Workplace Relations Act 1996

s.131 Application for Board of Reference

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union

Reclassification of Customer Service Officers - Parking Services

This is an application pursuant to section 131 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act) by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMACSU) seeking a Board of Reference to determine the correct classification of Customer Service Officers (CSOs) employed by the City of Perth Parking Department.

At a preliminary conciliation conference the parties agreed that the Commission, as currently constituted, should sit as the Board of Reference.

The history of this matter is that Car Park Cashiers who subsequently were redefined as Customer Services Officers were given a new position description in late 1997. Using a matrix developed by the City the CSO determined they were wrongly classified.

The CSOs then availed themselves of an appeal process set up by the City of Perth. The appeal panel consisted of two Union representatives and two Management representatives. The panel was split two all. The CEO of the City of Perth then determined that the CSOs were correctly classified at Band 2.

The matter was then referred to the AIRC for determination.

The CSOs argued that their job description has changed and as such is in conformity with Band 3 of the Award.

The City argues that despite the changes in the job description the work has not changed and Band 2 is the correct classification.

There is no doubt that the job of CSO has altered with the introduction of automated machinery in the car parks.

Where once the job was limited to operating a cash register, balancing the cash and depositing it in a safe, the new position has taken on a different range of duties. The question to be answered is simply - does this range of duties take the CSO substantially beyond the requirements and functions set out in Band 2 and into Band 3?

Mr Rowe, a Car Park Service Officer and a witness for the AMACSU, contended that he had compared the job description in CPK04 -20 (Exhibit T2) with the banded classifications in the Award by using a matrix prepared by the Council for the purpose of assisting the classification of employees.

However, the only way one can assess the correct classification is to measure the work performed against the classifications in the Award.

In Exhibit J5, Mr Joyce, for the City of Perth, sought to outline the key differences between Band 2 and Band 3, and then measure that against CPK04-20. Generally, I would agree with Mr Joyce's submissions as to his assessment of the positions except one, that being the level of supervision. Band 2 requires close direction and the undertaking of standardised routines. Band 3 requires regular direction and the undertaking of routine procedures.

Band 2 requires direct supervision, whereas Band 3 talks of regular supervision.

The greatest change in the job has been the level of supervision and responsibility for the day to day running of the car park.

The job has evolved from that of a cash collector under the direct supervision of the Supervisor, who would be the Council's representative on the property; to one where the CSO is the Council's representative on the property and responsible for more than collecting cash.

Mr Ross, when setting out the duties of the CSO, stated at page 47 of Transcript:

"The CSO would be required to be on time, ensure that all the equipment was operational, the Park is clean, lifts are running, lighting is effective, ventilation et cetera and be on hand if there was a requirement from the customers."

They would then go to the control room, and in Mr Ross's words, maintain the effectiveness of the facility.

Mr Joyce then asked what was the supervision provided to the CSOs, and Mr Ross replied, "minimal". He then outlined the Supervisor's role as inspecting the site each morning so as to ensure the car park is up to standard and all is operational. He then outlined various jobs the Supervisor is responsible for. The point, however, is he attends once a day unless called. I am of the view that rather than supervise the CSOs, the CSOs report to the Supervisor in the same way everyone in Council reports to a Supervisor. This is reinforced by Paragraph 4 in Memorandum Exhibit J4

In addition, the CSOs appear to have taken on additional responsibilities. In relation to the fault rectification in the automated equipment, it would appear that these duties, although properly the role of the Supervisor, have been carried out by the CSOs in the interest of efficiency by more quickly eliminating faults and restoring the facility to maximum capacity.

There was much debate as to whether this activity was authorised and a maintenance manual (Exhibit J1) was tendered to demonstrate that CSOs were to carry out only the most basic maintenance, and secondary malfunctions were to be carried out by the Supervisors or the suppliers of the equipment.

Mr Ross in cross examination, strongly contested that management condoned the CSOs going beyond basic fault rectification and no authority has been issued to go beyond that.

In the light of the foregoing, this activity cannot be taken into account when assessing the job.

Is the level of responsibility contained in the CSO role created by the lower level of supervision enough to push the classification into the next Band?

Having inspected the work site and heard all the evidence and assessed all the exhibits, I cannot accept that the CSOs' knowledge or responsibility can be compared with that of a Parking Inspector, who has the role of enforcement of the Parking By-laws and in addition is required to give detailed reports in the event of contested infringements. Nor can I see the changes in the job being of such magnitude as to justify moving into the next Band.

Indeed the change in technology have made the CSOs' job less onerous than when they were required to act as cashiers prior to automation.

For these reasons I find the CSOs are correctly classified in Band 2 and dismiss the application.

G. Trotter for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union

Conditions of employment - reclassification - board of reference - various employees, local government administration - union sought determination of correct classification of Customer Services Officers (CSOs) employed by City of Perth Parking Department - CSOs argued redefined job description in conformity with Band 3 award classification - employer argued CSOs work unchanged and Band 2 correct classification - question whether different range of duties took CSOs substantially beyond requirements and functions set out in Band 2 - Commission not satisfied job changes justified moving to next band - introduction of automated machinery had made CSOs job less onerous - application dismissed.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and City of Perth

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer