DISPUTE RE CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION : 2014 WAIRC 01098

DELIVERED : Friday, 3 October 2014

FILE NO. : CR 233 OF 2013

Applicant

AND

The Minister for Health in his incorporated capacity under s7 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927 (WA) as the hospitals formerly comprised in the Metropolitan Health Service Board

Respondent

Catchwords : Industrial law (WA) – Reclassification appeal – Work value change – Change in the nature of duties and responsibilities – Principles applied –  Lack of fundamental change – Reclassification not warranted – Application dismissed

Legislation  : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 44(9)

Result  : Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms S Hanrahan and with her Ms M Girgis

Respondent : Mr M Aulfrey of counsel and with him Ms J Symons

Case(s) referred to in reasons:

Francis v WA Police (2013) 93 WAIG 437

Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Royal Perth Hospital (2002) 83 WAIG 23

Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Royal Perth Hospital and Others (1987) 67 WAIG 554

In re Mineral Sands (State) Award [1980] AR (NSW) 107

Case(s) also cited: 

Dornan v Director General, Dept of Education (2014) 94 WAIG 614

The Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Anti-Corruption Commission (2003) 83 WAIG 1165

The Minister for Health in his Incorporated Capacity under s.7 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927 (WA) as the hospitals formerly comprised in the Metropolitan Health Service Board v The Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) (2013) 93 WAIG 1565

Reasons for Decision

1         At the Shenton Park Campus of the Royal Perth Hospital there are employees employed in the position of Hospital Support and Patrol Worker. These employees engage in a range of duties including housekeeping, courier services and security and patrol duties on the campus. The parties are in dispute in relation to the appropriate classification to apply to the role.  Conciliation was unavailing in resolving the dispute between the parties and the matter has been referred for hearing and determination under s 44(9) of the Act. The Union’s claim is expressed in the following terms in the s 44(9) referral:

(a) Since the Position was created at level 3/4 there have been significant changes to the security duties required both in terms of the nature of the duties and the frequency with which those duties are required to be performed.  A comparison of the duties required to be undertaken by Security Officers at Royal Perth and Fremantle hospitals and the duties required to be undertaken by the Position shows significant similarities.  These Security Officer positions are classified at level G4 under the WA Health – Health Services Union – PACTS – Industrial Agreement 2011 (the HSU Agreement).

(b) The remuneration attaching to a level 13 classification under the WA Health – United Voice - Hospital Support Workers Industrial Agreement 2012 (the Agreement) is lower than the remuneration attaching to the level G4 classification under the HSU Agreement.

(c) The applicant disputes the results of the recent classification review which found that there had been insufficient change to work value to support a change in the classification of the Position.  The applicant also disputes the results of the time and motion study undertaken by the respondent, dated 8 November 2013.

(d) The current Job Description Form (JDF), effective September 2007, adequately describes the full range of duties required to be performed although not all security duties performed by employees are specified in the JDF.

2         On the other hand, the Minister, who opposes the Union’s claim, claims that:

(a) There has not been any increase in security-related duties performed by the Position significant enough to warrant an increase in remuneration.  This is supported by the decision of the Classification Review Committee and the results of a time and motion study conducted by the respondent.

(b) The Position was established at the Shenton Park Campus of Royal Perth Hospital around 2001.  The 2002 JDF shows security-related duties formed part of the role of the Position.  Other duties performed by the Position in the 2002 JDF are housekeeping/cleaning duties and courier/orderly duties.  These duties are normally associated with employees classified at level 1/2, namely cleaners and orderlies.

(c) In recognition of the security-related duties performed by the Position, a classification of level 3/4 was determined to be appropriate for the combined cleaning, courier and security related duties.  The applicant did not dispute the level 3/4 classification of the Position at the time the Position was created.

(d) There has been no change of significance in any of the duties specified in the current JDF compared to the 2002 JDF.

