NSW Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union v Newcastle City Council Re Alleged Failure To Size Position of Ranger

Local Government Act 1993 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Companion Animals Act 1998 Rural Fires Act 1997 Roads Act 1993 Industrial Relations Act 1996

2003 State Wage Case (2003) 121 IR 446 Harris v Murrurrundi Council (CT 1048 of 1995)(19/6/95) [1995] NSWIRComm 96 Newcastle City Council Employees Award 2003 343 IG 228 Newcastle City Council Award 2006 359 IG 1158 Crown Employees (Teachers in Schools and TAFE and Related Employees) Salaries and Conditions Award [2004] NSWIRComm 114 CASES CITED: Re Public Hospital Nurses' (State) Award No 4 [2003] NSWIRComm 442 Re Health Employees Pharmacists (State) Award [2003] NSWIRComm 453 Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 384 Re Social and Community Services Employees (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 119 Re Transport Industry (State) Award (1996) 95 IR 126 Re Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) (State) Award (No 2) (1993) 52 IR 243

APPLICANT Mr N Martin USU

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Solicitor Mr B Gee Fisher Cartwright Berriman

• 37 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Notification under section 130 by New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union of a dispute with Newcastle City Council re Alleged Failure to Size Position of Ranger

1 The notification in this matter arose pursuant to a dispute between the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union (USU) and Newcastle City Council ("the Council"). The dispute notification, filed on 27 July 2004, advised the detail of the issues in dispute as: a) The failure of Newcastle City Council to size the position of Ranger within the Newcastle City Council Salary System to a level that is reflective of the responsibilities for the position.

b) Failure by Newcastle City Council to provide adequate training to incumbents of the position of Ranger.

c) Newcastle City Council has failed to provide justification of the job sizing for the Ranger's position and that the job evaluation system utilised, lacks consistency and transparency. 2 The matter was subject to extensive conciliation in 2004 and throughout 2005, which established that the matter was not able to be resolved by agreement between the parties. Directions issued to bring the matter to arbitration, which was ultimately scheduled for 29 and 30 September 2005. 3 On 29 September 2005 Mr P Collins, appearing on behalf the USU, requested that the matter be returned to conciliation with a series of monthly report backs to the Commission in accordance with a timetable for a service level review which offered potential to resolve all matters. Mr J Thomson, appearing on behalf of the Council, supported Mr Collins' request. 4 The service level review process involves a detailed analysis of current services, including the associated duties and responsibilities of employees in delivering the service. This is then to be followed by an evaluation of the service in terms of contemporary statutory and community requirements leading to a revised service statement and alterations to duties and responsibilities, from which a revised job evaluation and resultant salary level can be established. 5 The matter was subject to a series of reports to the Commission. The timetable for the service level review was revised on more than one occasion but not met, and the review not completed. The failure of the service level review process culminated in the issue of further directions for arbitration. 6 The matter was subject to hearing on 22 and 23 May and 4 July 2006, with a timetable for written submissions to be filed by the parties which was completed by 13 October 2006. 7 At Hearing Mr N Martin appeared on behalf of the USU with Mr P Colllins. Evidence was brought from Council employees Mr I Haywood, Mr M Robards, Mr J Prout, Ms K Pont, and Mr D Atkins. Mr Martin further tendered evidence from Mr P Marzato, Manager Energy and Utilities Division of the USU (Ex 3), and Mr P Collins, Organiser of the USU (Ex 4), who were not required for cross examination. 8 Mr B Gee, solicitor of Fisher Cartwright Berriman, appeared on behalf of the Council with Mr C Radvan. Evidence was brought from Council employees Mr A Gilligan, Ms J McDougall, and Ms D Alterator; and from Ms H Tapp, a former employee. 9 Proceedings transcended the passage of amendment to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("Work Choices") and passage of s 146A of the (NSW) Industrial Relations Act 1996 ("the Act"). The parties entered into an agreement pursuant to s 146 conferring power of the Commission to determine the matter in arbitration. 10 The remedy sought by the USU is a determination that the position of Ranger is correctly placed at Grade 7 within the Newcastle City Council Salary Structure. 11 The applicable industrial instrument at the commencement of proceedings was the Newcastle City Council Employees Award 2003 ("the Award") 343 IG 228 made by the Commission as presently constituted by consent of the parties on 7 October 2003. 12 The parties acknowledge that the current industrial instrument is the Newcastle City Council Award 2006 ("the 2006 Award") 359 IG 1158. 13 The relevant provisions of the 2006 Award are cl 9, Learning and Development; and cl 20, Salary System. Cl 20 provides: 20.1 General 20.1.1 Monetary Rates are set out in Table 1 and 2.

20.1.2 The rates of pay referred to in Part B include allowances paid for skills used under previous award provisions (see Appendix B, Skills /Qualifications Allowances).

20.1.3 The Salary System consists of 24 Salary Points.

20.1.4 A competency based model applies to positions at Salary Points 1 to 6. A review of the competency based system will be undertaken by the Parties and completed within six months of the commencement of the Award. Matters to be reviewed will include, but not be limited to: consistency in competences, appropriateness of banding salary points, the impact of job evaluation and progression.

