And I suppose what I'm trying to say is that while I manage a clerical team, um, if - if something happens and someone wants to add a new outpatient clinic, I've got to be able to see the big picture of how that facility is - is going to be utilised. The rooms, the appropriate clinical medical equipment, supporting the clinician, conflicting usage - what - what impacts it may have on other departments.

Like, our - our fracture clinic has an increase in numbers, but that doesn't just affect fracture clinic, it affects x-ray, allied health, theatre, so it's not just about me putting more clients where the work is, but understanding how it all works and how it's going to impact the - the entire service through the hospital and managing the resources to a budget, ah, service that attracts the ABF funding.

36      Ms Cooper says the position should receive a score of seven for Factor 4 - Interpersonal Skills because it requires maximum skills, internally. In particular, she refers to the need to address complaints, communicate with external providers, contract managers and consumers, and to coach and develop staff. She also refers to the need to support change management for clerical staff. She stated:

…[A] requirement of the role is not just to identify current (indistinct)  potential and future issues, it's to come up with solutions, present the issue and solutions, and then, implement. And - and this involves comprehensive consultation with staff members with, ah, department managers, the hospital management team and other directorates. So you've got to be able to understand the entire - how the entire system works, so that you consider all the aspects of the service and the service delivery and manage expectations of like, my team and each department and directorate. I've got to be able to articulate what the effect will be to both my team as well as any actual or potential impacts to the clinical, environmental, facility and business. You need to be concise, have knowledge of advanced review techniques and high-level expertise to explain how I've reached the conclusions, and you've got to apply highly developed skills in negotiation, consultation, summarisation and conflict resolution.

37      Ms Cooper submits that Mr Young's BIPERS assessment, being at the lower end of the range for Level G6, supports the classification of the position as a Level G6 in any event.

Policies, industrial awards and development of procedures

38      Ms Cooper says her role is constantly updating instructions, creating and implementing new ones that address the latest policies and procedures and identifying how policies or procedures will affect the workflow. She described it as a "continuous cycle of change management".

Albany Hospital Position

39      Ms Cooper argues that the Review Position is clearly comparable to the Albany Hospital Position which is classified at Level G6 and that the Health Service's conclusion that the classification of the Albany Hospital Position is anomalous is without foundation.

The Health Services’ case

40      The Health Service recognises that there has been an increase in workload/work volume for the Review Position, but submits that increased workload does not equate to an increase in work value and is not itself a basis for reclassification.

41      The Health Service acknowledges there has been:

(a) an increase in FTEs reporting to the Review Position (by nine additional FTEs assigned to wards, emergency department, ambulatory care and other patient/hospital services);

(b) an increased emphasis towards liaison with line managers and clinicians on staffing requirements and other matters; and

(c) an increased emphasis for reception and telephone communication coverage support and supervision.

but says that all duties which are performed by Ms Cooper are within the scope of the 2017 JDF and further that some of the duties in the 2017 JDF are no longer required to be performed, namely, oversight of Freedom of Information requests.

42      The Health Service submits that even if there has been changes in the Review Position, which amount to a broadening of some duties, those changes do not effect a change in work value because the duties do not require a higher level of skill nor involve a higher degree of responsibility.

43      The Health Service contends that matters which Ms Cooper relied upon in Exhibit B, are new material which was not provided to the CEC and that she should not be able to raise these matters in this review of the reclassification decision.

44      The Health Service called Mr Young as a witness. Mr Young is the Principal Consultant of SWY Consulting, a human resources management consultancy which, since 2001 has provided, amongst other services, Classification/Job Design and Analysis to the WA Public Sector. Mr Young conducted the assessment and evaluation of the classification of the Review Position on behalf of SWY Consulting. The SWY Report which was the outcome of that assessment was tendered into evidence as part of Mr Young's witness statement.

45      In conducting the assessment, Mr Young consulted with Mr Fraser as the supervisor of the Review Position. He noted Mr Fraser's concerns regarding the challenges and inadequacies of the existing organisational structure, and his observation that the existing workload of the Review Position was excessive and probably more complex in nature, due in part to changing technology.

46      He also consulted with Ms Cooper and reviewed the Organisation Structure Charts and JDFs that were provided to him. This included the Proposed JDF drafted by Ms Cooper which was not officially endorsed but which he accepted "generally described the present-day requirements of the role". It was the Proposed JDF that was used in his assessment process.

