DETERMINATION NO. 196 OF 1970 [NURSING STAFF - RANF](2) (C No. 37240 of 1989)

DETERMINATION NO. 590 OF 1983 [PROFESSIONAL NURSING STAFF - RANF](3) (C No. 37242 of 1989)

DETERMINATION NO. 407 OF 1969 [SISTERS (INDUSTRIAL)](4)

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ETC. (NURSING STAFF A.C.T.) AWARD 1980(5)

(ODN C No. 01127 of 1978) (C No. 37236 of 1989)

NURSES PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT (A.C.T.) AWARD 1972(6) (ODN C No. 07192 of 1986) (C No. 37237 of 1989)

NURSES (NORTHERN TERRITORY PUBLIC SERVICE) AWARD 1985(7) (ODN C No. 01188 of 1985) (C No. 37243 of 1989)

NURSES (HETTI PERKINS HOME FOR THE AGED - ABORIGINAL HOSTELS LIMITED) AWARD, 1986(8) (ODN C No. 01899 of 1980)

(ODN C No. 00606 of 1983) (C Nos 37248 and 50044 of 1989)

NURSES (GOVERNMENT SUBSIDISED EMPLOYERS) AWARD 1989(10) (ODN C No. 00606 of 1983) (C Nos 37233 and 55058 of 1989)

NURSES (ANF - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PRIVATE SECTOR) AWARD 1989(11) (ODN C No. 00606 of 1983)

(ODN C No. 00695 of 1979) (C No. 37239 of 1989)

_
_

(1)050 CPSAR 851 (2)050 CPSAR 857 (3)085 CPSAR 799
(4)049 CPSAR 1279 (5)Print E5101 [H017]; (1981) 251 CAR 544 (6)Print G0905 [N053] [title change

Print G4567 [N053 V048]] (7)Print F9547 [N043] (8)Print G2733 [N046]

(9)Print H5432 [N082] (10)Print H8284 [N098] (11)Print H8558 [N101] (12)Print F8080 [T240] [title change Print H9277 [T240 V020] NURSES (ANF - WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SECTOR) AWARD 1989(13) (ODN C No. 00606 of 1983) (C No. 37249 of 1989)

NURSES (NORTHERN TERRITORY) PRIVATE SECTOR AWARD 1989(14) (ODN C No. 30868 of 1988)

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY CONTROLLED HEALTH SERVICES (COMMUNITY HEALTH

NURSING STAFF) AWARD 1988(15) (ODN C No. 30869 of 1988)

NURSES (REGISTERED NURSES - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HOSPITALS

AND HEALTH AGENCIES) AWARD 1989(16) (ODN C Nos 00606 and 01076 of 1983) (C Nos 37235 and 50046 of 1989)

NGANAMPA HEALTH COUNCIL, (COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSING STAFF) AWARD, 1987(17)

(ODN C No. 00883 of 1984) (C No. 37244 of 1989)

DOCTORS' NURSES (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AWARD 1980(18) (ODN C No. 01037 of 1973) (C No. 37247 of 1989)

DETERMINATION NO. 234 OF 1966 [NURSING STAFF - HEF](19) (C Nos 35017 and 37519 of 1989)

(ODN C No. 00606 of 1983) (C Nos 37520 and 75010 of 1989)

NURSES (REGISTERED NURSES - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HOSPITALS AND

HEALTH AGENCIES) ROPING-IN NO. 1 AWARD 1989(20) (ODN C No. 30057 of 1989)

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s.59 applications for variation

DETERMINATION NO. 195 OF 1970 [NURSING STAFF

• RANF] (C No. 33945 of 1988)

DETERMINATION NO. 196 OF 1970 [NURSING STAFF - RANF]

DETERMINATION NO. 590 OF 1983 [PROFESSIONAL NURSING STAFF - RANF] (C No. 33957 of 1988) _
_

(13)Print H8857 [N103] (14)Print J0429 [N111] (15)Print H7049 [A483] (16)Print H7539 [N092]

(17)Print G9389 [N065] (18)Print G0967 [D015] (19)046 CPSAR 1009 (20)Print H7953 [N092 V001] DETERMINATION NO. 407 OF 1969 [SISTERS (INDUSTRIAL)] (C No. 33958 of 1988)

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSING STAFF (SALARIES AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AWARD 1979(21) (ODN C No. 00695 of 1979) (C No. 33959 of 1988)

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ETC. (NURSING STAFF A.C.T.) AWARD 1980 (ODN C No. 01127 of 1978)

(ODN C No. 07192 of 1986) (C No. 33962 of 1988)

NURSES (NORTHERN TERRITORY PUBLIC SERVICE) AWARD 1985 (ODN C No. 01188 of 1985) (C No. 33963 of 1988)

DOCTORS' NURSES (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AWARD 1980 (ODN C No. 01037 of 1973)

NURSES (HETTI PERKINS HOME FOR THE AGED - ABORIGINAL HOSTELS

LIMITED) AWARD, 1986 (ODN C No. 01899 of 1980) (C No. 33965 of 1988)

NGANAMPA HEALTH COUNCIL, (COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSING STAFF) AWARD, 1987 (ODN C No. 00883 of 1984) (C No. 33966 of 1988)

NURSES (ANF - WESTERN AUSTRALIA PUBLIC SECTOR) AWARD 1989 (ODN C No. 00606 of 1983) (C No. 65188 of 1989)

Nurses
Health and welfare services

JUSTICE COHEN DEPUTY PRESIDENT HANCOCK DEPUTY PRESIDENT MARSH

COMMISSIONER CROSS COMMISSIONER SMITH MELBOURNE, 21 AUGUST 1990

Wage rates - National Wage August 1989 - special case - decision was one of a series given over the past 12 months for rates for registered nurses in federal

awards - Commission fixed national rates for registered nurses in levels 1, 2 and 3 with salaries for levels 4 and 5 still to be determined - cost impact acknowledged - phasing of increases to occur with a more protracted phasing in Tasmania.

This decision is one of a series which we have given over the past 12 months concerning the Special Case before us for rates for registered nurses in federal awards. It is useful to recount some of the history of the matter.

_ _

(21)Print F8080 [A208] When the claims were first lodged in December 1988 only nurses in the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and Commonwealth nurses were involved, essentially the same work force which was the subject of the Full Bench decision concerning salaries of nurses in federal awards issued on 7 May 1987 in matter A.257 (Print C7200). The claims lodged in December 1988 initially were for "professional rates" consistent with rates granted to registered nurses in New South Wales and Victoria which are to be finally phased-in by 30 September 1990. During the course of the proceedings before us public sector nurses in Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia and private sector nurses in SA came into federal award regulation and were joined in the claims. The ANF amended the claims in October 1989 and what it now seeks are what we have described as nationally consistent structures and rates for registered nurses in all federal awards. Applications for structural efficiency increases pursuant to the national wage decision of 12 August 1989 were lodged for these awards in October and under the direction of the Bench the two sets of claims have been integrated and processed simultaneously.

In decisions handed down on 21 December 1989(22) and 20 January 1990(23) we determined that the ANF had made out a case for moving towards consistency of approach in the fixation of nurses' salaries. We said that we agreed with

the objective of establishing nationally consistent rates and structures for nurses in federal awards, but that this would take time to achieve because of the differences previously existing in rates and conditions as between nurses in the various States and Territories.

As a first step towards national rates the Bench established a single entry point for registered nurses at level 1 in federal awards in all States and Territories except Tasmania, where an existing 4% differential was maintained. The percentage increase required to achieve the common entry rate was then applied to the existing salaries in each of the awards. We indicated that we were not prepared to alter the internal relativities in the various awards, or to fix final rates, without greater attention being given to salary-related conditions. We said that whilst we believed that nationally consistent rates for nurses would be the best outcome in the long term, the concept of national rates was a fiction if it referred only to salaries. Differences in salary-related conditions, in particular those involving shift penalties, overtime and weekend work were to be addressed in structural

efficiency negotiations in the various States and Territories and in relation to DVA hospitals. It was made clear that there would have to be significant progress on rationalisation of these conditions before there could be any further move towards nationally consistent rates. The Bench also indicated that the manner in which rationalisation of conditions was achieved would affect the

Commissioners Cross and Smith were delegated to deal with individual structural efficiency applications by way of conciliation and/or arbitration. This has now taken place and first phase structural efficiency increases for nearly all of the nurses covered by these claims have been approved.

The matters were re-listed on 25 June 1990 to "review final rates and relativities together with the timing of any further increases both in relation to the claims for more nationally consistent rates and structural efficiency." It is now our task to assess the structural efficiency results and to consider the new rates claimed for the classification structures in these awards. We have examined the Commissioners' decisions and are satisfied that the parties have properly addressed the structural efficiency principle taking into account

_
_

(22)Print J0855 (23)Print J1288 the issues raised in our earlier decisions. It is anticipated that the latest decision of the Commissioners to be handed down today will enable the establishment of a consistent pattern of shift and weekend penalty rates in these awards.

When the hearing resumed the ANF submitted that the circumstances warranting the establishment of national rates are as compelling now as before,

with added ingredients of opportunity. Ms F. Kyle who appeared for the Federation alluded in particular to the alignment which has now been established at the commencement point as between the federal awards and awards in the two major States of New South Wales and Victoria. Referring to the statement of the Full Bench in January as to the necessity for moving to nationally consistent conditions, she said the ANF had "taken up the challenge"; it had not only come forward in the proceedings before Commissioners Cross and Smith with proposals for changes to quantum of penalty rates but it had also addressed issues covering hours specified for shifts in order to make sense of the penalty rates. The proposal put to the Commissioners was for "a take home pay outcome demonstrably equivalent with nurses in New South Wales". She said that the ANF was seeking New South Wales conditions because these were considered the most appropriate, having been set by the New South Wales tribunal in 1972 specifically for the hospital industry.

Acknowledging the need for phasing, the ANF proposes the following timetable for implementation of national rates and structural efficiency increases. It seeks an interim increase of at least 3% `towards final national rates' on the handing down of this decision; award-by-award second phase structural efficiency increases to be paid six months after the first increases received by each group; and final implementation of national rates by December 1990, recognising that some outstanding second structural efficiency adjustments will not be completed until early in 1991. The ANF expects that within this time frame it will conclude negotiations about grading criteria and final structures for assistant directors and directors of nursing (levels 4 and 5), for which it will also be seeking endorsement.

Subject to this review, the final national rates proposed by the ANF, inclusive of both phases of structural efficiency increases, are as follows:

A.C.T. AND NORTHERN SOUTH TASMANIA WESTERN COMMONWEALTH TERRITORY AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1

23904
23904 23904 23904 23904 25065 25065 25065 25065 25065 26338
26338 26338 26338 26338 27631 27631 27631 27631 27631 28981 28981 28981 28981 28981 30332 30332 30332 30332 30332 31623 31623 31623 31623 31623 33034 33034 33034 33034 33034

LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2

34622 34622 34622 34622 34622

35523 35523 35523 35523 35523 36424 36424 36424 36424 36424

37324 37324 37324 37324 37324

A.C.T. AND NORTHERN SOUTH TASMANIA WESTERN

COMMONWEALTH TERRITORY AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA

LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3A LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3
LEVEL 3

38402 38402 38402 38402 40456 39449 39449 39449 39449 41268 40495 40495 40495 40495 42078 41709 41709 41709 41709 42891

LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4

44609 44609 48313 44491 43942 46996 46966 46785
45050 49382 49382 49080 47263 51770 51770 51375
48371 49476

LEVEL 5 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 5

56883 56883 43411
44491 51138 44563 46786 54071 48313
49080 52063 51375 53767 53711

63427 55897 67539 59079

1. Level 1 rates adjusted from 7-year to 8-year scales. 2. DVA nurses' rates to match appropriate State rates.

These rates have been set, the ANF said, within the framework of benchmarks for nurses' salaries established by the Victorian and New South Wales tribunals. Apart from the base grade salary in level 1 which is already aligned, it said that there are three other such benchmarks. They are the clinical nurse specialist classification, which sits just above the level 1

scale in New South Wales and Victoria; the nurse unit manager in New South Wales and grades 4A and 4B in the Victorian structure; and the director of nursing in a hospital of more than 700 beds.

The ANF seeks an elongation of the existing level 1 scale in the federal awards by the addition of an eighth salary point. It acknowledges that there are seven incremental points in level 1 in Victoria, whereas the New South Wales scale has eight substantive points and an additional ninth increment for the holder of a degree. The rate it proposes for the top of level 1 in the federal awards is $33,034 p.a., $1,411 p.a. higher than the top of the seven point Victorian scale and $418 p.a. less than the eighth incremental point in New South Wales. This will provide a scale, the ANF said, "which is broadly comparable to the Victorian and New South Wales base scales but bears in mind that there is a difference between Victoria and New South Wales at the top of the base and seeks to resolve that difference".

The proposed level 2 rates commence with the rate for the clinical nurse specialist in New South Wales, a classification which has now also been adopted but is not yet implemented in Victoria. It is a personal classification with a single salary point. The highest salary proposed for the level 2 incremental scale is equivalent to the second salary point for the grade 3B associate charge nurse in Victoria. The intermediate points in the scale are derived from the other rates for classifications 3A and 3B in the Victorian structure. Acknowledging that there is no equivalent of these associate charge nurse positions either in New South Wales or the federal structures, the ANF said that it had looked at the role encompassed by the three classifications in Victoria and the role of the level 2 nurse in federal awards and considered the functions and responsibilities to be equivalent.

The rates applying to the nurse unit manager in New South Wales and grades 4A and 4B Victorian charge nurses are claimed for level 3 in the federal

structure. The same rates apply in the two States for these classifications. The position of nurse unit manager is graded 1, 2 or 3 on the basis of a number of factors which include the size and type of ward or unit. The grade 4A and 4B charge nurse classification is differentiated according to whether the institution is or is not a major teaching hospital. In both Victoria and New South Wales these nurses perform dual administrative and clinical functions.

The proposed rates and scales for levels 4 and 5 are on an interim basis, pending introduction of consistent grading criteria which, as we have said, are the subject of review and negotiation between the parties.

The ANF does not argue for the adoption of these New South Wales and Victorian benchmark salaries in federal awards on the basis of common roles. It sought to establish work value alignment from the evidence of witnesses and by an examination of the duty statements.

The ACTU, which intervened in the proceedings, supported the concept of establishing national rates and conditions of employment which produced identical take-home pay for nurses working similar patterns across Australia.

It submitted that the "most suitable option" was the adoption, at specified benchmark levels, of NSW rates and conditions for a number of reasons, namely: the NSW rates and conditions are actually being received by nurses; NSW rates and conditions have been properly set having regard to more highly qualified health professionals; NSW rates are the only way of guaranteeing truly national

rates and conditions in terms of take-home pay throughout Australia; the rates sought are readily understood and as such would not cause disputation or discontent based on actual or perceived inequities; leapfrogging would be prevented; and the current mishmash that has characterised nurses wage fixation would be brought to an end. The ACTU rejected other options as not satisfying the objective of achieving national rates. It supported appropriate phasing as a means of achieving proper rates and conditions. It further submitted that no existing registered nurse should be financially worse off with the adoption of NSW rates and conditions and that no nurse should receive less than the minimum increase available under the August 1989 National Wage Case principles. The ACTU said that it could not foresee any flow implications arising out of the adoption of the NSW rates. Ms M. Stuart, who represented the ACTU, also appeared for the State Public Services Federation.

The HEF appeared as an applicant in relation to the Hospital Employees

etc. (Nursing Staff A.C.T.) Award 1980, the Nurses Private Employment (A.C.T.) Award 1972 and the Nurses (Tasmanian Public Sector) Award 1988. While being supportive of arguments put by the ANF with respect to a final outcome for nurses in terms of salaries and conditions, the HEF sought a different application of that outcome for Tasmanian and ACT nurses, who may lose some

benefits as a result of the application of consistent rates of pay and pay-related conditions across the States. In respect of these nurses, the HEF sought the maintenance of current conditions with discounted rates of pay. The discounted rates of pay with current conditions would combine, Ms J. Murray said, to produce an outcome in take-home pay consistent with that of other nurses. The HEF was reluctant to "give up" "properly struck conditions of employment" in exchange for an unknown total outcome. However, the HEF was unable to quantify its submission due to what it considered to be lack of guidance from this Full Bench on the interrelated issues of rates of pay and pay-related conditions. In particular the union did not know what new conditions would be determined by Commissioners Cross and Smith as a result of their proceedings dealing with structural efficiency principle applications.

An important development on the resumption of the hearing on 25 June was a change of attitude on the part of the employing authorities in the States and Territories to national rates and conditions. While the Commonwealth from the outset has supported nationally consistent rates and pay-related conditions in federal awards for nurses, the States and Territories initially were opposed to the concept. As a consequence of the structural efficiency negotiations which have taken place this year however the issues have been thoroughly debated by the parties and this has led to the employers' acceptance of the principle. Mr G. Simpson, who appeared in the June hearing for the Commonwealth and employers in all of the States and Territories except Tasmania, put forward a common package of rates and conditions for nurses in all federal awards. Tasmania concurred with the package but put separate submissions in relation to costs and phasing.