3         Thus, the focus of the case advanced by the Union is based on a change in the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the HSPW position, since it was established. The case put by the Union was not one based on an inappropriate classification from the inception of the position.  Both the Union and the Minister put detailed and helpful cases to the Commission.

Agreed facts

4         The parties agreed the following facts:

1. Employees of the respondent employed as Hospital Support and Patrol Workers are members, or are eligible to be members, of the applicant and are employed pursuant to the WA Health - United Voice - Hospital Support Workers Industrial Agreement 2012 (the agreement).

2. The Hospital Support and Patrol Worker position (the position) was created in or around 2001.  Since being created, it has been classified at level 3/4 under the agreement.

3. The current JDF for the position is dated September 2007.  A previous JDF is dated April 2002.

4. On 11 July 2013, the applicant submitted a Classification Review Form on behalf of members employed in the position.  The applicant sought for the position to be reclassified from level 3/4 to level 13.

5. On 6 September 2013, a Classification File Note in relation to the position was finalised.  The recommendation contained within the file note was that there should be no change to the current classification.

6. On 25 September 2013 the South Metropolitan Health Service Area Classification Review Committee issued a decision in relation to the reclassification request.  The Committee declined the request.

7. On 2 October 2013, the applicant's members employed in the position were advised that the reclassification request had been refused, on the basis that the increase in work value of the duties and responsibilities undertaken was not sufficient to justify the change.

8. On 23 October 2013, the applicant advised the respondent that it was disputing the decision to deny the reclassification request, pursuant to sub-clauses 19.7 and 51.4 of the Agreement.

9. The applicant and respondent met on 1 November 2013 and were not able to resolve the dispute.

The HSPW position

5         The HSPW position was created in 2001. The position is based at the RPH Shenton Park Campus.  Although the position was classified at level 3/4 under the Agreement, there is no such classification prescribed within its terms.

6         According to the 2007 JDF for the position, the prime function of the job is described as:

PRIME FUNCTION / KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:  Provides hospital based support services including housekeeping functions (including waste removal, courier services and security/patrol duties).

7         A revised JDF, to reflect the current requirements of the position describes the “key responsibilities” of the job as:

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

Provides a hospital support and patrol service including cleaning services, collection and transportation of waste and soiled linen, courier services, patient transfers and patrol duties.

8         Adopting a similar approach to the statement of duties, leads to the following.  For the 2007 JDF, the duties are broken into four broad areas, including housekeeping functions; courier services; patient services and security/patrol duties.  The latter is expressed in the following terms:

Security/Patrol Duties

5. Responsible for lock down of Campus.

6. Assists in the provision of a custodian service in conjunction with representatives of the Ministry of Justice.

7. Provides an escort to staff as required.

8. Attends to duress alarms and other security related matters.

9         In the current registered JDF, the duties, said to be in order of importance, are in six broad areas including hospital cleaning; courier functions; patient transfers; security; other and SMHS.  In terms of the security duties, they are currently described as:

3. Security Duties

 Assists in the provision of a safe and secure environment for staff, patients and visitors.

 Records and reports incidents and duties undertaken

 Communicates with and reports to RPH security, hospital personnel and/or police regarding security issues

 Provides access to departments for authorised persons

 Provides escort service for patients (including custodial patients), staff and visitors as required

 Provides appropriate prompt response to phone calls, pages, base radio, system alarms and codes with follow up action including alerting RPH Security in event of potentially serious incidents or emergencies.

 Ensures all buildings are secure after hours.

 Patrols Hospital grounds at regular intervals day/after hours and reports/records accordingly.

10      Also before the Commission, is a JDF for the position from 2002, a copy of which was tendered as exhibit A6.  In terms of the security related duties, these are the same as those set out in the 2007 JDF.

