WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION : 2015 WAIRC 00973

DELIVERED : Thursday, 29 October 2015

FILE NO. : PSA 100 OF 2013

Applicant

AND

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

Respondent

CatchWords : Reclassification appeal – Increased work value – Administrative and managerial responsibilities – Health professionals specified callings – Health Professionals Classification Descriptors – BiPERS assessment – Statement of Principles

Legislation  : Industrial Relations Act 1979  s 80E(2)(a)

  Therapeutic Goods Act 1989

Result : Application dismissed

Representation:

Applicant : Ms K Heal as agent

Respondent : Mr J Sheppard and with him Mr J Ross

Reasons for Decision

1         The applicant seeks the reclassification of the position of Manager, Orthotic and Prosthetic Services as that position stood at Royal Perth Hospital in August 2013, from Level P3 to P4. 

2         The application is made under s 80E(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 and is based on a claim of increased work value.  The applicant also says the Health Professionals Classification Descriptors justify the level being P4, and the BiPERS assessment results in a score within the range of Level P4. 

3         The applicant relies on changes said to have arisen in that position to a range of administrative and managerial responsibilities, including participation in departmental and hospital‑wide planning processes; legislative and policy changes including compliance with the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the resultant international accreditation of the Department; developments in fitting, modifying and manufacturing equipment, and a range of other matters. 

The Work Value test

4         The Statement of Principles arising in the State Wage Case ([2015] WAIRC 00444 Schedule 2 [7]; (2015) 95 WAIG 691) sets out the test to be applied for a reclassification grounded on an increase in work value as being: 

…

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.

…

7.10 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.

…

5         The test has also applied over many years, even prior to its inclusion as a Principle (see Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Director General of Health [2008] WAIRC 00253; (2008) 88 WAIG 475, [7] – [15]). 

6         Therefore, for this position to warrant reclassification on the basis of increased work value, the applicant 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, it must bring a higher level of work, skill or responsibility, or changes to the work environment which make the work of a higher level.  It is a strict test. 

7         This position falls within the health professionals specified callings.  In Re Medical Officers – Hospital Specialists (State) Award (1990) 33 IR 79 at 84, Fisher P noted: 

One of the problems with the application of the ‘strict test’ to professional or managerial employment lies in the nature of the change.  Change must be accommodated, being an essential part of what professional practice is all about.  It does not follow therefore without more, that changes, even spectacular changes, necessarily fall within the work value principle. 

Secondly, it is to be understood that new techniques and procedures bring with them their own advantages.  For every new technological advance there is likely to be somewhere an inferior technology in part or in whole abandoned.  Superior technologies give superior results and tend to free practitioners from laborious, uncertain and stressful practice.  Changes, such as habituation, do not necessarily make things more difficult or more demanding.  They may, but equally they may remove problems, decrease anxieties and uncertainties and as well be more rewarding and more productive. 

8         I considered a claim of increased work value for health professionals in 2006 in application P 18 of 2003 (Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Hon Minister for Health and Others [2006] WAIRC 03473; (2006) 86 WAIG 279).  As part of that claim, an introductory paper covering the whole of the public health sector as it affected the various groups of health professionals was prepared by the Health Services Union.  In addition, individual papers set out the work value changes which were claimed to justify reclassification on the basis of the increased work value for the various health professions. 

9         Many of the changes claimed in relation to this position have already been accounted for in the health professionals’ case, P 18 of 2003, and therefore cannot be included in the grounds justifying reclassification for this case.  Such matters as a state wide orthotic and prosthetic service being provided at Royal Perth Hospital; the supervision and training of new graduate orthotists and prosthetists as well as Australian and international prosthetics and orthotics students; telehealth facilities; a greater understanding and involvement in the surgical stages of patient care; technological changes; specialisations and their advancement and development; benchmarking, best practice and continuous improvement practices; multidisciplinary and clinical teams; the introduction of the Therapeutic Goods Act and the changes brought by it, were all included in the work value submission on behalf of the professions of orthotics and prosthetics dated May 2005 in P 18 of 2003.  That application dealt with changes which had occurred in the health professions from 1989 until that time.  There is little within the grounds of this application that has not already been encompassed by either the introductory paper or the particular submission on behalf of the professions of orthotics and prosthetics. 

10      Mr Shehade and Mr Carter both gave evidence of certain requirements under the Therapeutic Goods Act being deferred, that the actual performance of any higher level work was not implemented until some time after that work was recognised in the Health Professionals Work Value Case.  This does not alter the fact that it has been counted.  The position received the benefit of the increased work value before the work had to be performed. 

11      As to the change in personnel supervised either directly or indirectly, there is a marginal increase, however, not sufficient to indicate a significant net addition to work value. 

12      I also note the references to the applicant’s particular professional qualities and his work performance.  Those things are laudable, and Mr Shehade has the right to feel that his efforts are recognised.  However, the basis for consideration of a reclassification appeal is the requirements of the position rather than the individual’s qualities and qualifications. 

13      In the circumstances, the application will be dismissed as there is no demonstration of a significant net addition to work requirements which has not already been recognised and rewarded. 

14      In the circumstances of a claim of increased work value not being sustained, the reliance on the Classification Descriptors and the BiPERS assessment fall away.  That is because they are each an aid to classification determination but of themselves do not assist if there is no significant increase in work value.  The same applies to comparative positions.  In a claim of increased work value, each of those things comes into play to verify the level of classification only after increased work value has been established.