The employing authorities, Mr Simpson said, saw these proceedings "as a beginning and not a continuation". They meant by that that it was opportune "through the vehicle provided by the structural efficiency principle to take account of various factors both within the nursing industry and outside it, and having done so, to start with a clean slate and build for the future an appropriately established base as from 1990". The employers reject the benchmark salaries proposed by the ANF and the ACTU. They submit that these rates are based on conditions and classification structures which are different from the federal structure. The rates in force in NSW and Victoria, although properly established by the State tribunals, had been fixed, they said, with regard "to a somewhat limited number of factors". In particular, they were fixed in isolation from a consideration of salaries and pay-related conditions in other states. It was submitted that nurses should have their own benchmarks for pay and pay-related conditions and that, with these established, "a new history of the industry should commence".

The general thrust of the employers' submission was that a truly `like with like' comparison cannot be drawn with New South Wales and Victoria for pay fixation purposes in federal awards beyond level 1. There is agreement that the work and responsibilities of registered nurses is like with like across Australia in federal award structures at this level. There is also agreement for the introduction of an additional point in the incremental scale in level 1, but not for the rate proposed by the ANF for the eighth increment.

While there are differences in the allocation of numbers at levels 2 and 3 in the various States, the evidence still establishes, the employers said, a sufficient degree of like with likeness to justify identical incremental scales and rates of pay at these levels throughout the federal awards. In summary, a broad work value equivalence in the first 3 levels of the nursing profession is accepted in the common structure in the federal awards. The employers emphasized that this work value alignment in the federal structure takes account of the relationships between the various levels of duties. Mr Simpson said: "It is our view that searching for like with likeness begins with examining the various nursing career structures".

The employing authorities specifically rejected the alignment of the clinical nurse specialist position in NSW and Victoria and the associate charge nurse positions in Victoria (grades 3A and 3B) with the level 2 four point incremental scale in the federal structure. It was contended that the clinical nurse specialist is a single personal classification and that the associate charge nurse positions in Victoria have no equivalence in either the NSW or the federal structures. The three positions are not part of an incremental scale either in New South Wales or Victoria; and while the clinical nurse specialist

is a clinical position, grades 3A, 3B in Victoria have substantial administrative content. All in all, no basis exists for the salaries of these three positions to be imposed on an incremental scale for clinical nurses in the federal awards, a scale through which there is automatic advancement.

Similar criticisms were directed to the ANF's proposed rates at level 3, where the three salary bands of the New South Wales nurse unit manager and the salaries applicable to grade 4A and 4B charge nurses in Victoria have been amalgamated and applied to a four point incremental scale of rates in the federal awards. The positions have been alloted common benchmark salaries in NSW and Victoria where they entail composite clinical and management roles. The employers referred to the different situation applying to the level 3 nurse in the federal structure. At this level, nurses are streamed into a clinical, an administrative or an educational role and remain so streamed through level 4.

The importance of level 3 in the federal awards was emphasized by Mr Simpson, who submitted that it is the level which provides cohesiveness and structural integrity to the federal structure; that it is where career paths are established and the distinctive identity of the federal structure takes

form. There is no such streaming into career paths at this level in NSW or Victoria, where the positions encompass dual administrative and clinical functions.

The following rates (inclusive of both structural efficiency adjustments) are put forward by the employers for levels 1, 2 and 3 as part of the package of rates and conditions they propose:

23904 32850
36900 24812 33565 37767 25926 34208
38633 27040 35000 39500 28154 29268

The new five level, three stream classification structure for nurses was first trialled and introduced in South Australia with the approval of the State Commission in 1986. After an extensive case involving evidence of the nature of the work at all levels as well as inspections in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT and Northern Territory, a Full Bench of this Commission in a decision handed down on 7 May 1987(24) said that it regarded the new structure "as a satisfactory model for a national structure". The Bench ratified an agreement to introduce the new structure in the Northern Territory and, by an arbitrated decision, introduced it into nursing awards in the ACT. In each State and Territory in which the new structure has been adopted this _ _

(24)Print G7200 has been on a work value basis, approved by the State tribunals in Western Australia and South Australia and by this Commission for the Northern Territory, ACT and Tasmania. The ANF submitted in those proceedings that it had developed the new structure to remove deficiencies in existing structures, particularly in respect of nurses wishing to remain within the clinical areas of nursing.

The positions of charge nurse, supervisory nurse and deputy matron were done away with in the new structure, as was the previous hierarchical nature of authority. A new level (2) was introduced, with a four point incremental scale, for the experienced registered nurse performing clinical duties. At level 3 the structure branches into the three clearly defined streams of clinical nursing, administration and education. Nurses continue in these streams through level 4 and it is only the level 5 director of nursing who necessarily occupies a fully administrative position. We are in agreement with the employing authorities as to the importance of the differences between this and the State structures above level 1. We are also in agreement that the career structure which has been adopted in the federal awards for nurses at levels 2, 3 and 4 has no equivalence in New South Wales or Victoria.