Tests for work value review

11      The Commission has, in many cases, set out the relevant principles to apply in applications to reclassify positions, based on work value.  Recently, in Francis v WA Police (2013) 93 WAIG 437 I said at par 38:

38 It is well settled in this jurisdiction, that in order to obtain a reclassification of a position, an appellant needs to demonstrate a significant net addition to the value of the work attached to a position, such as to warrant the creation of a new classification.  Work value in this respect, embraces changes in the nature of the work, the skills and responsibility required or the conditions under which the work is performed.  This fundamental principle is set out in the Commission’s Wage Fixing Principles 2012 at Principle 7.2.  A reclassification appeal, involves an assessment by the Commission of the work value of a position, at the time the appeal is lodged:  Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Director General of Health in Right of the Minister for Health as the Metropolitan Health Service at PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA (2008) 88 WAIG 475; Wall v Department of Fisheries (2004) 84 WAIG 3895.

12      The approach of the Commission has been to apply the test strictly.  This means a substantial burden falls on an applicant in such matters. In relation to the requirement of “‘significant’ change, ‘significant’ does not necessarily mean ‘major’, but ‘to a meaningful degree, not insignificant, not immaterial, not trivial’.  To be significant a factor does not have to be dramatic, sudden or eye-catching.  A change, as in this case, may occur subtly, gradually, even covertly but on examination prove to be significant”: In re Mineral Sands (State) Award [1980] AR (NSW) 107. Significant change may be either evolutionary or revolutionary.  Evolutionary change can be just as substantial and significant as revolutionary change: Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Royal Perth Hospital and Others (1987) 67 WAIG 554 at 557.  Further, “Incremental or cumulative change, when taken as a whole, may constitute such a level of change that developments have exceeded those which would reasonably be expected”: Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Royal Perth Hospital (2002) 83 WAIG 23.

13      I adopt and apply this approach to the determination of the present matter.  On the case as advanced by the Union, in terms of these authorities, it is evolutionary change that is relied on.

The classification review request and report

14      In May 2013 the ten HSPWs employed at the SPC lodged claims for reclassification. The employees claimed to be classified as equivalent to Security Officers Level G4 under the terms of the relevant Health Services Union industrial agreement. As a consequence of meetings with the employer, the HSPW employees revised their claims to fall under the terms of the Agreement, as HWGA L13. This is a lower classification level than that applicable to security officers.  The level 13 classification under the Agreement applies to the position of Advanced Sterilisation Technician.  I will return to this aspect of the matter later in these reasons.

15      The claims asserted that the HSPW employees now perform security related duties for approximately 80% of their time.  This reflects a significant increase in the security aspects of the role, and was said to be due in part, to an increase in patient numbers at the SPC.  The employees claimed that the extra responsibility for security work involved “Escorting prisoners, testing duress alarms, lock downs, transporting urgent medicines around WD’s, answering code black and other codes as required and searching for missing patients”.

16      For the employer, it was contended that the security related work had always been a feature of the role of a HSPW at SPC.  It was contended by the employer that the position still involves predominantly cleaning, housekeeping, and patient services related work.

17      In assessing the employees’ claims, the classification review concluded that a comparison with other relevant positions, and the original scope of the role of a HSPW position, while there had been some increase in frequency of security work, there had been insufficient change overall to warrant a reclassification.  It was concluded that the responsibilities and duties of the position are not fundamentally different to the scope of the role since its establishment and a level 3/4 classification remained appropriate.

The Union’s contentions

18      The Union submitted that whilst acknowledging the need to meet the work value test for reclassification established by the Commission, there had been a substantial change in the nature of the work undertaken by the HSPW position.  The proportion of the time spent on patrol and security duties has increased.  The Union contended that the case for the HSPWs is not a work load issue and given the change in the composition of duties, a reclassification was justified. In particular, in support of this submission, the Union said that as the housekeeping work attracts a lower classification of level 1/2 and the security work done is performed by a Security Officer under the HSU Agreement, it was therefore logical for there to be a reclassification, given the change in the composition of the duties of a HSPW.

The employer’s contentions

19      The Minister submitted that there had been no fundamental change to the HSPW position since its establishment. From the employer’s perspective, it was contended that while there may have been some change in frequency of the security related work, there has also been a corresponding decline in other aspects of the work done, such as housekeeping and cleaning.

