METAL INDUSTRY AWARD 1984 - PART I (ODN C No. 01933 of 1974) [Print F8925 [M0039]]

Metals and engineering workers Metal industry

COMMISSIONER SIMMONDS MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 1995

Conditions of employment

• competency standards - recommendations made to facilitate managed implementation of standards - if matters not determined by consent, matters to be arbitrated.

The process of developing competency standards for use in the metal and engineering industry arguably began with the decision of the Commission in the August 1988 National Wage Case [Print H4000]. In that decision the Commission introduced the Structural Efficiency Principle. That principle provided for the parties to awards

establishing skill-related career paths which provide an incentive for workers to continue to participate in skill formation;

eliminating impediments to multi-skilling and broadening the range of tasks which a worker may be required to perform;"

That decision was followed closely by the Metal Industry Mission to the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany in September 1988. On its return it recommended, amongst other matters, the establishment of a new broadly based occupational classification structure for the award covering the industry. The relevant recommendations included:

" 1.3 The resultant classification structure should focus on the broad banding of skills - both vertical and horizontal, although the precise form of such broad banding will be a matter for negotiation.

1.4The classification structure should encourage job enlargement, and provide for the development of core

1.5There should be no barriers to career progression. For this reason the new Award and skill levels must encompass all employees engaged in production, maintenance, supervision, design, planning, production engineering and technical work.

1.7Career paths should be linked to the wages structure, to

produce a matrix of skill/classification levels and pay levels in the new Award whereby both the breadth and level

1.12 The recognised skill levels in the new classification structure should generally be competency-based. This will require competency testing, that is a process of assessment to establish whether a worker can perform a given task . . ."

The next completed step in the process was the agreement between the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia (MTIA) and Metal Trades Federation of Unions (MTFU) of June 1989 on Wages and Award Restructuring which provided for the replacement of the existing classifications in the metal industry awards with an integrated structure. That agreement provided:

" The new award classification structure will be based on three generic engineering streams, namely, electrical/electronic, mechanical and fabrication, access to which shall not be contingent on union membership.

Individual employees will no longer be identified by specific classifications which describe narrow work organisation methods and demarcation, such as `fitter'. Rather workers will be identifiable by their levels of knowledge and skill. A base fitter in the new award, therefore, would be identifiable as a mechanical tradesperson.

The description of each classification will reflect the training, qualifications and the broader work skills held by each employee at that level. This will require a different

approach to defining classifications from that which has applied under the previous Metal Industry Award. The descriptions

will be more broadly based and generic in nature." [Agreed Position Between MTIA and the MTFU on Wages and Award Restructuring June 1989, p.3]

It further provided, in dealing with reclassification of employees:

" b. In the event that there is a claim for reclassification by an existing employee to a higher level under the new structure on the ground that the employee possesses equivalent skill and knowledge gained through on the job experience or on any other ground the following principles apply:

i. The parties agree that the existing award disputes avoidance procedure shall be followed;

ii Agreed competency standards shall be established by the parties in conjunction with TAFE for all levels in the new classification structure before any new claims for reclassification are processed and shall be incorporated in the Implementation Manual as they become available." [ibid, p.5]

Subsequently that agreement was given effect by the variation

of the Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part I (the Award). Integral to that variation was the publication of the Implementation Manual, which at paragraph 4.2 set out the underlying principles of the new classification structure. Those principles were identified as skills and training standards, a defined career path, broader job functions and demarcation and job flexibility. The description of the latter principle included:

" The broader definitions of the new classification structure allow management, unions and employees to discuss ways to re- design jobs so that employees perform a wider range of tasks by utilising existing skills and acquiring extra skills through accredited training. This will not only help overcome demarcations but will ensure that labour flexibility is continually enhanced." [Implementation Manual para 4.2.4]

More or less simultaneously the parties made a request for the development of competency standards to match the classification structure, initially to the National Metal and Engineering Training and Career Development Project. The first three attempts were unsuccessful and a fourth exercise commenced in March 1992. At that time the parties commenced a new standards exercise with a widely representative steering group convened by the National Metals and Engineering Training Board. The process was an extensive one involving two validation exercises (in October/November 1992 and July/August 1993). Discussions ensued between the parties subsequent to the second validation exercise on the development of an implementation manual to enable the standards to be introduced at the workplace. These negotiations broke down.

