Michele Clare Grumont -v- Director General, Education Department Of WA
Document Type: Decision
Matter Number: PSA 31/2000
Matter Description: Reclassification Appeal - s.80E
Industry:
Jurisdiction: Public Service Arbitrator
Member/Magistrate name: Commissioner S J Kenner
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2000
Result:
Citation: 2001 WAIRC 01817
WAIG Reference: 81 WAIG 731
2001 WAIRC 01817
100003690
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
PARTIES MICHELE CLARE GRUMONT
APPLICANT
-V-
DIRECTOR GENERAL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WA
RESPONDENT
CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR
COMMISSIONER S J KENNER
DELIVERED WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2001
FILE NO/S PSA 31 OF 2000
CITATION NO. 2001 WAIRC 01817
_______________________________________________________________________________
Result Application granted.
Representation
APPLICANT MR K TRAINER AS AGENT
RESPONDENT MR J SCHOKKER AS AGENT
_______________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for Decision
1. By this appeal, Ms Grumont, the occupant of the position of Administrative Assistant within the Human Resources Division of the respondent, seeks a re-classification of her position from Level 2 to Level 3 and a retitling of the position from Administrative Assistant to Finance and Administration Officer.
2. The ground advanced in support of the re-classification appeal was that the position of Administrative Assistant that the applicant occupies has substantially changed in work value terms. The thrust of the applicant's appeal was that since she first occupied the position, there has been a substantial change in both duties and responsibilities, particularly in relation to financial management and responsibility therefore. The applicant said that compared to the position as it was when she initially occupied it, the position now has had delegated to it from the responsible Director, the effective decision-making responsibility for budgetary and other day-to-day financial allocation matters. It was not contended however, that the ultimate accountability for these matters did not still remain with the Director.
3. The applicant also gave evidence that there had been changes in her position in relation to the administrative aspect of her duties, in particular such that she was now required to deal with very confidential matters within the directorate and prepare correspondence on behalf of the Director and generally deal with other matters such as parliamentary questions, briefing notes, “ministerials” and other associated correspondence. She also said that as a part of her duties, she is now responsible for the supervision of a newly appointed Level 1 clerical officer, to which office much of the routine clerical work has been delegated. The applicant said this further supported her claim that her duties and responsibilities have undergone a substantial change.
4. As to financial matters, whilst it was submitted that some aspects of the existing JDF for the position remained the same, in other respects the responsibility for operational decision-making in relation to the directorate's budget has been delegated to the applicant. In effect, the applicant said that financial management activities are now the major and substantial portion of the duties and responsibilities of the position.
5. The applicant's evidence in this regard was supported by evidence from the Director of Employee Relations, Mr Cloghan. He confirmed in his evidence a restructuring of his division, the principal effect of which in terms of the applicant, being the delegation from him to her, of much of the day-to-day operational decision-making in relation to the development and management of the directorate's budget and financial reports. Mr Cloghan also said that the position now required the occupant to possess relevant knowledge of financial procedures.
6. Mr Ayling, an Industrial Relations Manager in the Directorate, also gave evidence in support of the applicant's appeal. He generally confirmed the evidence of Mr Cloghan and said that the Administrative Assistant position responsibilities had changed substantially over the course of recent years. In particular, Mr Ayling emphasised the financial management responsibilities of the position as it now was, and changes in the administrative responsibilities as well, including very confidential matters handled within the department. In relation to the financial management matters, he said that one of the most significant changes was that the applicant exercised accountability for the department's expenditure against budget and was in a position to approve or not approve expenditure accordingly.
7. A Classification Report, commissioned to undertake a review of the Employee Relations Directorate, supported the applicant's re-classification and change to the position title. This report in particular, found substantial changes in the financial management responsibilities of the applicant's position and by a comparative assessment with Level 3 positions in other government agencies, concluded that the skills, competencies and responsibilities were commensurate with the applicant's position as it now was. A BIPERS assessment undertaken as a part of the report placed the post at the lower end of the indicative level (280 -- 314) for a Level 4 position, resulting in the application of the normal practice under the BIPERS assessment system, to classify the post at Level 3.