20      Furthermore, the Minister submitted that the basis for much of the change in duties, that being an increase in aggression, violence and disruptive behaviour in hospitals by patients and visitors, is not a reason to conclude that there has been any significant net addition to the work value of the HSPW position. As a consequence of this trend generally in “front line” services, the Minister contended the employees concerned are now part of teams of employees, who work together to handle difficult and challenging situations.  In this respect, the Minister noted that the HSPWs, along with other staff at the SPC, have received training to assist in these situations. This is the Behavioural Emergency Response Training and Management of Aggression Training programmes. 

21      Accordingly, the Minister contended that as opposed to security officers for example, the HSPWs are not required to have any specific qualifications and experience in security work. A point emphasised by the Minister, was that the HSPWs provide assistance in security situations, and do not assume responsibility and manage such situations, as security officers generally do. Finally, the Minister submitted that there is a substantial risk of flow on to other government health positions, if the Union’s claim in this matter is successful.  The comparators used by the employer, of similar types of positions, were said by the Minister to be and remain, appropriate. 

Has there been a significant change in work value?

22      The issue in this case is whether there has been a significant change in the work value of the positions under consideration. The work value principle of the Commission in Court Session’s 2014 Statement of Principles, is in the following terms:

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.

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 in accordance with this provision.

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, such new or changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new or changed work is performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.

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. Such 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.

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.

23      As has been noted earlier in these reasons, the test of a claim for an increase in wages or salary based on work value is a strict one. The Union must establish that the change is significant enough to warrant a new classification, or the upgrading to a higher classification. The Commission remains vigilant against over-classification of positions.

24      It is common ground that the HSPW position was created in about 2001 and only exists at the SPC. The SPC of RPH is a relatively small facility.  It is primarily a rehabilitation hospital and has a capacity of approximately 160 beds. This is contrasted to the RPH Wellington Street Campus, which is a major tertiary hospital, with an emergency department. The WSC has a bed capacity of approximately 560. At the WSC, there is not a HSPW position.  Security services are provided by security officers under the HSU Agreement.

25      The evidence of Mr Murray, for the Union, who has been employed at the SPC for about 10 years, was that in the early years, most of the work done by HSPWs was housekeeping and cleaning oriented.  The security aspects of the job were a lesser responsibility. This to some extent is reflected in both the 2002 and 2007 JDFs for the position. According to the Union witnesses however, over recent years, this has changed.  HSPWs are now experiencing an increasing number of incidents involving violence and aggression. This had led to an increase in the incidence of “code blacks”.

26      Additionally, according to both Mr McBain and Mr Murray, this security related work increasingly has to be prioritised with other general duties performed by HSPWs.  The evidence of both witnesses was that while the security work itself is not new, it is occurring with a greater level of frequency than in years past.

27      Both witnesses acknowledged however, that there has also been a shift in policy by the Department of Health, to adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to any form of disruptive or violent behaviour by patients and visitors.  It was accepted that this has also led to a significant increase in the level of reporting of such matters.  In particular, Mr Murray testified as to the change in frequency of incidents noted by him after a period of absence from the workplace in 2007 to 2008.  Also, due to the increase in the number of reportable incidents, the HSPWs have to call on their skills in handling difficult people, guided by the BERT and MOAT training.  I pause to note however, and it was common ground, that this is general behavioural management training, given to all nursing staff and patient care assistants in the hospital.

28      The change in the level of the frequency of security related work was in dispute.  In the Classification Review Report it was recorded (see p 2 exhibit A5) that it was claimed by the HSPWs that the proportion of time spent on security related work had increased from about 30 per cent to 80 per cent of work time.  On the other hand, the employer suggested that as part of the review that the proportion of security work was much lower, in the order of 26 per cent or thereabouts.  It was noted that this issue was in dispute as at the time of the review.

