//
[2012] FWA 2772
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Australia
2012-03-30
Original judgment source is linked above.
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post
Alleged dispute concerning possible redunancies at the Port Melbourne Delivery Centre.
[1] This matter was the subject of conciliation conferences on 20th and 29th of March 2012 pursuant to the provisions of the Australia Post Fair Work Agreement 2010 (the Agreement).
[2] On 20 March 2012 I issued the following recommendation which was accepted by the parties.
"[1] The consultation process under Clause 33 concerning the proposed restructure has been implemented.
[2] It is noted that there were some deficiencies in the process of consultation with staff and the issuing of the Form A. The union disputed the reduction by three in the number of PDC 1 positions in the proposed restructure.
[3] Notwithstanding this the parties and Fair Work Australia will act on the basis that the dispute is at step 7.5 of the Australia Post RRR process and the dispute is at the stage set out in Clause 19.2 dispute settlement.
[4] There is a remaining dispute over whether or not the one or two PDC 1 positions are surplus as the union claims that the job requirements for available positions have essentially not changed. It is noted that one position was surplus and a voluntary separation has resulted. This will not be disturbed. It is noted that a further position may be surplus following acceptance of a transfer. In the event that the transfer is accepted this position will also not be disturbed.
[5] Australia Post will meet with State and National union representatives to enable Australia Post to provide information to satisfy the union that the positions are not essentially the same and to enable the union to further discuss that information. That discussion will take place within the next week.
[6] In the event that agreement is not reached through that process Fair Work Australia will make a recommendation to resolve the issue as to whether or not the position(s) are surplus and a conference will be held for that purpose at 10am on 29 March 2012.
[7] In the event that the position(s) are determined to be surplus then changes which have already occurred will not be reversed and the question of voluntary redundancy or transfer or promotion for the remaining surplus position(s) will be resolved through consultation. The remaining persons will be confirmed in their existing positions.
[8] The current voluntary package offer which is in progress will be put on hold until the conclusion of this process on 29 March 2012. In the event that the position is deemed surplus the person must accept or reject the position by close of business on 30 March 2012 and the cooling off period will end on 3 April 2012."
[3] The parties met consistent with this recommendation but were unable to resolve the matter. However, one transfer did occur which meant that only one PDC1 position remained in dispute. At the further conference on 29 March 2012 I was provided with considerable additional information and submissions by the parties and I have carefully considered that material.
[4] The union argued that the proposed supervisory structure for night sorting work at Port Melbourne Delivery Centre does not meet the Work Level Standards, that the structure is not workable as the PDC3s will not be able to both manage staff and also play a coordination and planning role, that the addition of an additional PDC1 role would provide a more efficient and effective structure and that the temporary nature of two of the PDC3 positions is not justified given the ongoing need for effective supervision within the limits of the Work Level Standards. The union also identified some issues where the information provided was unclear or inadequate and these were largely clarified to my satisfaction during the proceedings.
[5] Australia Post argued that it could demonstrate that all of the work previously performed by the PDC positions it identified as redundant in the existing structure was no longer required to be done by those positions and was now allocated to other positions in the structure.
[6] Australia Post argued that the reallocation of work resulted in a new structure which met its needs to respond to an 11% decline in mail volumes, a reduction in the number of positions being supervised, an increased focus on supervisory accountability for management of employee related issues, providing for career development opportunities, and necessary improved focus on certain operational aspects. Australia Post argued that the proposed structure will produce savings of more than $200,000 per annum.
[7] In the new structure the new PDC2 and PDC3 positions will be responsible for a larger number of employees and will undertake a broader range of activities than was required of the PDC1s in the existing structure. Australia Post set out the higher level responsibilities required of the PDC2 and PDC3 positions. Australia Post set out the reasons why it required the flexibility to review the requirement for two PDC3 positions in the next 12 months which it says is why these positions are to be B Class positions in the structure.
[8] The union referred to the Postal Delivery Group Classification Standards. The parties accepted that the parties were discussing possible changes to these standards at a national level and that pursuant to Clause 33.3 of the Agreement "agreements negotiated at the national level are not to be renegotiated at State or local level".
[9] Having considered the submissions of the parties I am satisfied that the relevant classification standard is the "night sorting manager" standard set out on page 8 of the document.
[10] The union referred to the following parts of that standard.
As Delivery Operations Coordinator organise and control the work of staff and contractors engaged in night sorting and related functions where the number of FTEs including their own position is:
One who coordinates a delivery group at a Postal Delivery Outlet with overall responsibility for night sorting functions outside of normal business hours. The PDC is directly responsible to the Postal Manager/Delivery Manager for the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the night sorting function during the hours he/she is rostered on duty."
[11] I am satisfied that the number of FTEs each PDC position in the new structure is responsible to organise and control the work of does not exceed the requirements of the classification standard quoted above.
[12] I am satisfied that the work and responsibilities proposed to be allocated to the PDC2 and PDC3 positions in the new structure are not the same as the work and responsibilities of the PDC1 position proposed to be redundant.
[13] 1 am satisfied that the PDC 1 position identified is surplus.
[14] I therefore make the following binding recommendation pursuant to Clause 19.2 of Attachment K of the Agreement in settlement of the dispute.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post [2012] FWA 2772