47      Mr Young additionally undertook a BIPERS assessment of the Review Position and finally, a comparison process with a number of comparable positions.

48      Mr Young summarised his conclusions in the following terms:

…

15. The analysis of the differences between the JDFs between the review position and the proposed position indicates there were minor differences in the key responsibilities, statement of duties and selection criteria requirements prescribed in the review position since it was last reviewed in 2017.

16. Most duties and responsibilities listed in the proposed JDF were prescribed in existing review position JDF, with the notable exception of, "Overseeing the registration and processing of Freedom of Information requests for the Midwest."

17. As a consequence of these relatively minor variations or emphasis in tasking due largely to an increase workload in the work performed, there had similarly been minor changes made to the selection criteria requirements for the proposed position, where there is no longer the previously stated requirement for demonstrated ability to maintain confidentially.

18. Conversely, the proposed position essential selection criteria additionally included a higher-level expectation in regards to written communication skills required, demonstrated ability to initiate and successfully manage improvements to business processes and services, and sound computer skills and knowledge of administration systems and experience with electronic rostering systems prescribed, all of which represented a change of emphasis from experience with information and records management.

19. The above changes in emphasis appeared to demonstrate that there had not been significant changes to the type or nature of work performed nor to the overall responsibilities required of the office holder. Given this observation it followed that there also had not been any significant impact to the prescribed skills demanded from the office holder to carry out important aspects of the work.

49      A further consideration for Mr Young was:

…[W]ithin the broad-banded classification structure that exists within the WA Public Sector there has always been the expectation of evolutionary development of a position within a classification band that would include an allowance for the broadening of its roles and responsibilities, along with an increase in the skill level required to perform the job to the minimum standard required.

Increase in FTE positions and staffing

50      In the SWY Report, which the Health Service adopts and relies upon, Mr Young states that the Review Position involves additional activities relating to tasks associated with the requirement to assume supervisory responsibility for nine additional FTEs within various hospital departments.

51      Mr Young’s oral evidence was that the BIPERS measurement tool does not place great weight on the number of positions or size of the workforce under the control of the position being assessed.

New duties

52      In the SWY Report, Mr Young notes that the Review Position involves additional activities relating to an increased emphasis towards liaison with line managers and clinicians on staffing requirements, expectations and the like, as well as an increased emphasis for reception and telephone communication coverage/support and its supervision.

53      His oral evidence was that by virtue of the Review Position’s position in the management hierarchy, some involvement with management activities and groups had "been in place, as I understand it, for quite a number of years" including prior to 2017. It is not clear the basis upon which he formed this belief.

54      Mr Young describes any new duties as relatively minor variations in tasking or changing emphasis and says these changes are due largely to increased workload. He concludes that these changes are not significant changes to the nature of work performed or the overall responsibilities required of the office holder.

55      Ms Cooper did not inform Mr Young about, and he was not aware of, the fact that she now additionally had oversight of the Visiting Specialist Department’s clerical arrangements or the precise detail as contained in Exhibit B. Nevertheless, he was provided with and reviewed Exhibit B prior to the hearing. Having regard to the additional detail in that document, he was able to say "the generalities" of the rest of the contents of Exhibit B accorded with his understanding of the Review Position’s work at the time he prepared the SWY Report. He also said, with the proviso that he could not comment too deeply about it, not having covered it in the assessment process, that it did not change his assessment of work value, because the sorts of activities involved would be assessed at "anywhere between levels 3 and 5".

Policies, industrial awards and development of procedures

56      Mr Young accepted that the Review Position involved establishment of procedures, although not as an everyday occurrence.

Responsibility

57      Mr Young’s view of the responsibility involved in the Review Position was that any changes were a matter of more of the same type rather than additional responsibility:

…[G]etting out there and talking with and, ah, negotiating, if you like, with the, ah, the service client areas, um, was something that was part of the job albeit that it - it - it's definitely expanded because of the number of, um - because of all those services have been sort of centralised I suppose, um, so the - the emphasis really was more of.

Albany Hospital Position

58      Mr Young notes that the Albany Hospital Position is at the same fifth level of management in the Health Service’s hierarchy, and has two positions under direct supervision. He concluded that the similarities between the Albany JDF and the Proposed JDF for the Review Position are likely the result of Ms Cooper having used the former to prepare the latter. They are virtually identical.  From the fact that the position is Level G6, he says it would be reasonable to conclude the Review Position could also be classified at Level G6.

