HOSPITAL SALARIED OFFICERS' AWARD 1968

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

PARTIES HOSPITAL SALARIED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (UNION OF WORKERS)

APPLICANT

-v-

HON MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS

CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR

 COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT

HEARD FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2004, FRIDAY, 2 APRIL 2004, FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2004, MONDAY, 5 JULY 2004, FRIDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2004, WEDNESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2004, THURSDAY, 31 MARCH 2005, TUESDAY, 10 MAY 2005, TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2005, THURSDAY, 28 JULY 2005, TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2005, WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2005, TUESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2005, MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2005, WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2006

DELIVERED FRIDAY, 13 JANUARY 2006

FILE NO. P 18 OF 2003

CITATION NO. 2006 WAIRC 03473

CatchWords Award - Award amendment - Specified Callings - Classification and grading structure for health professions - Public health system - Work value and salary increment increases - Statement of Principles - Work Value Change - Award amended - Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s.40 - Hospital Salaried Officers' Award 1968 (No. 39 of 1968)

Result Award Amended

Representation 

Applicant Mr D Hill

Respondent Mr J Ross

Reasons for Decision

(Given extemporaneously and edited by the Commissioner)

1         The parties seek to amend the Hospital Salaried Officers’ Award 1968 (No. 39 of 1968) (“the Award”) to reflect what they say are significant increases in the work value of health professionals in what are commonly referred to as the “specified callings”.  They have reached agreement as to the work value increases on which they rely, and the salary increment increases which are in recognition of those work value increases. 

2         The history of this matter is in the agreement reached between the parties to revise the classifications and gradings structure for health professions which arose from the Hospital Salaried Officers Metropolitan Health Services Enterprise Agreement 2001 (PSAAG 1 of 2002), which included that the parties establish a working party to review the specified callings and other professions (“the Joint Working Party”).  The Joint Working Party was made up of employer and employee representatives, from Fremantle Health Service, Geraldton Health Service, North West Health Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, South West Health Service, Royal Perth Hospital, Kimberley Health Service, the Department of Health and the Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) now the Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) (“the Union”). 

3         The key findings of the Joint Working Party were of significance.  They were that:

“• salary and conditions are a factor in regard to the recruitment and retention of specified callings;

• the lack of career advancement opportunities and diversity in career path structures contribute to difficulties in retaining staff;

• workload issues including size of caseloads, waitlists and service delivery models may contribute to staff turnover;

• the outputs of educational and training institutions in terms of supply of graduates and the matching of skill development options to workforce need contribute to the challenges in recruiting professionals;

• there is competition between public and private sector organisations in regard to the employment of “specified callings”; and,

• salary and conditions, professional isolation, lack of professional development opportunities, accommodation and family, social and environmental factors contribute to the difficulties in recruiting and retaining “specified callings” in country areas.”

(Review of Specified Callings and Other Professionals,

Report of the Joint Working Party, December 2002, page 24 and 25)

4         Since the Joint Working Party reported in December 2002, the parties have worked constructively and cooperatively to examine, identify, validate and quantify the changes in work, environment and skills associated with the professions which are covered by this review.  Those professions are:

• Exercise Physiology;

• Audiology;

• Health Librarians;

• Medical Science;

• Dietetics;

• Social Work;

• Radiation Therapy;

• Ultrasound;

• Respiratory Sciences;

• Physiotherapy;

• Sleep Technology;

• Medical Physics;

• Pharmacy;

• Podiatry;

• Occupational Therapy;

• Psychology;

• Bioengineering;

• Orthoptics;

• Speech Pathology;

• Medical Imaging Technology;

• Nuclear Medicine;

• Orthotics and Prosthetics; and

• Clinical Perfusion.

5         The result of that work has been a clear and objective analysis of the work undertaken by those professions and the changes which have occurred in them.  That work, although largely complete, requires the development of classification level descriptors for levels 4 to 6 through to 12, processes for criteria progression, and the assessment of health professional positions currently classified level 7 and above for reclassification into the new salary structure.

6         The work performed to date, requiring the Commission's consideration, covers many volumes of material which identify the particular professions' respective cases.  The work value changes are said by the parties to warrant levels 3 to 5 moving to levels 4 to 6, and other changes.  The Commission is required to consider the changes in accordance with the Statement of Principles  - July 2005 issued by the Commission in Court Session arising from the State Wage Case (85 WAIG 3247).

7         I am satisfied that the purpose of this application is to adjust wages pursuant to work value changes, and this is reflected in the Award by reference to classification structure, reclassification and service increments.  According to Principle 2, such matters are able to be dealt with by a single Commissioner. 