20.1.5 For Salary Points 7 - 24 the Salary System includes the following features:-

For each Salary Point, six salary levels from 94% to 109% of the Salary Point rate of pay;

Each level has defined criteria. Initial placement and advancement through the salary range will be determined by management's assessment of the employee's demonstrated ability to satisfy the criteria for each level;

The Salary Point Level 3 (100%) rate represents the competent rate for the position;

On commencement in a position employees will be paid Level 1 or Level 2 only if they do not possess the criteria required for the position. Employees placed on Levels 1 or 2 will be assessed for advancement to the next level on completion of the probationary period if applicable and otherwise within six months of commencement in the position;

Payment at Level 4 requires satisfaction of the essential and highly desirable job requirements/selection criteria and demonstrated initiative in identifying and resolving work problems independently over a review period;

Payment at Levels 5 and 6 is based on increased capability and added value criteria;

A review of salary levels or position in salary scales for weekly employees at Salary Point 7 and above will be conducted annually; Salary Scales include a range of Salary Points. Employees move through the Scales by satisfying criteria for each Salary Point on the Scale. An employee on a Scale can only access the salary levels above the 100% level when they reach the Salary Point at the top of the Scale (that is, they have moved through all lower salary points of the Scale).

14 The rates of pay are set out in Table 2 of Part B Monetary Rates which prescribes a 24 pt salary range. The relevant rates are: 2003 Award 2006 Award Salary Levels Effective July 2005 Effective March 2006 3.75% rate per week $ rate per week $

P1 690.00 698.40 P2 703.90 712.20 P3 719.50 727.40 P4 738.10 745.80 P5 758.90 766.50 P6 782.60 790.40 P7 810.70 818.80 P8 841.80 850.20 P9 876.50 885.30 P10 915.20 924.40

15 The employees concerned work a seven day roster in accordance with item (i) of Appendix A Hours of Work Continuing Arrangements which appears in identical terms in both the 2003 and 2006 Awards as below: (i) Animal Control Officers, Ordinance Officers, Rangers - The ordinary working hours shall not exceed 76 per fortnight including Saturday, Sunday and public holidays as rostered in shifts of not more than seven and three-fifths hours per day; provided that the employee shall be allowed off two full days each week. 16 Mr Martin submitted that in assessing rates of pay for the Ranger Classification, the Council failed to properly apply the job evaluation system and did not test the results against internal relativity. 17 It is common ground that the position of Ranger was established in 1999 by amalgamation of the positions and duties of the Ordinance Inspector and Animal Control Officer into a new position. 18 The evaluation of the Ranger position has been subject to contention from its inception. The USU insist that Council has failed to include all duties and accordingly undervalued the position. THE EVIDENCE 19 Mr Mark Robards commenced employment with the Council as an ordinance officer in the Health and Building Services Division in 1992 at salary point (SP) 4, designated as Senior Field Worker/Ordinance Officer. 20 The position of Ranger was established with a salary range from SP 4 to 6. Mr Robards deposes that prior to his employment with the Council he had obtained trade skills and had been a Constable in the NSW Police Force. 21 Mr Robards deposes that when the position of Ranger was established he was led to believe that he would be placed at SP 6, however, in a competency assessment conducted in late 2000 or early 2001 he was assessed at SP 5. The evidence of Mr Robards is that following the competency assessment he was informed by management that he held all competencies required for SP 6, however, as he did not participate in staff selection he would be assessed at SP 5. 22 Mr Robards deposes that he subsequently participated in a staff selection process and was then informed that the competency criteria for SP 6 had been amended and that he no longer qualified and would remain at SP 5. 23 Mr Robards accepted in cross-examination that independent judgement required of Rangers is exercised in accordance with relevant protocols established to assist in the performance of their duties. Mr Robards acknowledges that the "dog attack protocol", "barking dog complaint protocol" and "abandoned vehicle protocol" guide rangers in dealing with these issues. 24 Mr Robards maintains that in following the protocols Rangers are required to exercise initiative and independent judgement. Mr Robards deposes that the duties required in responding to a dog attack in accordance with the protocol are similar to those established by him in his previous employment with the Police when responding to an assault. 25 Mr Robards deposes that he has not made an application for advancement to SP 6. 26 The evidence of Mr Robards is that during the course of his employment with the Council he has undertaken training and obtained certificate qualifications in Ordinance Inspectors Module One (1992); Council Ordinance Inspectors Parking Control Course (1992), and is appointed as a Special Constable of the NSW Police Force. 27 Mr Robards deposes that the level of training is inadequate for the complexity and responsibility of the tasks required. 28 Mr Robards deposes that the written position description has altered a number of times whilst he has been employed with Council, however, at no time has it accurately reflected the work undertaken. 29 Mr Robards is critical of the job evaluation process conducted by Mercers, putting that his only involvement was participation in a single teleconference with a Mercer Consultant who subsequently endorsed the Council's valuation of SP 4-6. 30 Mr Robards deposes that this level of valuation is equivalent to a labourer, truck driver, or clerical employee, none of whom have the direct public contact required of a Ranger; and below a storeman with a front end loader and forklift qualification who is paid at SP7. 31 Mr Robards deposes that the risks associated with the work of a Ranger and potential for physical harm have increased in the past four years. 32 Mr Robards deposes that as they are working in uniform in a marked Council vehicle Rangers present a higher public profile, resulting in random abuse from persons with a complaint against Council. Mr Robards lists a number of injuries sustained in the course of his working as a Ranger, including a hernia from lifting large dogs, injuries from feral cats requiring a tetanus shot, and injuries to arms, elbows and back from being knocked over by dogs. 33 Mr Robards deposes that Rangers are required to deal with an increasing variety of animals, including domestic and wild dogs, cattle, horses, goats, aggressive birds, and feral cats. Mr Robards puts that with the only training provided has been a one day course in handling dangerous dogs and nothing to assist with the range of other animals encountered. 34 The evidence of Mr Robards is that he has been refused training in the Certificate IV in Local Government (Governance and Administration) Ranger Course 1 and 2 ("Certificate IV") offered by the Local Government Association of NSW. The outline of this course is appendix 12 to Mr Robards' Statement (Ex 5). The course outline reveals that the course has been developed in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers (NSW Division). 35 Mr Robards deposes that Rangers spend most of their day working alone and unsupervised, and are required to make decisions on their own, without consultation, for which they are held accountable. 36 The evidence of Mr Robards is that Rangers require a working knowledge of a range of legislation and the regulations thereto, and accordingly should receive training and recognition of this knowledge and skill in the salary structure. 37 Mr Ian Haywood has been employed by Council as a truck driver from 1990 and has been the designated outdoor delegate for the USU from 1994. 38 Mr Haywood deposes that in his position of USU delegate he has participated in the job evaluation process for a number of classifications, and has been involved in discussions with management in respect to the job evaluation of the Ranger Position. 39 Mr Haywood deposes that the position description for the Ranger classification has never been agreed. 40 The evidence of Mr Haywood is that the position description does not adequately reflect the responsibility of the Ranger position. Mr Haywood deposes that the work of Rangers is undervalued by reference to his own position as truck driver, which he puts involves minimal contact with the public. Mr Haywood's evidence is that the Ranger position is also undervalued by reference to the positions of tradesperson at salary point (SP) 8-9 and ganger at SP 7-10, which he deposes have limited public contact or accountability under the Local Government Act 1993, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Companion Animals Act 1998, and other legislation which Rangers are required to apply. 41 Mr Haywood deposes that Council have been unable to complete the Service Level Review for Rangers since the year 2000, which he suggests has been a deliberate attempt by Council to restrict the progress of job evaluation for Rangers. 42 Mr Haywood deposes that while the Service Level Review is incomplete some aspects of it, such as equipping Ranger vehicles with GPS Systems, have been implemented.