59      Mr Young identified two other positions he considered comparable, namely Coordinator Patient Support Services at Kalgoorlie Hospital (Kalgoorlie Hospital Position) and Coordinator Administration at Nickol Bay Hospital (Nickol Bay Hospital Position). The Kalgoorlie Hospital Position is classified at Level G5, and involves comparable tasks and number of FTEs reports. The Nickol Bay Hospital Position is at the sixth level of management but reports to a Level G6 Business Manager with nine FTEs under its control.

60      Having said that, Mr Young also concedes that the comparison exercise is problematic and is cautious about over-reliance upon it.

BIPERS

61      The Health Service says it relied upon SWY Consulting's BIPERS assessment comprising a Form E3 Position Evaluation Questionnaire completed by Ms Cooper and a separate assessment completed by SWY Consulting. It notes, citing Willers v Workcover, Western Australian Authority [2010] WAIRC 00183; (2010) 90 WAIG 333, that a BIPERS assessment is indicative, it is not prescriptive. The purpose of a BIPERS assessment is to provide an indicative classification level once a work value change has been established. Notwithstanding the fact that the Health Service's assessment was that there was no work value change, the comparison conducted confirmed the classification of the Review Position was consistent with like positions and the assessment supported the Review Position remaining at the Level G5 classification.

62      Mr Young's assessment, which differed from Ms Cooper's on six of the 10 evaluated factors, resulted in a score of 330, being at the lower end of Level G6. Mr Young set out in the SWY Report his detailed explanation for his evaluation where it differed from Ms Cooper's.

63      Mr Young concluded that the Review Position’s Scope of Activities attracted a degree rating of four. He describes this rating as requiring "some knowledge of activities and problems outside the officer holder’s functional area". He said:

...I really struggle to believe, comprehend the - the need for a - a position of this type a central service that's providing services across the - the facility, um, is required to have substantial knowledge of activities and problems of other functional areas, ah, including the one that we're targeting. Um, each of those other areas that - that this position services certainly has to have some understanding of what they're about in - in the way in which services or, you know, resources are provided. But to have a substantial that's - that's the requirement of whoever's in charge of those particular areas. And the same would apply with these visiting, ah, consultants or services or whatever they're - whatever they're called locally. Um, ah, and - and - and that this position couldn't be held accountable for, ah, everything that they're - they're doing either. So the notion that substantial knowledge of the activities of those other areas I - I make the point again is to me a - a stretch for what's expected in this - in this role. If it is there's something wrong and I - and I - and I didn't pick up on that.

Senior Commissioner: So you don't think substantial knowledge of those external areas is required but is some knowledge? What degree of knowledge is required?

‑‑‑Some knowledge and, ah, that's why in terms of the scope of activities I talk about knowledge of other areas. I - I think I made the point, ah, in my assessment that, um, ah, and - and that's how I rated it I - I think I recall it, ah, as being, um, some knowledge of other areas, ah, some knowledge of the workings of other areas is - is necessary in the job. Yeah, some - some knowledge of activities and problems of other functional areas within and outside the (indistinct) function areas is necessary. So that's where I rated that and I - I would have thought - I would have thought that that requirement would fit within the parameters of - of - of what I've said about other areas in that way.

64      Under Factor 4 - Interpersonal Skills, Mr Young rated the Review Position at five, acknowledging the Review Position involved consultancy, liaison, negotiation and provision of advice and reports, predominantly for an internal audience of management and staff. Accordingly, "good skills" are required. His evidence was that maximum skills for this factor is only "for people such as chief executive officers and first line managers".

65      Mr Young states that in using BIPERS as a guide, the score outcome should "usually" be in the mid to upper range of a level to be considered indicative of the work value of that level. This was, he said, the convention and his experience of the use of the BIPERS tool.

Consideration

66      Clearly, Ms Cooper is a dedicated and capable employee.  I accept, as does the Health Service, that Ms Cooper performs the Review Position at a high level. It is also clear that the Review Position is a demanding one, and that it is associated with high work volume. Indeed, Mr Fraser suggests that the workload of the Review Position is currently excessive.