29      This aspect of the case from the employer’s perspective was dealt with in the evidence of Ms Poposka, the Acting Manager Patient Support Services, for both the WSC and the SPC. Ms Poposka said that from her review of the HSPW position, being a blend of duties recognised that primary tasks of housekeeping/cleaning work attracted a level 1/2 classification, with the level 3/4 higher classification, recognising the additional security duties. The absence of a dedicated security officer position was because the SPC is a small hospital and does not have an emergency department.

30      In view of the present dispute, in particular as to the proportion of time spent on security related work, Ms Poposka testified that she arranged through the supervisors, for a time and motion study to be carried out for the HSPW position.  This was done by supervisors who had been in the workplace for some years and were familiar with the work of the HSPW at SPC.

31      The analysis was carried out over both day and night shifts Monday to Friday inclusive and the same for Saturday and Sunday. The outcome of the time and motion study was set out in an email from Ms Poposka to Ms McNamara, another manager at RPH, a copy of which was exhibit A3.  Ms Poposka testified that she discussed the duty statements prepared for the time and motion study with Mr McBain. The duty statements attached contain a detailed breakdown of the time of the shift, the particular tasks performed, and the duration of each task.  At the end of each duty statement, is a summary table containing the type of task, the approximate time required to perform it, and finally, a percentage of the overall shift time spent performing the specified tasks. 

32      Mr McBain testified that he may have discussed the duty statements attached to exhibit A3, but he could not remember. He did however take issue with their content, because he said that the requirement to do security related work is unpredictable. This was confirmed in effect by Ms Poposka, when she accepted in her evidence that the HSPWs may get called away from housekeeping duties by a nurse, if their presence is required in tending to a particular patient situation.

33      The terms of exhibit A3 reveal that for Monday to Friday day and night shifts the HSPW position is engaged for between 37.5 per cent and 45 per cent of working time on security related work. Cleaning duties occupy a greater percentage on the Monday to Friday night and weekend shifts, where there seems to be no patient admission or courier work recorded. The percentage recorded for those shifts ranges from 20 per cent to 30 per cent approximately, depending on the time of duty. I note that the percentage of security work revealed by the time and motion study is higher than the 26 per cent level advanced by the employer, but substantially lower than that suggested by the employees, referred to in the Classification Report.

34      Whilst recognising the point made by the Union, that some of the security related work is by its nature, unplanned and must be responded to immediately, and thus interrupts the performance of other work performed by HSPWs, the content of exhibit A3 provides an objective assessment of the work performed by the position.  I give it appropriate weight.  At best, such studies can provide a guide to the Commission in assessing matters such as this.

35      On an analysis of all of the evidence, there is a qualitative difference in the work performed by a HSPW and a security officer.  A major difference is the level of responsibility to be exercised.  Looking at the terms of exhibit A4, and from a consideration of Mr Romeo’s testimony, it is clear that a security officer at the WSC for example, is responsible for the maintenance of a safe and secure hospital site.  A security officer also takes a leadership role in this respect.  For example, with respect to the various “codes” incidents, the security officer is responsible for the overall control of the response to such events.  This contrasts to a HSPW, who is required to respond, as a part of a team, and to act in accordance with established procedures, as set out in exhibit R1.  When doing so, a HSPW is under the direction and control of an “Officer In Charge”.

36      Additionally, security officers are responsible for the investigation of incidents and active surveillance, including through the use of CCTV technology.  Security officers are also trained to respond to physical threats and attacks, and in the application of patient restraints.  Essential qualifications include a certificate II in Security Operations, with, it seems, according to Mr Romeo, a move towards a requirement for a certificate III qualification.  To their credit, the Union witnesses acknowledged that many of the security aspects of their work require the use of common sense, as opposed to specific skills or training.

37      In my view, having regard to all that is before the Commission in this matter, there are substantial differences between the security related duties undertaken by a HSPW and the responsibilities and duties of a security officer.  Furthermore, other positions, such as Transit Officers in the public transport sector, referred to in the evidence of Mr Svirac also illustrate the distinction in work requirements of such roles.