43 Mr Paul Marzato has been an official of the USU from 1990 and until 1994 was the Organiser with designated responsibility for the Council. Mr Marzato was not required for cross examination. 44 The evidence of Mr Marzato is that he was involved in the implementation of the job evaluation process at the Council and participated in the job evaluation committee which applied the OCR job evaluation system. 45 Mr Marzato deposes that he withdrew from the job evaluation committee as he formed the view that management were manipulating outcomes, leaving the USU unable to endorse the job evaluation process as fair and accurate by participation therein. 46 Mr Peter Collins has been an official of the USU from 2003. Mr Collins was formerly employed as an Industrial Officer with Lake Macquarie Council (1998-2003), Human Resources Manager, Great Lakes Council (1995-1998), and with Port Stephens council as Personnel Services Co-ordinator (1992-1995). 47 Mr Collins deposes that he has considerable experience in application of the OCR and other job evaluation systems and has written position descriptions for Rangers at each of the councils with which he has been employed. 48 Mr Collins deposes that the traditional role of "dog catcher" was valued at the "labourer" level and required minimal training which was limited to animal control activities. 49 The evidence of Mr Collins is that the classification of Ranger or Ordinance Officer carries a greater onus on the regulatory function further enhanced by a transition of functions from State Government to Local Government, such as the removal of the parking police function from the Police to council Rangers. 50 Mr Collins' evidence is that the job evaluation of Ranger at the Council is well below industry standards. Mr Collins deposes that: · Port Stephens Council places Rangers at grade 10 compared to trades employees at grades 8 and 9; · Great Lakes Council places Rangers at grade 12 compared to mechanics at grade 10 and others trades at grades 8 to 11; · Lake Macquarie Council resized the Ranger position from grade 10 to grade 11 on acquisition of the parking police duties. 51 Mr Collins deposes that the duties and responsibilities of Rangers at the three councils in his direct experience are the same as those required of Rangers at Newcastle with the exception that Port Stephens Council requires Rangers to perform the additional task of weight load checking. 52 Ms Karen Pont has been employed by Council from March 1984. Ms Pont was employed as a records clerk for 12 years prior to joining the Companion Animal Team as administrative assistant, and subsequently from mid 2000 as an Animal Control Officer at SP 3. 53 Ms Pont deposes that in November 2000 she received correspondence from the Council informing her that her position had been reviewed as a result of information provided by herself and her manager (Ex 8, attach. KP3). This correspondence informed Ms Pont that the job had been evaluated in the salary range 4-6, and that she would be paid SP 4 from October 2005 with final placement dependant upon a competency review to be conducted in the near future. 54 Ms Pont's evidence is that the revaluation of the position required acceptance of a range of additional duties, including dealing with abandoned vehicles, improper dumping of rubbish, and enforcing Council signage requirements, among others. Ms Pont put that multiskilling was introduced to the Rangers as there was no one to undertake the duties of Ordinance Officer when Mr Robards took leave. 55 Ms Pont accepted these duties and in the subsequent competency assessment she was placed at SP 5 from 21 January 2001. 56 Ms Pont deposes that she sought a review of her position, however, was told that the position description had not altered significantly and that competencies had not changed. 57 Ms Pont's evidence is that she became so disenchanted with the circumstances that she sought a return to clerical work, however, after approximately 16 months succumbed to financial pressure to return to the position of Ranger in order to work the seven day roster with associated overtime and penalty payments. 58 Ms Pont deposes that the additional remuneration derives from working 38 hours per week over a 14 day roster, 8.30am to 5.00pm Tuesday to Friday, with alternate Saturday and Sunday work 7.30am to 4.00pm. 59 Ms Pont's evidence is: On weekends there are no supervisors in attendance and work is allocated through the after-hours call out service. Generally I do not refer matters to my direct Supervisor Adam Gilligan unless it is something that is going to affect the organisation significantly.