67      However, the question to be answered in this application is whether there is a significant increase in work value to warrant the Review Position being reclassified. As stated on the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s website, the requirements of the position, rather than the personal qualities or diligence of the occupant of the position, form the basis of any assessment concerning the classification of a position.

68      In general, Ms Cooper's account of changes to the Review Position resulting from the centralisation of clerical services was not challenged by the Health Service. Nor is there any dispute that the changes evolved over the course of 2017, 2018 and 2019 and so qualify as changes since the Review Position was last reviewed on 4 October 2017. The difference between the parties is only as to whether the changes amount to significant changes in work value.

69      Accordingly, I accept Ms Cooper's and Mr Fraser's evidence about the changes to the duties and responsibilities of the Review Position. Specifically, I accept Ms Cooper's account of the Review Position involving the following new duties:

(a) participating as a member of the Operations Management Team. There is no reference in the 2017 JDF to this as a requirement or duty associated with the Review Position.

(b) managing the administrative requirements for Geraldton Hospital. The 2017 JDF focuses on managing and supervising staff under the Review Position's supervision, recruiting and rostering. The Review Position now involves the coordination of clerical and administrative support across multiple departments; and

(c) liaising with external providers for supplies and contract services.

70      I also note that Mr Young was satisfied that the Proposed JDF fairly represented the Review Position’s responsibilities and duties. Changes to the Review Position since 2017 can be gleaned from a comparison of the Proposed JDF with the 2017 JDF:

(a) The position was described as being in the Medical Records Section at Geraldton Hospital. That section has been renamed "Patient Information and Clerical Services Section".

(b) There is an additional Administrative Assistant Level G3 reporting to the Review Position as well as an additional nine FTE Clerical positions at Level G2.  These positions previously reported to various hospital departments, including Palliative, Radiology, Physiotherapy and Operations.

(c) The focus of the key responsibilities has shifted from management and supervision of the team of clerical reports to liaising with managers and team leaders across multiple departments, in order to coordinate the provision of clerical services. This is reflected, for example, in the description of "key responsibilities" as between the 2017 JDF and the Proposed JDF. The 2017 JDF refers to "Oversee the day to day operations of Patient Information and Clerical Services…Manages and supervises the activities of all clerical staff…". The Proposed JDF describes the key responsibilities as "Responsible for planning, directing and coordinating clerical services for the Geraldton Hospital managing a team of people who provide dedicated support to clinics, wards and other services located within the Hospital Campus".

(d) There is no longer a requirement to oversee the registration and processing of Freedom of Information requests for the Midwest, although the position continues to have involvement in the administration of the requests.

(e) There has been an increased emphasis towards liaison with line managers and clinicians on staffing requirements and expectations, as well as an increased emphasis for reception and telephone communication coverage, support and supervision.

(f) It is "desirable" that the occupant of the Review Position have management experience in a health service environment.

(g) There is a new requirement for the occupant of the Review Position to have excellent written communication skills, a demonstrated ability to initiate management improvements to business processes and services.

71      The Health Service urged that Ms Cooper's evidence about the changes to her role in the form of Exhibit B should not be taken into account in my review of the reclassification decision because it was "new material". I am not satisfied that the information contained in Exhibit B should be excluded nor that it should not be considered for the following reasons.

72      First, no objection was taken to Exhibit B being tendered into evidence.

73      Second, the Health Service was not able to adequately indicate what substantive aspects of Exhibit B were "new". It can readily be accepted that Exhibit B was not provided to the CEC. That is necessarily so because it was prepared for the purpose of these proceedings and was responsive to the SWY Report. While clearly the format of the contents of Exhibit B was new, it was less clear that the substance of its contents was new. Ms Cooper conceded that the details contained in Exhibit B concerning the Visiting Specialist Services and Medical Imaging Department were neither addressed in her Application nor in her discussions with Mr Young. However, Mr Young’s evidence was that while the detail of Exhibit B was not provided to him, Exhibit B generally accorded with his understanding of the role from his interview with Ms Cooper. He conducted an interview with Ms Cooper which he described as being "pretty thorough" and "comprehensive" although he could not recall the detail of what was conveyed to him and he did not record the details in the SWY Report.

74      Third, despite taking issue with Exhibit B as "new material", the Heath Service elicited evidence from Mr Young at hearing which elaborated on the SWY Report. Such evidence is largely in the same category as the contents of Exhibit B, as it was not evidence that was before the CEC.

