22 We consider that the important point to be drawn from The TAFE Case is that if an applicant seeks wage increases for all classifications under an award the applicant carries the onus of demonstrating work value change in respect of each classification. It is not sufficient to contend, for example, that there have been changes in technology over the relevant period that have impacted on the work value of employees generally. It must be demonstrated how that impact has led to a significant net addition to the work requirements of each award classification in respect of which the increase is sought.
17 In addition to the documentary material tendered and relied upon by the respective interests, evidence in relation to the work requirements of Operations Managers was taken from the following witnesses:
· Mr Dennis RAVLICH, Manager Industrial Services, Health Services Union
· Mr Peter PILON, Operations Manager, Mid North Coast Sector
· Mr Phillip WILSON, Operations Manager, South Western, South Eastern and Central Sydney Sector
· Mr Michael WILLIS, General Manager, Operations
· Mr Denis BEAVAN, Divisional Manager, Southern Division
18 Both Mr Pilon and Mr Wilson were called by the union. They spoke of their extensive careers in the Service and in particular, of their respective roles and functions and the operational resources under their supervisory control within the sectors they manage.
19 Mr Pilon, for example, described the Mid North Coast Sector as having 140 personnel, 14 ambulance stations, one workshop, a sector office, 60 vehicles and associated equipment, an operational budget of 12.6 million dollars and a geographical area extending from Tuncurry to Woolgoolga. He said the divisionalisation reforms in 2002 caused the loss of three Area Manager positions and their replacement by one Divisional Manager position in consequence of which there was an increase in the levels of accountability required by Operations Managers. In effect, Mr Pilon seemed to be saying that he assumed, in part if not in whole, the role and responsibilities of an Area Manager without any recognition by way of increased remuneration.
20 Mr Wilson described the South Western, South Eastern and Central Sydney Sector as having 600 staff, 23 ambulance stations, an operational budget of 47 million dollars and a geographical area extending from Bowral in the Southern Highlands to Sydney Harbour inclusive of the CBD, the eastern suburbs and four airports (Sydney, Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park). He described the operating environment within his sector boundaries as unique involving a significant amount of the State's critical infrastructure network - Sydney CBD, domestic and international airports, the underground rail system and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Mr Wilson said that three Area Manager positions were abolished and one Divisional Manager position created in the 2002 divisionalisation process and that he took over the management of one of those areas (South Eastern and Central Sydney). In the result, he said he assumed responsibility for duties such as finance, staffing and industrial relations which had hitherto been performed by the Area Manager to whom he reported.
21 Additionally, his sector was substantially enlarged by the extension of its boundaries in 2005 to take in the previously separate South Western Sydney Sector. Mr Wilson remains on the same Level 2 of the pay scale as when he was a Sector Manager prior to divisionalisation in 2002.
22 Mr Beavan who was called by the Service, deposed to a similarly extensive career and also to his appointment as Divisional Manager, Southern Division on 25 February 2002. Prior to that, he had been a Sector Manager since 1995. In his role as Divisional Manager, he was directly involved in implementing the divisionalisation reforms including the replacement of eight designated operational areas with four divisions and more particularly for the purpose of these proceedings, including the decision to change the position title of Sector Manager to Operational Manager.
23 Mr Beavan said he was aware of the impact of divisionalisation on Sector Managers/Operations Managers both from the perspective of having been a Sector Manager himself and since 2002, having been directly responsible for Sector Managers (now called Operations Managers) in his role as Divisional Manager. He said the decision to re-name Sector Managers as Operations Managers was made for no reason other than the former position title did not appropriately reflect the operational requirements of the position. He said that divisionalisation did not change the skills required of Sector Managers or the essential nature of their work and other than the obvious job title change, the position description for Sector Manger was not changed in any way for the position of Operations Manager.
24 Mr Beavan, again from his perspective as Divisional Manager, was able to compare the responsibilities and other work requirements of Operations Managers with that of the Operations Centre Manager in Southern Division and expressed the view having regard to the more onerous job functions of the latter, that the present gradings of Level 2 and Level 4 respectively, provide fair and appropriate rates of remuneration in all the circumstances. He pointed, for example, to the one Operations Centre Manager in each division who has responsibility for receipt of all calls and deployment of all on-duty personnel across the whole division whereas with three or four Operations Managers in each division, it can fairly be said that the span of control of the latter is not as great as the former. I note that since Mr Beavan's evidence was taken, Operations Centre Managers have been awarded an 8% increase in their rate of pay (see HSU v Ambulance Service of NSW (No. 1) [2007] NSWIRComm 151). However, the point of Mr Beavan's comparative assessment remains unchanged, as I view his evidence.