14. Duties on a weekday are allocated to me from the Admin Officer; there is usually no contact with either Adam or the Manager Health Services Deborah Alterator unless there is something urgently required to be done. I have a reasonable amount of autonomy in deciding what has to be done on a day-to-day basis. I generally set my own priorities for the days work knowing that there are certain jobs that have a time limit to have completed. This falls under our Key Performance Indicators that are set for our team.

60 Mr John Prout commenced employment with the Council in June 1987 as a Dog Controller/Impounding Officer, subsequently Team Leader Animal Control Officer, then as a Ranger from November 2000. 61 Mr Prout describes his duties prior to appointment to the Ranger position as limited to animal control matters, predominantly livestock and complaints concerning dogs with an occasional prosecution. 62 Mr Prout deposes that on appointment to the Ranger's position his duties expanded significantly to include (Ex 10): … … building complaints on excessive noise, illegal developments, aggressive birds, feral animals, cats, environmental complaints such as asbestos demolition, dog excreta, overgrown land, rural fires and burning off, building materials that had been dumped causing obstructions and environmental concerns, anti social behaviour to do with skateboard riders being hazards, particularly with large groups, public place with people knocking trees down, rowdy behaviour at reserves, weddings and functions without approval in public reserves, signage complaints, parking complaints, abandoned vehicles, litter offences,

11. As an example on the 24 September 2001 Adam Gilligan issued me with a memo dealing with the conditions of Development Approvals Construction & Demolition Hours. This memo is annexed and marked as JP-5. 63 The instruction referred to is addressed to all Rangers in the following terms (Ex 10, attach. JP5): Where Council has issued a development approval involving construction and demolition, the following condition is applied to the approval: Construction/demolition work noise that is audible at other premises is to be restricted to the following times: · Monday to Friday, 7. 00am to 6. 00pm; and · Saturday, 8.00am to 1.00pm. No construction/demolition work noise is permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays. Reason: To prevent 'offensive noise' from construction/demolition sites in accordance with Environment Protection Authority Guidelines.

An infringement notice is available for non-compliance with this condition (8188 LIY 'Development not carried out in accordance with consent' $600 - Section 125(1) EP&A Act). Note that the condition does not prevent work that it is not noisy, such as painting.

It should be noted that these restrictions only apply to activities which are the subject of development approval. All other construction related noise, ie. minor renovation work, is restricted by the regulations upon the use of power tools, which are as follows:

• 7am to 8pm Mondays to Saturdays; and • 8am to 8pm Sundays and Public Holidays.

All rangers on weekend rosters may be required to attend to complaints regarding these matters, so please familiarise yourself with these requirements. 64 Mr Prout provides further examples of tasks required of him as a Ranger which are not found in the position description. Mr Prout has not refused to carry out any duties as directed. 65 Mr Prout describes a number of discussions with management which failed to reach agreement on a position description and associated evaluation. 66 Mr Prout deposes that a position description prepared by Rangers (Ex 10, attach. JP14) was rejected by the Council. 67 Mr Prout describes agreement between the USU and the Council to have an independent job evaluation process undertaken. Mr Prout deposes that a job evaluation questionnaire was completed by himself and other Rangers in March 2004. Mr Prout deposes that management also completed a job evaluation questionnaire which he contends failed to include many of the key tasks and responsibilities of Rangers. 68 Mr Prout expresses his disappointment with the job evaluation process conducted by Mercers which he deposes consisted of a single teleconference with a Mercer consultant, identified as Mr Seccombe. Mr Prout's evidence is that he participated in the teleconference with other Rangers, USU officials and Ms McDougall from the Council's Human Resources Department. Mr Prout's evidence is that he had expected Ms Alterator and Mr Gilligan to attend, however, Mr Seccombe informed them that he had already spoken with both Ms Alterator and Mr Gilligan. 69 The Mercer report (Ex 10, attach. JP 15) confirmed the telephone interview process and reliance by Mercer upon position descriptions and job evaluation questionnaires provided by the Council. The Mercer report provided in evidence does not give OCR evaluation scores. The report states: Our evaluation for the Ranger position has been based on the information provided both in writing and by telephone. Our findings may change should additional information be forthcoming at a later date or through closer examination of the work involved.

The separate telephone discussions, the first with management and the second with the union organiser and the Rangers essentially provided the same information with the emphasis varying in certain areas. For example the Rangers highlighted the autonomy of the role, from receiving job instructions direct from the Clerk, prioritising own work with little or no requirement for input from the Team Leader. Management on the other hand indicated that they are generally aware of what tasks are required of Rangers on a daily basis and are involved in task allocation, and review of work completed on a regular basis.