75      Finally, Mr Young was provided with a copy of Exhibit B prior to the hearing. He read it and was able to comment on it during the hearing. His evidence, as the Health Service correctly submitted, was to the effect that his conclusions remained unaltered even accepting that Exhibit B accurately described the Review Position’s duties and responsibilities.

Nature of the work, and knowledge and skill required

76      I do not accept Mr Young's assessment of the changes to the Review Position as being "minor differences" or "relatively minor variations in tasking or changed emphasis".  Although Mr Young has undertaken a methodical comparison of each of the individual duties listed in the 2017 JDF and the Proposed JDF, and has characterised multiple duties as "similarly specified" in the respective JDFs, my impression is that this exercise has not adequately identified the significance of the changes over the Review Position as a whole. In other words, by comparing individual duties on a "siloed" analysis, Mr Young has failed to take into account the combined effect of the changes on the level of knowledge and skill required to now perform the Review Position.

77      I accept Ms Cooper's submission to the effect that characterising the changes as an increase in workload only is an over-simplification of the true nature of the Review Position's evolution. It can be the case that changes to a role may simultaneously involve an increase in workload and an increase in work value. In this case, the increase in FTEs reporting to the Review Position has increased the workload. But underlying that increase is a fundamental structural change to how the clerical support services are provided across various hospital departments. That structural change, in my view, means that the nature of the Review Position, has changed significantly compared with the requirements of the position in October 2017.

78      I also accept that the changes in the nature of the Review Position are such that the broadened duties are of a higher level and involve a sufficient increase in skill and knowledge of individual department operational requirements.

79      A key responsibility of the Review Position is to manage the coordination of clerical staff across departments. In the past, the focus was on the day to day management and supervision of clerical staff, including recruitment and rostering. The position did not require the degree of coordination, planning and liaison across departments that is now required. The requirements previously fulfilled by more routine application of processes and past experience have changed so that the Review Position now requires strategic planning, and the balancing of the needs of multiple stakeholders. Problems arising are likely to be of a more complex nature, or requiring more complex solutions. Higher levels of skill and knowledge are therefore involved.

Level of responsibility

80      That the Review Position is now required to contribute to operations management by participating as a member of the Operations Management Team is, in my view, indicative of a higher level of responsibility. I was not convinced by Mr Young’s assumption that this has always been a requirement of the role, absent any factual basis for his assumption.

81      So too, the fact that the Review Position involves a greater degree of contribution to policies and procedures, and liaison with other managers, is an increase in responsibility which increases work value.

Conditions of work

82      Ms Cooper does not rely upon changes to the conditions of work, that is, the environment in which the work is performed, as a ground for her claim of an increase in work value. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to consider this factor.

Significant net increase

83      As indicated above, I do not consider the changes to the Review Position to be minor or merely a matter of changed emphasis. I am satisfied that the additions to work value I have described above are sufficiently significant to warrant upgrading the classification of the Review Position.

BIPERS

84      I am mindful that in applications of this kind, the Arbitrator is to guard against over-classification of jobs. Having found that the changes to the Review Position amount to a significant net addition to the work value of the Review Position, it is useful to consider the evidence concerning the BIPERS assessment and comparative positions in order to ensure the Review Position is not over-classified.

85      I broadly accept Mr Young's BIPERS assessment of the Review Position and his conclusion that Ms Cooper had over-evaluated some of the factors in her own assessment of the BIPERS factors, with three exceptions.

86      First, I find that Mr Young's assessment for Factor 3 - Scope of Activities at a rating of four is too low. Mr Young explained that degree four was appropriate because it acknowledges that "some knowledge of activities and problems outside the officer holder's functional area is necessary". However, the Form E3 Position Evaluation Questionnaire describes a rating of four as requiring "Only limited knowledge of activities and problems outside the position holder's functional area" as being necessary. It might be said that limited knowledge is some knowledge. However, the questionnaire only allows for two levels of knowledge: substantial or "only limited". None of the ratings require an absence of any knowledge of outside activities and problems. On that basis, and having regard to the nature of the Review Position, I consider the more appropriate rating for this factor is rating five because it is more accurate to say that it required substantial knowledge of the activities of other functional areas.