The employers said that it would be a retrograde step to try to establish the work value link proposed by the ANF and the ACTU with past structures. We agree. We do not accept that it is appropriate to adopt the benchmark rates established in New South Wales and Victoria above level 1 for the federal awards. We are in a position now of setting rates for an industry which has recently come within federal award regulation. These awards have a common classification structure which is designed for and recognises the acquisition of high levels of skill and experience in each of the three streams of clinical nursing, administration and education. The structure is one, moreover, which creates its own cohesive internal relativities.

We do not, however, accept the rates submitted by the employing authorities. We have examined the principles upon which these rates were said to be developed, but in our judgement they are inadequate even in relation to those principles. In considering appropriate rates we have ourselves had regard

. the history of recent wage fixation for nurses by both federal and State tribunals, including those of New South Wales and Victoria;

. the structures of nursing classifications in federal and State

. programs which have been established for implementing consistency of pay-related conditions in federal nursing awards;

. evidence as to work value and the agreement of all of the employing authorities respondent to the federal awards as to work value comparability justifying common incremental scales and common rates

. rates applying to other health professionals. In this respect we refer to the statement of the Full Bench in the National Wage decision of August 1989 that paid rates awards should not be fixed at a level which would affect the rates for other workers;

. the need to ensure the proper application of the Wage Fixing Principles, in particular the Structural Efficiency Principle which requires that "structural efficiency exercises should incorporate

. our own familiarity with standards of remuneration for work

requiring different levels of qualifications and skill; and

. the assurance of the ACTU, which proposes rates higher than those which we are granting, that there will be no pressure for flow to other health professionals or other groups within the hospital environment.

We have been persuaded by the employers' submission that a new approach should be adopted. This has necessitated the balancing of a range of competing considerations and the inevitable exercise of a measure of discretion. The rates which we have determined will complete the process of salary adjustment for levels 1, 2 and 3, arising from the Special Case before us. The final rates which will apply (inclusive of both structural efficiency increases) will be as follows:

24,000 33,600 37,500 25,200 34,400 38,400 26,400 35,200
39,300 27,600 36,000 40,200 28,800 30,000

These rates (which are to be phased in) do not, of course, preclude additional increases consistent with future National Wage Case decisions.

In relation to levels 4 and 5, we are asked by the parties to adopt the rates and structures each proposes on a temporary basis. As we have not adopted the rates proposed by either the ANF or the employers for levels 1 to 3, we decline to apply either of the proposals put to us for levels 4 and 5. We intend to await further submissions about this aspect of the case. If we were to fix any rates, even on an interim basis, this may have the effect of prejudicing the negotiations taking place which are aimed at establishing appropriate relativities based upon proper grading criteria. Further, we note that some of the employing authorities were attracted to the idea of providing a salary band with upper and lower limits rather than providing defined increments within that range, although it was considered that the outcome of the paid rates review should be awaited. Given the influences which may bear upon the fixation of rates at these levels, we may not be opposed to such a concept. In the meantime, it would not be desirable for a situation to develop where any level 4 nurse, even on an interim basis, is in receipt of a salary which is less than the maximum rate for level 3 in the relevant award. Accordingly the orders arising from this decision will contain a provision to ensure that no level 4 nurse shall be paid less than the maximum level 3 salary in that award. We urge the parties to complete their negotiations as quickly as possible so that as a matter of priority we may fix appropriate final rates for levels 4 and 5.

In addressing the question of advancement through the structure, the ANF

sought a provision for one year's advancement for level 1 nurses who possess a UG1 degree in nursing or a qualification possession of which entitles a nurse to registration in another branch of nursing or on another nursing register; or a qualification, successful completion of which requires enrolment in a post-registration course of 12 months or more. We support such a principle and will provide accordingly.

We turn to the matter of the cost of the increases which we propose to grant and to the related subject of the manner in which those increases will be phased.