Our discussions also revealed that the Rangers believed that a knowledge requirement contained in Certificate IV - Local Government Qualification code LGA 40100 modules 1 and maybe 2 provides a sound educational framework for the role. The details of Certificate IV were provided by the Ranger to the consultant. Management did not share similar views on the qualifications issue as the position documentation advises a 'current class C (1A) driver's licence' is all that is necessary. We have therefore not taken Certificate IV qualifications into account for the purposes of assessing the level of work value.

We are also aware that Newcastle Council has hired Rangers with no previous experience in the duties described on the position documentation and within a minimum amount of time (approximately 2 weeks) the Ranger is capable of undertaking the major components of the role. All Rangers are provided with mobile phones and are therefore able to make contact with other Rangers or management at short notice.

The Rangers and management advised that the overwhelming majority of the work involved enforcement of the Companion Animals Act. However the evaluation has also recognised all other key responsibilities described in writing and discussed during telephone discussions.

The issue of collecting information and the preparation of evidential statements for implementation of legal proceeding and later court appearances is reviewed by either a legal officer or management with a final "sign off'" by management before this course is adopted.

The Rangers did highlight the stress involved in attempting to resolve conflicts between neighbours, catching dangerous dogs and the public's adverse attitudes to people in uniform.

Whilst the consultant has provided an independent evaluation of the Ranger position we are also aware that if our assessment differs from 'internal equity' established through many years of Council using the OCR job evaluation system then a more detailed analysis and review may be required.

We hope the above evaluation is useful in determining an appropriate grade for the positions under review. 70 The salary range SP 4 -6 was not altered. 71 Mr Prout describes failed negotiation to introduce a summer roster from 6.00am to 6.00pm for Rangers. Mr Prout deposes that Rangers proposed acceptance of the change in return for SP 9 upon which Council officers ceased discussion and made no counter offer. 72 Mr Prout expresses disappointment with the delay in resolving this matter, the failure to conclude a service level review, and continued refusal by the Council to approve training requests. 73 Mr David Atkins commenced employment with the Council in December 1992 as an Animal Control Officer at SP 3. 74 Mr Atkins described issues of dispute concerning differential wage levels between Ordinance Officers and Animal Control Officers from 1995 to 2000 when the positions were amalgamated into that of Ranger and the present issue of job evaluation commenced. 75 The Role Statement and Key Selection Criteria for the position of Ranger valued at salary level 4 - 6 is attachment DA-3 to exhibit 12, Mr Atkins' statement. The Role Statement, dated 14 April 2000, describes the primary purpose of the job as: PRIMARY JOB PURPOSE · Administration of the NSW Companion Animal Act 1998 and implementation of the provisions of the Companion Animal Management Plan. · Ensure the provision of efficient and effective customer service to the community and implement projects designed to enhance the provision of services. · Ensure the achievement of team objectives, and key performance indicators, in accordance with Best Practice initiatives.

KEY CHALLENGES · Keep abreast of legislative and policy changes in relation to Companion Animal Management practices, procedures and legal precedents. · Maintain close working relationships with customers, and other staff within Council, to ensure targets are being met. · Resolve external conflict, particularly in relation to the issue of Penalty Infringement Notices to offenders.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS & EXPERIENCE · The position requires experience in handling a wide range of animals and a working knowledge of legislative requirements contained in the Companion Animal Act 1998. · The position requires the ability to exercise independent judgement in the field. · The position requires skills in negotiating/facilitating desirable outcomes with members of the community.

JUDGEMENT, PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING · The position involves a high level of responsibility with on the spot decisions in many cases having an economic impact and legal implications on some members of the community. · The position requires the exercise of independent initiatives and decision making, often in collaboration with other staff, to achieve desirable companion animal management outcomes. COMMUNICATION · The position is required to constantly communicate with both internal and external customers to achieve desired team outcomes. A high level of communication and negotiation skills is required to resolve conflict, particularly with members of the community that have been issued infringements. · The position requires above average community liaison skills to convey information, pertaining to companion animal management education and other issues, in a way that is understood by any particular audience. · The position requires on-going liaison with community groups and government and private agencies (i.e. Police, RSPCA and animal welfare organisations) in the achievement of programs and projects. · Written and oral communication skills are essential to enable advice to be provided to Senior staff, council employees and members of the community regarding Council policy and complaints resolution. 76 The Role Statement also details descriptors in respect to Team Work, Customer Focus and Quality, and Generic Job Requirements, which includes an ability to plan, organise and co-ordinate own workload as an essential skill; mediation, negotiation and dispute resolution skills; and Role Specific qualifications listing experience in humane care of animals as essential with knowledge of the provision of the Companion Animals Act 1998 as desirable. 77 In the Accountability description the position is described as: Responsible, as Newcastle City Councils representative, for the preparation and provision of precise evidence in any legal proceedings resulting from the duties of the position. 78 The Role Statement is supported by a Key Result chart which allocates 90% of the job to: Administration of the Companion Animals Act through the provision of an efficient and effective service to the community.