On 10 December 1993 the MTIA and the Engineering Employers' Association South Australia (EEASA) lodged an application with the Commission seeking a variation to the Award to provide for implementation of standards. Following conciliation proceedings

before her Honour Senior Deputy President Marsh, on 17 March 1994 the MTIA, EEASA, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures (ACM) and the MTFU reported agreement on the introduction of competency standards as the basis of classification of positions and employees under the Award. In a statement [Print L2445] her Honour reported that Vice President Moore (in his capacity as Acting President) had issued a direction pursuant to s.36 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (the Act) directing me "to take whatever steps he considers necessary to assist the parties to implement the `Agreed Proposal for Implementing Competency Standards' in the Metal Industry".

Since the announcement of that agreement I have chaired over fifteen meetings of the parties. A Guide has been produced for a Model Implementation Program, that Program has been conducted at some 70 enterprises, the results obtained and analysed, and certain conclusions have been reached about the Program. There is now disagreement about taking the process further. That disagreement is about three features. They are the process to be adopted, the timing of that process and the points to be determined at the C10 to C5 levels inclusive. The agreement between the parties establishes a clear procedure for the resolution of the third feature, and I say no more about it at this stage. The other two are somewhat more intractable. In brief the employer bodies are of the opinion that a number of the shortcomings identified during the Model Implementation period need to be resolved before the process is taken further. The MTFU for its part is confident that such shortcomings as have been identified are capable of resolution before the agreed implementation date of 1 July 1995. The employer bodies argue that the agreement comprehended a period of "advisory" implementation between the completion of the MIP and final implementation and say that the shortcomings identified in the MIP prevent that period being conducted.

Two things need to be said in relation to these differences. The first is that since the Agreement was reached in March 1994 there has been considerable goodwill between the parties and commitment to the managed implementation of standards. The second is that all parties have shown a commitment to the range of purposes and benefits the standards are capable of achieving. The MTFU does not concentrate on the benefits to employee classification. In the light of these observations I am concerned that it is too easy to focus on what keeps the parties apart and too little emphasis is given to the very broad areas of agreement. In an attempt to refocus the parties, and consistent with my observations to the parties in conference, I have developed a package recommendation which I believe addresses the three areas of difference.

It is clear that the parties to the Award remain committed to competency standards because of the gains to be made in work reorganisation, skills enhancement and labour flexibility, and the opportunities for employees who will gain access to career paths, skills portability and work classification based on competency.

It is expected that the implementation of the competency standards will revolutionise the training system in the industry and enable the 14 level classification structure in the Award to operate as it was intended. The standards are designed to:

assist in identifying the skills needed to perform existing jobs and new jobs in a more objective, precise and comprehensive manner;

facilitate work reorganisation and job redesign based on higher, broad based skills;

assess the current skills gap for the purpose of developing training plans at the enterprise as provided for in clause 6C of the Award.

provide a flexible data base that reflects the industry's changing skill needs and provide a basis for determining formal training curricula;

facilitate and encourage workplace change and skill development across the whole industry;

provide the basis for nationally recognised and portable

qualifications and for industry leadership of the education and training system, including better integration of on and off the

job learning and improved recognition of prior learning and credit transfer.

I believe all parties recognise the need for a staged implementation of the standards throughout the industry and the necessity for issues that remain unresolved out of the Model Implementation Program,(MIP) to be resolved to the greatest extent possible. The parties also recognise that there are a number of enterprises in a position to proceed to implement standards at the earliest possible opportunity and that in the interests of providing best practice models for others to follow the parties agree that implementation for these enterprises needs to be facilitated.