Mr Simpson provided us with data of the percentage increases in rates implicit in the proposals of the ANF and the employers. In either case, the percentage increases which would be received by nurses at different levels and points within incremental scales vary widely. Hence it is difficult to derive from this information a clear impression of the overall costs of the alternative proposals. Ms M. Kaempf tendered estimates of the additions to nursing salary costs in Western Australia. These estimates related to the extra costs to be met by the employers over and above those arising from the increases granted by this Bench in December 1989 and two structural efficiency adjustments of three per cent. They make no allowance for the abolition of qualification allowances, the alteration of salary-related conditions or cost savings caused by structural efficiency measures. The cost of acceding to the ANF proposal would be 6.5 per cent in a full year. For the employers'

proposal, the cost would be 2.0 per cent. Estimates of costs in South Australia, tendered by Mr G. Payne, suggested increases of 5.0 per cent (ANF proposal) and 1.3 per cent (employers' proposal). Ms A. Thomas provided information for the ACT from which we calculated that the increases would be 7.2 per cent (ANF) and 2.9 per cent (employers). Mr M. Jarman said that in Tasmania the salary bill, after two structural efficiency increases came into effect, would be a little over $100 million. If the ANF claim were to succeed, the additional cost would be `in the order of $15 million per annum'. For the employers' proposal, the increase would be `in the order of $13 million'. The costs in Tasmania are affected by the salary differential of four per cent which now exists but would disappear under either the ANF or the employers' proposal. We emphasize that the elimination of the differential is supported by the Tasmanian Government.

The cost increases to which the above estimates relate include the costs of raising salaries at levels 4 and 5. We are deferring increases at those levels but assume that some will eventuate. Subject to this qualification we believe that the cost of the increases which we have decided to grant falls between the costs of the ANF and the employer proposals

• precisely where, we cannot say. If we assume a cost increase of three per cent - a reasonable, but perhaps conservative, approximation
• we find that the combined effect of two movements toward national rates and two structural efficiency increases is to raise nurses' salaries by about 13 per cent on average. The impact on aggregate costs is partially offset by the abolition of qualification allowances; it may be increased or reduced by the standardisation of salary-related conditions to be determined by Commissioners Cross and Smith; and it will be reduced by any favourable effects on productivity of structural efficiency.

The increases in nurses' salaries have, of course, been phased already by the granting of an initial instalment of the movement to national rates in December 1989, with the next increases being deferred, and by the passage of time which is inherent in the process of raising salaries for structural efficiency. All of the employers sought further phasing of the remaining increases leading to national rates. With the exception of the Tasmanian government, none of them attempted to demonstrate any incapacity to pay. Mr Jarman said that the period of phasing-in allowed to Tasmanis should be greater than that provided elsewhere. Tasmania's difficulty was due to the combined

budgeting effects of an altered basis of Commonwealth funding of the State which has obtained in recent years and a high burden of debt service commitments.

Our attitude to phasing is influenced by our consciousness of the general imperative of wage restraint in current economic conditions. In recent years, National Wage Case decisions have stressed the importance of interposing

intervals between wage increases so as to assist in their absorption by the economy. It would be wrong, in our view, to ignore this principle in the present case. We are unwilling to delay any further movement toward national rates so as to allow employers first to absorb increases on account of structural efficiency; and there may be some `bunching' of structural efficiency and national rates increases in the latter part of 1990. The remaining national rates increases will, however, occur in two stages. Except in Tasmania, one-half of the increases will take effect in the first pay period after the date of this decision. The balance will take effect in the first pay period to begin on or after 1 April 1991.

We have decided to agree to more protracted phasing in Tasmania, having regard to both the State's budgetry problem and the size of the increases for which funds must be found. The earlier of the two remaining national rates increases will take effect in the first pay period beginning on or after 1 January 1991 and the later increase will occur in the first pay period to begin on or after 1 October 1991.

One-half of the qualification allowances which existed when this case began ceased at the time of the initial national rates increases, granted in December 1989. This was subject to the proviso that no nurse would suffer a reduction of total pay after offsetting the partial loss of the qualification

allowance against the increase in salary. The remaining qualification allowances will be reduced by 50 per cent (i.e. 25 per cent of the amounts originally paid) at the time of the next national rates increase. Payment of qualification allowances will cease when the final movement to national rates comes into effect. The existing proviso as to non-reduction of total pay for loss of qualification allowances will remain.

We now deal with several matters which require separate coonsideration.

Ms Kaempf submitted that the differential between the rates for level 3 in Western Australia and the other federal awards can no longer be sustained. The differential was established by agreement when the structure was first introduced in Western Australia in anticipation of an expanded role for the level 3 nurse in that State, which the employing authorities submit has not eventuated. We are asked to award rates for these level 3 nurses consistent with those in other States. These rates would be fixed on an initerim basis pending the result of a review of the rates for these positions which is near completion. The ANF opposed any change to the differential at this level in Western Australia, contending that the higher rates were justified by a wider span of control exercised by the clinical nurse specialist in that State.