25 Mr Beavan disputed the proposition advanced by union witnesses as to the devolution of Area Manager responsibilities to Operations Managers contending instead that such responsibilities were assumed entirely by Divisional Managers. He said that the responsibilities of Operations Managers for matters such as budgeting, staffing and industrial relations are essentially the same as the pre-divisionalisation responsibilities of Sector Managers; that the Divisional Manager is the budget holder for each sector with the same accountabilities for managing the budget as the previous Area Managers and that Operations Managers as with their predecessors, the Sector Managers, are expected to operate within their budget allocation.
26 As to responsibility for industrial relations, Mr Beavan said that all levels of management within the Service have such responsibility on the basis that industrial issues will be initially dealt with at the lowest practicable management level. As industrial issues escalate, so does the level of management involvement. Such a function was routinely delegated to Sector Managers in the same way as it is now delegated to Operations Managers.
27 As to staffing, the same responsibility now rests with Operations Managers that previously rested with Sector Managers namely, to ensure that the sector staffing levels are maintained and this has not changed as a result of divisionalisation or at all. The Divisional Personnel Officer and the Human Resources Department are responsible for filling any vacancies identified by the Operations Manager and State Headquarters is responsible for new recruits.
28 Mr Willis was called by the Service. He deposed to a career which commenced in 1981 and also to his appointment as General Manager, Operations in 2005. In that position he has a thorough knowledge of the role and responsibilities of Operations Managers since those positions report to Divisional Managers with whom he deals on a daily basis.
29 Mr Willis maintained and was strenuously cross-examined on his assertion that the divisionalisation and realignment reforms have individually and severally impacted on Operations Managers in a way which eased the pressure on them and assisted them in carrying out their functions with a sharper focus than previously upon tactical direction, financial management and service delivery within their sectors. In that way, Operations Managers are required to be tactically rather than strategically focused. This is in contrast, according to Mr Willis' evidence, with the more strategic focus of the newly-created Assistant Divisional Manager positions.
30 Mr Willis said that the more recent creation of the Assistant Divisional Manager positions with Level 4 gradings (and with Level 2 Operations Managers notionally reporting to them) was a further indication that the Service did not envisage the sector-based Operations Managers as having or being required to assume duties, functions and responsibilities commensurate with a Level 4 grading. Furthermore, if the fourteen sector-based Operations Managers were to be graded at Level 4 as claimed by the union, it would significantly disturb the established relativities between the thirty-nine officers throughout the Service who are presently employed under the Superintendent/Managers Award and who have been graded according to the requirements of each position relative to others.
31 In the course of argument, the HSU sought to rely upon what was said to be an administrative review of the position description, classification and grading of Operations Managers under the new divisionalisation structure. In fact, the review was carried out by Ms Colleen Fowler, Personnel Services Co-ordinator with the Service, at the request of the Superintendent/Managers Sub-Branch of the HSU. Based on what is recorded as a confidential telephone survey undertaken with a sample of Operations Managers, Ms Fowler purported to set out a list of key changes identified to her in that ostensibly anonymous way between the previous Sector Manager and the new Operations Manager responsibilities. She then made a number of recommendations including the proposed reclassification of Operations Manager from Level 2 to Level 3.
32 Ms Fowler's recommendations on the face of the document in evidence were forwarded initially for consideration by the Manager, Employee Relations (to whom she may have directly reported) and thereafter through the chain of command within the service, to the:
· General Manager, Corporate Services
· Acting Director Operational Services
· Acting General Manager Operations
· Acting Chief Executive Officer
33 Neither Ms Fowler nor any of the above persons to whom her recommendations were directed for consideration, gave evidence in relation to this matter, leaving the document to speak for itself and it is unclear, on the face of the document, whether the recommendations it contained received support or endorsement from any of the persons to whom it was directed or indeed whether it was even distributed to those persons. I find myself in agreement with the proposition for which the Service contends namely, that the probative value of the document must be extremely limited.