Having regard to these fundamentals the following recommendation is made in order to facilitate the managed implementation of standards in the metal and engineering industry. I would expect that if the recommendation is accepted by the parties it will be incorporated in the Award by consent. Failing acceptance by all parties it will be necessary for the matters remaining in dispute to be determined by arbitration.

A. Classifying Employees in the Absence of Standards

1. Except as otherwise provided and subject to the timetable set out below, any claims relating to the appropriate classification of an employee under the Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part I, Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part II - Draughtsmen, Production Planners and Technical Officers [Print F5144 [M0041]] and Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part V - Foreman and Supervisors [Print F5010 [M0177]] (the Awards) shall be determined as follows:

(a)the employee has the relevant qualification recognised as a minimum training requirement for the level at which the employee seeks to be classified, and he/she is exercising or will be required to exercise the skills and knowledge gained from that qualification necessary for that level of work; or

(b)the employee meets the requirements of the classification definitions prescribed in Appendices G and H of the Awards (the old classification definitions). This option will not be available in those skill areas where standards have been finalised and the award variation to enable competency standards to be used to determine the appropriate classification of an employee has come into effect in accordance with clause F.

2. The relevant provisions of the Award Restructuring

Implementation Manual, and in particular ss.6.2 and 10 shall apply to clause A.1.

1. Standards may be implemented at companies that participated in the Model Implementation Program only in accordance with the Guide for Implementing Competency Standards in the Metal and Engineering Industry, subject to agreement at the enterprise and after a special implementation package for MIP enterprises is available. These recommendations contemplate that special package being available by 1 June 1995.

2. The special implementation package for MIP enterprises shall consist of the following:

(a)A set of competency standards, including prerequisites and weightings agreed to by the NMETB and put to the NTB for endorsement, and which the industry parties agree should be released for the purpose of implementation at the

enterprise. If standards have not been finalised in respect of any class of work, and this is necessary for determining

an employee's classification, employees performing such work shall not be reclassified until such standards are available. The parties shall give priority to developing standards for skill areas covered by any such employees.

Standards shall be supplemented by recommended pathways in agreed priority areas.

(b)The MIP Guide shall be reviewed for form and content and re-published in plain English as the Guide for Implementing Competency Standards in the Metal and Engineering Industry.

The Guide shall: constitute an appendix to the Awards, and include an agreed transitional procedure on assessment.

The parties shall have a clear and agreed interpretation of s.5.4 of the Guide.

(c) The points shall be on the basis set out in Clause D.

(d)All employees engaged under the Awards at the relevant classification levels shall be subject to the metal and engineering competency standards.

Leave is reserved to the National Union of Workers (NUW) to pursue discussions with other relevant unions and the respondent employer organisations about a separate finished goods warehouse award and the application of the National Warehousing and Distribution Standards to work covered by such an award. This is without prejudice to the position of the other unions and employer organisations on the issue.

The CEPU concerns regarding access to B and B units of competence shall be addressed in the process referred to in (a) above.

(e)Employees of MIP enterprises responsible for standards implementation shall attend a full day briefing to be prepared by the industry parties. It shall be held at a time agreed between the industry parties.

(f)Before proceeding further with the implementation process each MIP enterprise shall be "audited" by training advisors for the purpose of identifying any problems and offering advice for overcoming any such problems.

(g)Any enterprise that did not take part in the MIP program which wishes to commence the process of implementation of competency standards may do so subject to:

agreement at the enterprise following proper consultation,

no finalisation of the implementation process until the Finalised Implementation Package is available and has been implemented.

1. Subject to the terms of clause 3 (below), from 15 July 1995 or when the Finalised Implementation Package is available, whichever is the later, parties at the enterprise may, by agreement, implement the standards. Such implementation shall only be in accordance with the Guide for Implementing Competency Standards in the Metal and Engineering Industry.