and 10% of the job to: Assist in the development of improved practices and procedures to enhance services provided to the community. 79 Mr Atkins was placed at SP 4 during 2000 and in early 2001 was placed at SP 5 following a competency review. 80 The evidence of Mr Atkins is that he was surprised at the broad scope of the work required of him as a Ranger, deposing that he was required to become familiar with an entire new range of legislation including the Local Government Act 1993, the Roads Act 1993, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Rural Fires Act 1997 and others in addition to the Companion Animals Act 1998. 81 Mr Atkins deposes that the work is a significant change from simply picking up stray animals. 82 The evidence of Mr Atkins supports that of the other rangers in detailing specific tasks which are not defined in the role statement. Mr Atkins adds the function of overseeing weddings and functions on public reserves to ensure conduct of the events in accordance with council approval, and mediation of an escalating dispute between neighbours over a boundary fence. 83 Mr Atkins deposes that in 2001 he received a temporary appointment to the position of Health Services Officer at SP 7, working four days per week in that position and one day per week as a Ranger at SP 5. 84 The evidence of Mr Atkins is that the duties undertaken as a Health Services Officer include investigation of overgrown land, swimming pool contamination, residential noise complaints, and inspection of bird aviaries among other tasks all of which are less demanding than the duties required of him when working as a Ranger. 85 Mr Atkins supports the evidence of other Rangers in describing the refusal of the Council to support participation in the Certificate IV course. Mr Atkins deposes that he was informed by his supervisors that training was not required as he held the knowledge and skill to undertake the work. 86 The evidence of Mr Atkins corroborates that of other Rangers in respect to the Mercer job evaluation by telephone and subsequent unsuccessful representation to the Council. 87 Ms Holly Tapp has been employed as a Ranger by Lake Macquarie Council from November 2003, and for approximately 3 years prior as a Ranger with Newcastle City Council. 88 Ms Tapp deposes that whilst at Newcastle Council she worked with Mr Prout, Ms Pont, Mr Robards and Mr Atkins, performing the full range of duties. 89 The evidence of Ms Tapp is that the work she performs at Lake Macquarie Council is inherently the same with the addition of duties in relation to On Street Parking and Weight of Loads. 90 Ms Tapp deposes that whilst at Newcastle Council she was paid SP 5, equivalent to a truck driver, which she put at approximately $600 per week; whilst at Lake Macquarie Council she is paid at Grade 11 Step 3 which she put is $888.45 gross, equivalent to a trades or gangers position. 91 Ms Tapp's evidence is that one of the main reasons she left the Council's employ was the relative undervaluation of the work performed. In cross examination Ms Tapp accepted that other reasons of interpersonal conflict and a desire to achieve more training played a role in her decision to leave Newcastle Council. 92 Mr Gee brought evidence from Mr Adam Gilligan employed by Newcastle City Council as Health Services Co-Ordinator. Mr Gilligan has been employed by Newcastle City Council from 1996 as an Environment Protection Officer until taking up his present position in 2001. 93 Mr Gilligan deposes that he is responsible for the day to day supervision of Rangers, resolves technical issues, and gives advice and assistance to staff. 94 The evidence of Mr Gilligan is that from January 2002 Rangers have been actively involved in review of the position. Mr Gilligan deposes that Rangers regarded the position description as accurate but not sufficiently detailed to reflect the complexity of the role. Mr Gilligan expresses a view that Rangers have an unreasonable expectation of the detail that a position description should contain. 95 Mr Gilligan deposes that he was interviewed by Mercer during their independent valuation of the Rangers position on 31 March 2004 and provided adequate information of all tasks performed by Rangers, noting that he is regularly called upon to assist. 96 The evidence of Mr Gilligan is that Rangers are currently performing their role without Certificate IV and there is no basis for inclusion of the qualification in the essential criteria for the position. 97 Mr Gilligan adds that he encouraged Rangers to seek recognition for prior learning and to pursue qualifications on an individual basis. 98 Mr Gilligan puts that Rangers receive training where necessary. Exhibit 16 is an e-mail communication from Mr Gilligan of 17 January 2006 to all Rangers advising them of significant changes to the Companion Animals Act and that a person (named) from a firm of solicitors (named) would provide formal training sessions in February 2006. 99 Exhibit 16 concludes: Please let me know if you need any further information. It will be important for each of you to read the whole statute carefully, as many small yet significant changes have been made throughout the document. 100 The Companion Animals Act and Regulations thereto are separate attachments to the e-mail. 101 Mr Lindsey Clayton has been employed by the Council as Learning and Development Officer from July 2003 and prior to that as a Continuous Improvement Facilitator. 102 Mr Clayton was not required for cross-examination. 103 The evidence of Mr Clayton is that at the request of Rangers for competency assessment in January 2002 he undertook a review of the position. 104 Mr Clayton deposes that with the support and assistance of management he developed a new competency model allowing Rangers to advance to SP 6. Mr Clayton's evidence is that the review did not change the position description, deposing that SP 6 was achieved by splitting existing competencies into a broader spread; for example, moving Public Education and Legal Process competencies to SP 6. 105 The Rangers initially rejected this model in 2003 on the basis that they should move to SP 6 without assessment, however, subsequently some have applied and been assessed at SP 6. 106 Ms Julie-Anne McDougall has been employed by the Council in the position of Human Resource Business Partner Learning and Development from May 2003. 107 The evidence of Ms McDougall is that she had been involved in discussion, negotiation and exchange of correspondence concerning the assertion by the USU that the Ranger position is undervalued from 2003. 108 Ms McDougall deposes that in November 2003 she undertook a comparative analysis of rates of pay for Rangers at Newcastle, Hornsby, Maitland, Bankstown, Gosford, Lake Macquarie and Warringah Councils (Ex 20, attach. 3). 109 This evidence supports that of Ms Tapp that Rangers at Lake Macquarie Council are paid at grade 11, equivalent to trades staff; and reveals that at Hornsby and Maitland Councils Rangers are paid one grade more than trades staff; at Bankstown rates of pay for Rangers are in a scale which commences some $18.00 p.w. below that of trades staff and finishes some $155 p.w. above the highest trades rate; compared to Newcastle where Rangers are graded below trades staff. 110 The information provided for Bankstown, where Rangers are subject to a specific agreement, and Warringah is not able to be comprehended without the particular salary scale in use, which is not provided in evidence. 111 The evidence of Ms McDougall confirms the inability of the parties to agree upon a position description and the dispute concerning inclusion of Certificate IV as an essential criteria for the Ranger position. 112 Ms McDougall deposes that she co-ordinated the Mercer job evaluation process by arranging two separate teleconferences to be held with Mercers; one involving Ms Alterator and Mr Gilligan; the other with Rangers and the USU. Ms McDougall attended both conferences. 113 Ms McDougall deposes that the Council's "normal" job evaluation procedure allows for only the relevant manager to provide explanatory advice to the evaluation. 114 Ms McDougall confirms that on advice from her to the Rangers and USU of the outcome of the job evaluation, which confirmed salary range 4-6, the USU responded, asserting: · The process of evaluation was not followed in accordance with what had been agreed during discussions. · There is a perception that the process was tainted by management · The process lacks transparency · The process does not demonstrate equity across the organisation or the Local Government industry · The employees have not been provided with adequate training 115 Ms McDougall defends the allegations, deposing that: · separate teleconferences were performed to allow employers to speak without constraint of management presence in preference to a joint teleconference or discussion with management only; · the position description and final job evaluation questionnaire had been provided to Mercers; · it is not the practice of the Council to reveal work value points as previously advised to the Rangers and the USU; · the Council had made comparisons requested by the USU and had offered to undertake further comparative analysis if the USU could identify suitable organisations, which had been rejected by the USU. 116 Ms McDougall notes that of the six councils surveyed only two specified Certificate IV and only one required completion of both Ranger Modules 1 and 2, whilst the others did not specify any formal qualifications. 117 Ms McDougall deposes that the Rangers received training, attaching training records for each ranger to her statement (Ex 20, attach. 12). Analysis of this information reveals a diverse and quantifiably different level of training for each Ranger, which presents as inconsistent with a common position description, competency standards and flexibility of work allocation in a teamwork approach. 118 Ms McDougall deposes that she participated in a meeting with Rangers and management on 28 June 2004 in accordance with stage 5 of the Council's dispute resolution process. The outcome is documented in correspondence to the USU (Ex 20, attach. 11): Council is prepared to commit to exploring payment of 94% of Salary Point 7 or other appropriate salary conditions in the context of negotiating a satisfactory LAWA reflecting outcomes of the Service Level Review.