34 The document created by Ms Fowler is now more than three years old and, on its face, represents no less and no more than the opinion of the Personnel Services Coordinator of the Ambulance Service. An examination of its contents reveals that its conclusions are based largely on unattributed hearsay and it is in many respects qualified in its recommendation that consideration be given to grading Operations Managers at Level 3. As earlier observed, Ms Fowler was not called by the HSU and her reasoning and opinions as well as the source material upon which that reasoning and those opinions were based, are therefore untested.
35 In seeking to have Operations Managers paid as though they are Area Managers, the HSU claim encounters significant difficulties as I am disposed, not the least of which is that on the evidence presented and notwithstanding reference in general terms to the duties of Area Managers, there is no direct or detailed comparison between the overall work requirements, including skills and responsibilities of an Area Manager compared with those of the Operations Manager. For example, the Commission was not taken to the position description for Area Manager and I note as observed at the outset, that there were fourteen Operations Manager positions created at the time of divisionalisation in 2002. Even if it were accepted that the work of the eight Area Manager positions devolved to fourteen Operations Managers, it could only be in part when one considers that there are almost twice as many of the latter than the former.
36 Moreover, it is the consistent and undamaged evidence of the witnesses for the Service that the positions of Divisional Manager which came into existence at the time of divisionalisation in 2002, assumed the roles and functions previously performed by Area Managers. I am inclined on balance, to accept that and in so doing, I have had that regard among other things to the essentially identical (save for the job title) position descriptions for Sector Managers and Operations Managers.
37 That being said, it is clear from the evidence and unsurprising that the range of duties and functions carried out by individual Sector Managers varied depending upon the personal styles and preferences of individual Area Managers. In this regard, both of the union witnesses (Mr Wilson and Mr Pilon) spoke in anecdotal fashion, about what particular Area Managers required of particular Sector Managers at particular times rather than about the formal requirements of the position as determined by the Service and as set out in their position descriptions.
38 Mr Morris for the Service submitted and I agree that it is reasonable and understandable that different Area Managers and their Sector Managers would come to different arrangements in relation to the specifics of delegated work functions and their discharge having regard to personal choice and importantly, having regard to developing experience, competence and performance of the Sector Manager. In my opinion, this evidence does not serve as an objective and reliable point of comparison between what was required of Sector Managers and what has been required of Operations Managers since the creation of that position title in 2002.
39 Moreover and again as Mr Morris submitted, the reliance by the HSU upon an offer made by the Service to grade Operations Managers at Level 3 and the inference to be drawn from the fact that such an offer was made, needs to be balanced against the absence of detailed knowledge on the Commission's part as to the full circumstances surrounding the offer as well as the fact that it was rejected. The evidence was that it was rejected for reasons, among others, that acceptance involved a "spill and fill" arrangement by which each incumbent would be required to make application for the newly graded position. Be that as it may, it remains the fact that the Commission must, independently of whether offers are made or not, satisfy itself that the strict test imposed by the Work Value Principle has been met before moving to consider what if any alteration in wage rates there should be.
40 The HSU also relied in support of its claim upon the outcome of a job evaluation carried out by the firm of consultants Mercers during the realignment reforms. The consultants purported to evaluate the jobs of Operations Managers at Level 4 and Level 3 of the award classification structure using a points system of evaluation methodology. The Service argued, however, that in commissioning the Mercer evaluation it had in contemplation and so implicitly or expressly instructed the consultants, not that the existing Operations Manager positions were to be evaluated but rather revised positions which included additional responsibilities of a strategic nature. These revised positions were in fact the positions that have since been brought into existence and titled Assistant Divisional Manager.
41 Although the HSU plainly understood the then existing Operations Manager positions to have been evaluated, the state of the evidence is not such as to permit a clear conclusion in that regard. I am inclined on balance to accept, as the Service contended, that Mercers were asked to evaluate revised positions with additional responsibilities of a strategic nature over and above the existing Operations Manager positions. In any event, the Mercer evaluation is not of itself determinative of work value change and does not of itself assist in answering the question whether there has been such change constituting, as it must in order to secure increased rates of pay, a significant net addition to work requirements.
42 As things presently stand, I am not persuaded that Operations Managers assumed the role and functions and levels of responsibility previously attaching to Area Managers and I am not persuaded that there has been demonstrated in evidence, changes of the type comprehended by the Work Value Principle, such as to justify reclassification from Level 2 to Level 4 of the award.
43 The application for dispute orders must therefore be dismissed and I do so accordingly.