38      This discussion brings me to a consideration of exhibit A2, which is the “Royal Perth Hospital Shenton Park Campus Security Manual”. This Manual was seemingly prepared in June 2000, prior to the establishment of the HSPW position. It was described to have been “reviewed” in May 2007. The provenance of the Manual is uncertain. The Commission invited further submissions on its origin and application after the substantive hearing of the claim had concluded.  By letter of 24 July 2014, the Minister submitted that the Manual is regarded as an operations manual and is not to derogate from the terms of the JDF for the HSPW position. The Minister rejected any suggestion that the Manual may create the impression that the HSPWs are solely responsible for the provision of security and safety at the SPC.  Whilst there was some reference in the Minister’s further submission to a person previously employed at RPH in the security area, as this was not the subject of evidence, and was objected to by the Union, I place no weight on that particular reference.

39      The Union contended simply that it is not in dispute that the Manual is currently in use and the Commission can, and should, pay appropriate regard to its terms.

40      On 11 August 2014 the matter was relisted for the purposes of giving the parties the opportunity to make further submissions on this issue. The Minister and the Union generally reiterated the points made by them, set out above.

41      The Commission accepts that the Manual is still in use and will provide some guidance as to the broad scope of duties of a HSPW.  However, in my view, based on all of the evidence, the statements on p 3 of the Manual, as to the overall role of the HSPW in the provision of security related duties, is to some degree, an overstatement. It is clear from all of the evidence, including the JDFs for the HSPW position that the position assists in the provision of a secure and safe environment at the SPC.  It is not however responsible for, or in control of, the security function. I also accept that as a practical guide, the Manual, in conjunction with other procedures, gives day to day guidance to HSPWs in the performance of their duties.  However, it cannot override the terms of the JDF for the position.

42      On all of the evidence, I accept that over time, due it seems to a range of factors, the frequency of security related work has increased for the HSPWs.  This is no doubt a function of the increasing occurrence, regrettably, of incidents in the workplace involving aggressive and violent behaviour by patients and visitors, in a hospital environment. However, this trend is also evident in other “front line” services not just in health, but also in other areas of government service provision that interact with the public at large. I note in passing, that the level of such incidents and security incidents generally, are, on the basis of exhibit A5 and Ms McNamara’s testimony, very much higher at the WSC than the SPC.

43      Whilst there was some criticism by the Union of the comparator positions considered in the Classification Review, I do not consider that on balance, the relevant comparisons were inappropriate. The JDFs for these positions, annexed to the Classification Report, in broad terms, reflect security related aspects of the positions of a similar nature to the HSPW positions at the SPC.  This is despite some evidence from Ms Hebden from the Union, that at two of the locations in question, there was also a security officer present on those sites.

44      The Union’s claim that the HSPW position be reclassified to a level 13 position under the Agreement, must also take due account of the nature of the duties and responsibilities of that position under the Agreement, presently classified at that level. The Advanced Sterilisation Technician position was described in Ms McNamara’s evidence as being a very responsible role, which requires a certificate III qualification as an essential prerequisite. It is the only position presently classified as level 13 under the Agreement.

45      The Commission must also take into account the potential for flow on if the claim is granted. It is apparent from the material before the Commission that if the HSPW position was reclassified in the terms claimed, given the level of that position and the work performed by a security officer, in relative terms, pressure to also review the latter positions throughout the public health system, would, in my view, be almost inevitable.

Conclusions

46      No doubt the HSPW employees at the SPC have in the past and do perform a valuable and important role at the hospital. They are part of a team of staff required to provide a safe environment for staff, patients and visitors. However, I am not persuaded that it has been established, to the required degree, that a reclassification is warranted. I do not consider, having regard to all of what is before the Commission, that the position of HSPW has fundamentally changed in terms of work value, to meet the established tests.  Accordingly the application must be dismissed.