8. The respondent did not call any evidence but opposed the re-classification appeal and relied upon the respondent's Classification Review Committee rejection of the re-classification of the applicant's position. The respondent submitted that the duties and workload of the applicant's position were consistent with and similar to functions performed by other Level 2 Administrative Assistants. Also, it was said that any re-classification would have flow on implications for similar positions attached to other Directorates. In relation to the consistency of duties point, I note that it was Mr Ayling's evidence that based upon his experience and length of service at the respondent, which was considerable, Administrative Assistants in other Directorates of the respondent did not have the same degree of responsibility, particularly for financial matters, as the position occupied by the applicant.
9. The applicant has the onus of meeting the terms of Principle 6 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles in relation to work value. The applicant needs to establish first that there has been a significant net addition to work requirements and secondly, that there is no likelihood of flow on due to changed relativities within the internal classification structure.
10. From the evidence, which evidence I accept, it is clear that there has been a significant change in the nature of the responsibilities undertaken by the position occupied by the applicant. These changes have particularly been in the area of financial management and accountability. I am satisfied that in this case, the change is not merely one of an addition to work load, but there has been a significant net addition to the work requirements of the position, to satisfy the first limb of the Principle.
11. As to any flow on, I am not persuaded to the respondent's position that the re-classification of the applicant's position would of itself disturb any internal relativity within the respondent’s classification structure. I accept the evidence led on behalf of the applicant in this regard and the conclusions reached in the Classification Report prepared in relation to the review of the respondent's Employee Relations Directorate.
12. In relation to the proposed change of title to the position, the evidence clearly indicates that the position is not now one appropriately described as an Administrative Assistant. In my opinion, the more appropriate title is that identified in the Classification Report and the subject of this appeal, that is Finance and Administration Officer.
13. I order accordingly.
100003690
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
PARTIES MICHELE CLARE GRUMONT
APPLICANT
-V-
DIRECTOR GENERAL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WA
RESPONDENT
CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR
COMMISSIONER S J KENNER
DELIVERED WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2001
FILE NO/S PSA 31 OF 2000
CITATION NO. 2001 WAIRC 01817
_______________________________________________________________________________
Result Application granted.
Representation
APPLICANT MR K TRAINER AS AGENT
RESPONDENT MR J SCHOKKER AS AGENT
_______________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for Decision
1. By this appeal, Ms Grumont, the occupant of the position of Administrative Assistant within the Human Resources Division of the respondent, seeks a re-classification of her position from Level 2 to Level 3 and a retitling of the position from Administrative Assistant to Finance and Administration Officer.
2. The ground advanced in support of the re-classification appeal was that the position of Administrative Assistant that the applicant occupies has substantially changed in work value terms. The thrust of the applicant's appeal was that since she first occupied the position, there has been a substantial change in both duties and responsibilities, particularly in relation to financial management and responsibility therefore. The applicant said that compared to the position as it was when she initially occupied it, the position now has had delegated to it from the responsible Director, the effective decision-making responsibility for budgetary and other day-to-day financial allocation matters. It was not contended however, that the ultimate accountability for these matters did not still remain with the Director.
3. The applicant also gave evidence that there had been changes in her position in relation to the administrative aspect of her duties, in particular such that she was now required to deal with very confidential matters within the directorate and prepare correspondence on behalf of the Director and generally deal with other matters such as parliamentary questions, briefing notes, “ministerials” and other associated correspondence. She also said that as a part of her duties, she is now responsible for the supervision of a newly appointed Level 1 clerical officer, to which office much of the routine clerical work has been delegated. The applicant said this further supported her claim that her duties and responsibilities have undergone a substantial change.
4. As to financial matters, whilst it was submitted that some aspects of the existing JDF for the position remained the same, in other respects the responsibility for operational decision-making in relation to the directorate's budget has been delegated to the applicant. In effect, the applicant said that financial management activities are now the major and substantial portion of the duties and responsibilities of the position.
5. The applicant's evidence in this regard was supported by evidence from the Director of Employee Relations, Mr Cloghan. He confirmed in his evidence a restructuring of his division, the principal effect of which in terms of the applicant, being the delegation from him to her, of much of the day-to-day operational decision-making in relation to the development and management of the directorate's budget and financial reports. Mr Cloghan also said that the position now required the occupant to possess relevant knowledge of financial procedures.