2. The Finalised Implementation Package shall consist of the following:

(a) Those elements referred to in Clause B.2.(a), (b), (c) and (d).

(b) Evidence guides in respect of agreed priority areas.

(c)Comprehensive briefings for MTIA, EEASA, ACM and MTFU

officials on the standards and their implementation. The conduct of such briefings shall form part of the package.

(d)Training courses for enterprise representatives. Attendance at such courses shall be a pre-condition to implementation of the standards.

(e)A proposal on the appropriate standards packaging for each national qualification and the ASF level has been agreed between the industry parties for submission to the

(f) The development of guidance on standards packaging for team leaders.

(g) An agreed method for developing an industry assessment proposal.

(h) An agreed program for ongoing development of the standards

Additionally, in those enterprises where standards have been implemented, the indicative tasks listed in the classification definitions shall not apply for the purpose of determining appropriate award classifications. The parties should commit to the deletion of indicative tasks from award classifications by 1 January 1996. Before then the parties shall finalise the guidelines for qualifications at each level in the ASF and the National Qualifications Framework and ensure that national qualifications based on the standards continue to include adequate depth in particular skill areas broadly equivalent to the current qualification requirement (e.g. 10 modules from stream for trade certificate).

3. Between 15 July 1995 (or when the Finalised Implementation Package is available, whichever is the later) and six months after, implementation of standards at the enterprise will only be by agreement.

4. (a)During  the  period referred to  in  clause  3,  if  any 
   problem
   

arises in relation to implementation of the standards at the enterprise level the relevant industry parties will immediately confer to resolve the problem(s). If resolution is not achieved the matter will be referred to the Board of Reference constituted to deal with standards implementation. This procedure also applies to

those MIP enterprises which commence implementation earlier.

Notwithstanding, the rights of any party to pursue whatever other course of action available under the Industrial Relations Act remain available.

(b)If any party to the Awards initiates a meeting at industry level in relation to major concerns about implementation of standards, including the application of points as set out in Clause D, the following procedure shall apply:

(i) If the major concerns involve problems at

enterprise level the implementation process shall be suspended at those enterprises and there shall be no

parties shall meet immediately to attempt to resolve the concerns;

(iii) Where necessary, arrangements shall be made for an assessment and report by experts representing the relevant industry parties;

(iv) The relevant industry parties shall consider the experts' report(s) and agree on a course of action to resolve the concerns of the initiating party;

(v) If the concerns are not resolved any party may pursue any available course of action under the Industrial Relations Act.

Subject to clauses C.4 (a) and (b), E and F of this recommendation, the points to be assigned to the classification levels under the Awards shall be:

Award Classification Level Recommended Points

C14 - C13 - C12
32 C11 64 C10 96

C9 12 additional points above C10 C8 24 additional points above C10

C7 36 additional points above C10 C6 48 additional points above C10 C5 60 additional points above C10 C4 Standards and points to be finalised C3 Standards and points to be finalised C2b Standards and points to be finalised C2a Standards and points to be finalised C1b Standards and points to be finalised C1a Standards and points to be finalised

A committee to facilitate the implementation of standards, chaired by a member of the Commission shall continue to meet regularly to monitor the implementation of standards during 1995.

The committee will be responsible for determining any refinement of the standards, any variation to the Guide for Implementing Competency Standards in the Metal and Engineering Industry in the light of experience during the implementation process and coordinating any further information or advice to enterprises. The Committee will undertake a major review of the standards and the implementation process in March 1996.

Subject to the implementation of standards after 1 June 1995 taking place in accordance with the intent of this recommendation,

it shall be a term of the Awards that where there is agreement to implement the standards, or in the event that the classification

of an employee is called into question, the issue shall be settled by the application of competency standards in accordance with the Guide for Implementing Competency Standards in the Metal and Engineering Industry, or by reference to the minimum training requirement in the relevant classification definition. This full implementation shall take effect from 15 January 1996, or six months after the Finalised Implementation Package is released for implementation, whichever is the later.