We are not convinced by anything that has been put to us that Western Australian rates should be higher at this level than those prescribed in the other federal awards and we determine that the rates should be the same for the four incremental steps in level 3 in Western Australia as in the other federal awards. We see no reason to identify the employing authorities operating under the same classification structure.

Another issue involves registered nurses covered by the Nganampa Health Council, (Community Health Nursing Staff) Award, 1987 and the Aboriginal and Community Controlled (Community Health Nursing Staff) Award 1989. In July 1989 the Full Bench received correspondence on behalf of the Pitjantjara Council expressing concern as to the cost implications of the increases sought for these nurses. The difficulties related to funding problems that existed from time to time with the Federal Government, and the existing award levels of salaries and overtime provisions. As no oral submissions were made to the Full Bench on these concerns the matter was referred to Commissioner Cross on 21 December 1989 for investigation and report back to the Full Bench. We have examined these matters in the light of the Commissioner's report and of assurances given by the Commonwealth Government as to funding. We have decided that these health centres wil be covered by the Full Bench decision of 21 December 1989 and there is nothing that causes us to change the date of operation that was set in that decision.

In proceedings before Commissioner Smith in Adelaide on 4 April 1990, agreement was presented in relation to the directors of nursing at the Repatriation General Hospitals at Daw Park, South Australia and Hollywood, Western Australia. The Commissioner concluded, inter alia:

"The agreements in relation to the director of nursing positions is more difficult. The agreement in both States is for the DVA hospital's director of nursing to be aligned with the particular director of nursing position in the respective States. Parties have submitted that this was the first opportunity to rectify this inequity which existed.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that in Western Australia no such classification exists in the award, and in essence, the parties seek to extend the award to cover this position.

I have considered carefully the principles, particularly the principle relating to structural efficiency, and the increases in rates of pay available under that principle. I have concluded that I should not, as a single member, move to examine any further the merit of this section of the agreement. Issues which may be relevant include proper work value comparisons, and the stated intention of the ANF to review the criteria which is applicable for director of nursing positions.

Accordingly, I decline to approve this aspect of the agreement as I believe it is more properly progressed by way of an application for reference to a Full Bench as a special case."

At that time an application was made pursuant to section 107 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, consequent upon which the Commissioner directed the parties to prepare an agreed facts document. The President subsequently granted the application and referred the matter to this Full Bench. We have examined the agreement of the parties and have decided, in the context of the review which is about to take place in relation to director of nursing positions, to approve the agreement. This will provide an appropriate base from which to proceed.

In conclusion we acknowledge that those proceedings have been long and complex. It has been necessary to explore to the fullest the structural efficiency aspects of the case and to integrate them with the claims for national rates. It has also been a complicating factor that some of the awards which the parties have sought to restructure have diverse histories within state jurisdictions.

The Commission has been concerned throughout to establish proper internal relationships and career structures in nurses' federal awards and this has necessitated a gradual approach. National rates have now been fixed for registered nurses in levels 1, 2 and 3, with salaries for levels 4 and 5 still to be determined. Since 1987 the Commission has, through a series of decisions, substantially increased nurses' salaries. All parties have acknowledged the cost impact. There has, however, been consensus on the necessity for and the direction of change and we recognize the thorough and thoughtful approach adopted by the parties. Considerable change has already occurred and the process will continue, given the work program identified in the structural efficiency proceedings before Commissioners Cross and Smith.

The parties should now submit draft orders to give effect to this decision. The orders will be settled by the Registrar with recourse to a member of the Bench. Except in Tasmania the orders will operate from the first pay period on or after today and remain in force until 30 April 1991. The orders affecting Tasmania will operate from the first pay period on or after 1 January 1991 and remain in operation until 31 October 1991.

J. Murray for The Hospital Employees Federation of Australia.

M. Stuart for the State Public Services Federation and intervening for The Australian Council of Trade Unions.

G. Simpson on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations.

G. Payne on behalf of the South Australian Health Commission.

M. Kaempf on behalf of the Minister for Health of Western Australia.

A. Thomas for the A.C.T. Community and Health Service.

J. Horan for the Confederation of ACT Industry and Confederation of West Australian Industry.

K. Crafter for the South Australian Employers Federation.