6. Mr Ayling, an Industrial Relations Manager in the Directorate, also gave evidence in support of the applicant's appeal. He generally confirmed the evidence of Mr Cloghan and said that the Administrative Assistant position responsibilities had changed substantially over the course of recent years. In particular, Mr Ayling emphasised the financial management responsibilities of the position as it now was, and changes in the administrative responsibilities as well, including very confidential matters handled within the department. In relation to the financial management matters, he said that one of the most significant changes was that the applicant exercised accountability for the department's expenditure against budget and was in a position to approve or not approve expenditure accordingly.
7. A Classification Report, commissioned to undertake a review of the Employee Relations Directorate, supported the applicant's re-classification and change to the position title. This report in particular, found substantial changes in the financial management responsibilities of the applicant's position and by a comparative assessment with Level 3 positions in other government agencies, concluded that the skills, competencies and responsibilities were commensurate with the applicant's position as it now was. A BIPERS assessment undertaken as a part of the report placed the post at the lower end of the indicative level (280 -- 314) for a Level 4 position, resulting in the application of the normal practice under the BIPERS assessment system, to classify the post at Level 3.
8. The respondent did not call any evidence but opposed the re-classification appeal and relied upon the respondent's Classification Review Committee rejection of the re-classification of the applicant's position. The respondent submitted that the duties and workload of the applicant's position were consistent with and similar to functions performed by other Level 2 Administrative Assistants. Also, it was said that any re-classification would have flow on implications for similar positions attached to other Directorates. In relation to the consistency of duties point, I note that it was Mr Ayling's evidence that based upon his experience and length of service at the respondent, which was considerable, Administrative Assistants in other Directorates of the respondent did not have the same degree of responsibility, particularly for financial matters, as the position occupied by the applicant.
9. The applicant has the onus of meeting the terms of Principle 6 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles in relation to work value. The applicant needs to establish first that there has been a significant net addition to work requirements and secondly, that there is no likelihood of flow on due to changed relativities within the internal classification structure.
10. From the evidence, which evidence I accept, it is clear that there has been a significant change in the nature of the responsibilities undertaken by the position occupied by the applicant. These changes have particularly been in the area of financial management and accountability. I am satisfied that in this case, the change is not merely one of an addition to work load, but there has been a significant net addition to the work requirements of the position, to satisfy the first limb of the Principle.
11. As to any flow on, I am not persuaded to the respondent's position that the re-classification of the applicant's position would of itself disturb any internal relativity within the respondent’s classification structure. I accept the evidence led on behalf of the applicant in this regard and the conclusions reached in the Classification Report prepared in relation to the review of the respondent's Employee Relations Directorate.
12. In relation to the proposed change of title to the position, the evidence clearly indicates that the position is not now one appropriately described as an Administrative Assistant. In my opinion, the more appropriate title is that identified in the Classification Report and the subject of this appeal, that is Finance and Administration Officer.
13. I order accordingly.
100003690
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
PARTIES MICHELE CLARE GRUMONT
APPLICANT
-v-
DIRECTOR GENERAL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WA
RESPONDENT
CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR
COMMISSIONER S J KENNER
DELIVERED WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2001
FILE NO/S PSA 31 OF 2000
CITATION NO. 2001 WAIRC 01817
_______________________________________________________________________________
Result Application granted.
Representation
Applicant Mr K Trainer as agent
Respondent Mr J Schokker as agent
_______________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for Decision
- By this appeal, Ms Grumont, the occupant of the position of Administrative Assistant within the Human Resources Division of the respondent, seeks a re-classification of her position from Level 2 to Level 3 and a retitling of the position from Administrative Assistant to Finance and Administration Officer.
- The ground advanced in support of the re-classification appeal was that the position of Administrative Assistant that the applicant occupies has substantially changed in work value terms. The thrust of the applicant's appeal was that since she first occupied the position, there has been a substantial change in both duties and responsibilities, particularly in relation to financial management and responsibility therefore. The applicant said that compared to the position as it was when she initially occupied it, the position now has had delegated to it from the responsible Director, the effective decision-making responsibility for budgetary and other day-to-day financial allocation matters. It was not contended however, that the ultimate accountability for these matters did not still remain with the Director.