The LAWA would need to provide for achievement of service objectives that have been identified by the Council. While the Service Level Review has not yet been finalised, the types of service objectives arising out of the Review are- · a change to the emphasis of the Rangers duties to a more proactive and educative focus supporting the regulatory component This may require different qualifications of Rangers; · introduction of a job distribution system incorporating GPS and duress facility in order to allocate work and ensure safety of our employees; · change in the number of Rangers on duty at any time particularly weekends; · removal of historical arrangements in relation to working public holidays, hours of work and days of the week; · greater flexibility of hours eg a movement to sunrise to sunset (therefore changing throughout the year); · flexibility of working arrangements; · introduction of an annualised salary for Rangers. 119 Ms Deborah Alterator is employed by the Council as Manager Health and Environmental Services. 120 Ms Alterator deposes that she is required to fulfil a leadership and management role in respect to the overall activities and programs of the Health and Environmental Services Unit which includes Mr Gilligan and the Ranger team. 121 Ms Alterator's evidence is that she provides direction and advice on operational, strategic and policy development issues, monitors work performance of the teams and provides direction on training and development. 122 Ms Alterator deposes that she is required to have an understanding of the broader organisational issues that confront the service unit and how the individual services are designed to achieve the overall objectives. Ms Alterator put that these responsibilities require her to interact with staff members and direct their duties to varying degrees. 123 Ms Alterator confirms that at a Companion Animal Team meeting in February 2002 the then Ranger Role Statement was correct, but not sufficiently specific to illustrate the position requirements for members of the evaluation panel. Ms Alterator deposes that a series of meeting took place in September through November (2002) which expanded detail of the Role Statement resulting in acceptance of a revised document submitted for evaluation in December 2002. 124 Ms Alterator's evidence is that consequent upon requests by the USU in October 2003 for re-evaluation of the position, the Role Statement was modified into the current position description and job evaluation questionnaire format. 125 Ms Alterator deposes that subsequent to further input from team members, Mr Gilligan and herself reviewed the documentation to determine the final form to be put to Mercers for evaluation. 126 Ms Alterator confirms that she and Mr Gilligan were interviewed by Mercers. 127 The evidence of Ms Alterator is that the service level review of Ranger functions is separate from the current dispute concerning the evaluation process and subsequent salary SUBMISSIONS