87      Second, in relation to Factor 4 - Interpersonal Skills, I do not accept Mr Young's explanation that a rating of five, requiring "good" interpersonal skills as opposed to a factor requiring "maximum" interpersonal skills is appropriate because only CEOs and first line managers require maximum communication skills. It is clear that there are several levels within this factor that require maximum communication skills with ratings from five through to nine. Mr Young's rating reflects an assessment of the role as requiring "sound interpersonal, communication and report writing skills together with the ability to lead and work effectively as part of a team". I consider this assessment understates the interpersonal skills required in circumstances where Ms Cooper is required to liaise with managers of multiple departments, resolve conflicts, manage change and deal with external stakeholders. A rating of six would be more appropriate, reflecting frequent internal utilisation of maximum interpersonal skills.

88      Third, in relation to Factor 6 - Instructions Received, I consider Mr Young's rating of four to six undervalues this factor as it relates to the Review Position. Mr Young concedes that the Review Position "operates with a reasonable degree of independence from its direct report". It also contributes to the overall Operations Management Team. Accordingly, the description associated with the four to six rating, that is, "responsibility for directing work within a limited area, which sometimes consists of drawing up routine instructions for subordinates" and "result is controlled by supervisor/manager" does not align either with Mr Young's description or the reality of the role's level of autonomy. In my view, the appropriate rating for this factor is nine.

89      In the result, in my assessment, the total score for the Review Position should be in the vicinity of 370 which is at the highest end of the range for Level G6. I am therefore satisfied that a reclassification of the Review Position to Level G6 would not result in the Review Position being over-classified.

Comparisons

90      Comparative wage justice is not part of the reclassification process. However, comparisons become relevant after a significant increase in work value is established, in order to test the appropriateness of a classification level derived from other tools or guides.

91      Mr Young concedes the Level G6 Albany Hospital Position is likely comparable to the Review Position, but treats this comparison with caution in circumstances where the Proposed JDF, which was used for the comparison exercise, may have been designed to be comparable to the Albany Hospital Position. That is a fair position for Mr Young to take. However, these circumstances say nothing about whether the Albany Hospital Position is appropriately classified as a Level G6 position.

92      Mr Young goes further, though, and concludes that the Albany Hospital Position is anomalous to the extent that it is classified at Level G6. His rationale for this conclusion is that two other positions which he considers comparable are both classified at Level G6. The effect of his evidence is that the Albany Hospital Position is over-classified.

93      I do not agree that there is sufficient reason to disregard the Albany Hospital Position's classification or to treat it as anomalous. The two positions Mr Young relies upon for his conclusion are the Level G5 Kalgoorlie Hospital Position and the Level G5 Nickol Bay Hospital Position. It is apparent from the Kalgoorlie JDF that the role has a significantly narrower scope of duties compared to the Albany Hospital Position (and the Review Position) in that it does not contribute as a member of the Operations Management Team and does not involve the Patient Information aspect of the Review Position's duties.

94      As for the Nickol Bay Hospital Position, it is located at and responsible for a district hospital. The Albany Hospital Position and the Review Position are both located and responsible for regional hospitals. Regional hospitals provide a greater range of services and their administration generally would be expected to be more sophisticated than the administration of a district hospital.

95      For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the Albany Hospital Position classification should be treated as an anomaly. Its classification at Level G6, together with the fact that the arguably less involved Kalgoorlie Hospital Position and Nickol Bay Hospital Position are classified at Level G5, indicates that a classification of the Review Position at Level G6 is appropriate.

Flow on and structural implications

96      Neither party contended that a review of the classification of the Review Position would be associated with any flow on or structural implications. The only comparable positions Mr Young could "easily" identify were the three positions across Albany, Nickol Bay and Kalgoorlie.

Conclusion

97      In my assessment, there has been an overall change in the nature of work which the Review Position involves as well as an increase in the skill and responsibility associated with it. I also consider the changes and increases are significant so as to amount to an increase in work value warranting reclassification.

98      As to what is the appropriate classification, I consider the BIPERS assessment conducted by Mr Young with the revisions to the three factors discussed above indicates the Review Position is appropriately classified at a Level G6. I am satisfied that this classification is not an over-classification of the Review Position.

99      The reclassification should take effect from the date that Ms Cooper formally notified the Health Service that reclassification was sought and provided sufficient information to enable a proper consideration of the application to be made. This occurred when Ms Cooper lodged her Position Reclassification Request and Position Evaluation Questionnaire on 28 October 2020.