- The applicant also gave evidence that there had been changes in her position in relation to the administrative aspect of her duties, in particular such that she was now required to deal with very confidential matters within the directorate and prepare correspondence on behalf of the Director and generally deal with other matters such as parliamentary questions, briefing notes, “ministerials” and other associated correspondence. She also said that as a part of her duties, she is now responsible for the supervision of a newly appointed Level 1 clerical officer, to which office much of the routine clerical work has been delegated. The applicant said this further supported her claim that her duties and responsibilities have undergone a substantial change.
- As to financial matters, whilst it was submitted that some aspects of the existing JDF for the position remained the same, in other respects the responsibility for operational decision-making in relation to the directorate's budget has been delegated to the applicant. In effect, the applicant said that financial management activities are now the major and substantial portion of the duties and responsibilities of the position.
- The applicant's evidence in this regard was supported by evidence from the Director of Employee Relations, Mr Cloghan. He confirmed in his evidence a restructuring of his division, the principal effect of which in terms of the applicant, being the delegation from him to her, of much of the day-to-day operational decision-making in relation to the development and management of the directorate's budget and financial reports. Mr Cloghan also said that the position now required the occupant to possess relevant knowledge of financial procedures.
- Mr Ayling, an Industrial Relations Manager in the Directorate, also gave evidence in support of the applicant's appeal. He generally confirmed the evidence of Mr Cloghan and said that the Administrative Assistant position responsibilities had changed substantially over the course of recent years. In particular, Mr Ayling emphasised the financial management responsibilities of the position as it now was, and changes in the administrative responsibilities as well, including very confidential matters handled within the department. In relation to the financial management matters, he said that one of the most significant changes was that the applicant exercised accountability for the department's expenditure against budget and was in a position to approve or not approve expenditure accordingly.
- A Classification Report, commissioned to undertake a review of the Employee Relations Directorate, supported the applicant's re-classification and change to the position title. This report in particular, found substantial changes in the financial management responsibilities of the applicant's position and by a comparative assessment with Level 3 positions in other government agencies, concluded that the skills, competencies and responsibilities were commensurate with the applicant's position as it now was. A BIPERS assessment undertaken as a part of the report placed the post at the lower end of the indicative level (280 -- 314) for a Level 4 position, resulting in the application of the normal practice under the BIPERS assessment system, to classify the post at Level 3.
- The respondent did not call any evidence but opposed the re-classification appeal and relied upon the respondent's Classification Review Committee rejection of the re-classification of the applicant's position. The respondent submitted that the duties and workload of the applicant's position were consistent with and similar to functions performed by other Level 2 Administrative Assistants. Also, it was said that any re-classification would have flow on implications for similar positions attached to other Directorates. In relation to the consistency of duties point, I note that it was Mr Ayling's evidence that based upon his experience and length of service at the respondent, which was considerable, Administrative Assistants in other Directorates of the respondent did not have the same degree of responsibility, particularly for financial matters, as the position occupied by the applicant.
- The applicant has the onus of meeting the terms of Principle 6 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles in relation to work value. The applicant needs to establish first that there has been a significant net addition to work requirements and secondly, that there is no likelihood of flow on due to changed relativities within the internal classification structure.
- From the evidence, which evidence I accept, it is clear that there has been a significant change in the nature of the responsibilities undertaken by the position occupied by the applicant. These changes have particularly been in the area of financial management and accountability. I am satisfied that in this case, the change is not merely one of an addition to work load, but there has been a significant net addition to the work requirements of the position, to satisfy the first limb of the Principle.
- As to any flow on, I am not persuaded to the respondent's position that the re-classification of the applicant's position would of itself disturb any internal relativity within the respondent’s classification structure. I accept the evidence led on behalf of the applicant in this regard and the conclusions reached in the Classification Report prepared in relation to the review of the respondent's Employee Relations Directorate.
- In relation to the proposed change of title to the position, the evidence clearly indicates that the position is not now one appropriately described as an Administrative Assistant. In my opinion, the more appropriate title is that identified in the Classification Report and the subject of this appeal, that is Finance and Administration Officer.
- I order accordingly.