8         The Work Value Principle, Principle 6, is that which sets out the test to be applied in this case.  Principle 6 - Work Value Changes, paragraph (a) provides that:

“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.

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.

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 in accordance with this provision.

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.”

(85 WAIG 3247 at page 3248)

9         The Principle also notes that “the time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is the date of operation of the second structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the September 1989 State Wage Decision ((1989) 69 WAIG 2917).” 

10      The context in which this application is to be viewed is that of the public health system.  Having considered the evidence submitted by the parties in the work value submissions for each of the professions, I am satisfied that since 10 October 1989, there have been changes in the work, skill and responsibility, or conditions under which the work of the professions is performed in the public health system.  Across the board, it constitutes a significant net addition to the work requirements such as to warrant upgrading to a higher classification.

11      The parties have referred to the decision of the Commission in Court Session in the Clinical Psychologists Case (83 WAIG 23 at 41): 

“It is true that not all of these developments apply equally to each area of work, or at each level.  …  However, there is significant change across the board, and in the various sectors, such as in regional services, in youth services, in gerontology, surgical areas, and all others, to enable a conclusion that there is a high level of change across all of the public health sector clinical psychologist positions before the Commission."

(paragraph 155)

12      Those comments in respect of clinical psychologists apply equally to the case in this matter. 

13      The Commission in Court Session also made note in that case of the changes to the work environment, finding that:

“As to the claim that changes to the work environment of community-based work rather than the previous hospital based focus, and the use of multi-disciplinary teams, these are common across the mental health sector.  The clinical psychologist operating within that system is no different from the mental health nurse, occupational therapist, psychiatrist, or medical practitioner in that respect.  The clinical psychologist may head the multi-disciplinary team, but so might other professionals.  That does not mean that there is no increase in work value.  We conclude that the change to the community based approach has led to increased efficiency and cost effectiveness of treatment, by the significant reduction of in-patient bed days and by the use of the multi-disciplinary approach.  Other professions may contribute to this and any such contribution would need to be weighed with any other changes to the professions should they make a similar claim.”

(paragraph 156)

14      In this case, a similar claim has been made and demonstrated.  There have been changes to the way in which work is performed and to the way in which patient services are provided and arranged.  They have an impact upon the work environment such as to add to the work value change.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the test of a significant net addition to the work value has been established. 

15      The agreement of the parties as to the quantum and how it is to be reflected in the classification structure is an appropriate outcome in this case. 

16      However, that does not dispose of all of the issues which require consideration by the Commission.  The Commission is to be satisfied that the changes to internal and external relativities will not result in leap-frogging.  The Commission in Court Session in the Clinical Psychologists' Case (supra) noted the uniqueness of that group.  In this case, it is to be noted that while the circumstances and changes for most of the callings covered by this application are relevant to the public health system only, and that they pose no real prospect of flow on, there are aspects which are of a more generic nature and go beyond the limits of the public health system.  I refer in particular to social workers, librarians and exercise physiologists.  These professions are not exclusive to the public health system; nor are many of the other professions which are being considered.  They are also found in the wider workforce.  They have relied for most part on the changes which have occurred to their work as it is performed in the public health system.  However, some changes on which they have relied would apply equally to those professions elsewhere.  Those latter changes should not be discarded.  They go to make up the whole of the picture of the change which has occurred for this group of professionals.  Whether any other group of those professions could demonstrate the same level of change overall as it relates to their particular circumstances would depend on their circumstances and the changes upon which they rely.  

17      Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no impediment to the Award being amended on account of the issues of flow-on.  Therefore, an order for the amendments as proposed by the parties, with some minor modifications for clarity, will issue.  The date of operation shall be on and from the 6th of August 2003, the date of lodgement of the application. 

18      In accordance with the parties' wishes the application shall be divided in accordance with the proposed order.

19      There is one very important issue to deal with, as acknowledged by Mr Hill and Mr Ross.  There are many people who have made a significant contribution to the work necessary to this case.  Their contributions are noted with congratulations.  Those people include the Joint Working Party which reported in December 2002.  They also include the many professionals who contributed to the identification of work value change, and those who assessed those claims.  They also include the representatives of the Union, in particular Mr Hill and Mr Barlow, and the employers' representatives, Mr Ross, Ms Burnett and Mr Patman, who have given direction to this process and who have worked cooperatively and with goodwill, which is to be applauded.

20      The approach taken to this matter by both sides is indeed worthy of commendation.  My thanks to all who have so positively contributed to such a detailed and thorough analysis and presentation.  It is cases such as this which demonstrate the positive and constructive work associated with the employment relationship.  My congratulations to you.  Minutes of Proposed Order shall issue.