128 The USU seeks placement of the Ranger position at SP 7 in the Council's salary structure. The USU submits that consideration of this matter must be in the context of cl 4 of the 2003 Award (now cl 20 of the 2006 Award) and the OCR Job Evaluation Model as adopted by the Council 129 The USU submits that the Council has not met its obligations under the Award and the job evaluation process by failing to ensure that the key elements and underpinning principles have been adhered to. 130 The USU contends that examination of the application of the Award and Job Evaluation system in light of the evidence must result in a conclusion that the Ranger positions have been undervalued. 131 The USU relies upon the judgment of his Honour Justice Marks in Harris v Murrurundi Council [1995] NSWIRC 96 (Matter No CT 1048 of 1995, 19 June 1995) for authority that Council policy forms part of the contract of employment and accordingly is binding upon both parties. 132 The USU submits that the evidence demonstrates that the Council's Rangers are placed in the salary scale at the level of truck driver or higher grade labourer, compared to rangers at comparable councils undertaking the same or similar duties who are placed at the level of tradesperson or engineers. 133 The USU submits that having regard to the role and responsibility of Rangers, which is not accurately described in their position description, the legislation they are required to implement, and interaction with the public, their placement in the pay scale at SP 4-6 undervalues the position having regard to:

Co-ordinators SP 10-16 Responsible for dealing with public complaints or issues with the public on behalf of gangers

Depot storemen SP 7 Front end loader and forklift qualifications

compared to rangers at councils surveyed from Grade 8 to Grade 12. 134 The Council submits that the remedy sought by recommendation or direction pursuant to s 136(1)(a) of the Act be declined and the matter concluded. 135 The Council notes the issues of dispute set out in the notification and confirmed in the s 146A agreement made between the parties. 136 The Council submits that items (a) and (c) relate to work value which, in its argument, require application of the Work Value Principle set out in the 2003 State Wage Case (2003) 121 IR 446, which the Council puts has not altered in any material way during the course of these proceedings. 137 The Council notes the strict tests required of the Work Value Principle and the settled law in the application thereof. The Council submits: 8. The law regarding the application of the Work Value Change Principle is well settled (see Crown Employees (Teachers in Schools and TAFE and Related Employees) Salaries and Conditions Award [2004] NSWIRComm 114 at 87; Re Public Hospital Nurses' (State) Award No 4 [2003] NSWIRComm 442 at 16-22). The work value principle imposes a significant burden on an applicant to demonstrate a significant net addition to work requirements so as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification. Changes in work by themselves may not justify an increase in wages. In many occupations, particularly professional occupations, change, and the requirement to cope with it by coming to terms with new methods and new technology, is an inherent and accepted characteristic of the employment and rarely will this evolutionary process attract extraordinary wage increases under the work value principle [2003] NSWIRComm 442 at 18. 138 The Council submits that the USU do not seek the creation of a new classification but movement of the position to Grade 7 within the Award. The Council notes that the 2003 Award has been replaced by the 2006 Award. 139 The Council also addresses submissions to the Special Case Principle of the State Wage Case Fixation Principles, putting:

12. To the extent the matters in dispute relate to matters other than work value, the Commission should note and apply the Special Case Principle at principle 10 of the Wage Fixing Principles (121 IR 446), which provides as follows: "Except for the flow on of test case provisions, any claim for increases in wages and salaries, or changes in conditions in awards, other than those allowed elsewhere in the principles, will be processed as a special case before a Full Bench of the Commission, unless otherwise allocated by the President.

This principle does not apply to applications for awards consented to by the parties, which will be dealt with in the terms of the Act, or to enterprise arrangements, which will be dealt with in accordance with the Enterprise Agreements principle. "

13. The Special Case Principle remains unaltered in the State Wage Case 2006. This application is not concerned with the flow on of test case provisions. There are settled principles for the hearing and determination of applications to which the Special Case Principle applies ( Re Health Employees Pharmacists (State) Award [2003] NSWIRComm 453; Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 384; Re Social and Community Services Employees (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 119; Re Transport Industry (State) Award (1996) 95 IR 126 and Re Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) (State) Award (No 2) (1993) 52 IR 243. In order to satisfy the requirement for a special case, the applicant must demonstrate that the case has "special attributes" or is "out of the ordinary" so as to take it outside the restrictions which may otherwise apply under the wage fixing principles ( Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award ; op cit at 166). In determining such an application, the Commission is to consider whether the claim, in part or in whole, should succeed ( Re Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) (State) Award (no 2) op cit at 376-377). The applicant to a special case must establish an adequate evidentiary foundation for those factors which are relied upon as showing the special case attributes of the case ( Re Health Employees Pharmacists (State) Award op cit at 28; Re Public Hospital Nurses' (State) Award (2002) 115 IR 183 at 13). 140 In addressing application of the Award the Council puts that the terms of the 2006 Award represent the relevant and only applicable industrial instrument. The Council submits that cl 16.1 and cl 20.1 of the 2006 Award prescribe the obligation upon the parties. Cl 16.1 states:

Employment and promotion will be on merit. When assessing merit the following criteria will be considered: Demonstrated competencies;

Qualifications and/or specialist knowledge and/or skill;

Satisfaction or capacity to achieve position selection criteria;

Performance in previous position(s) including attendance and punctuality.

Where a decision on an appointment rests between an internal applicant and an external applicant of equal merit, preference will be given to the internal applicant.

Upon request, unsuccessful internal applicants will be given in writing the reasons for not being appointed. 141 The Council submits that the Ranger position has been subject to various forms of evaluation by Council and independent persons from 2000, putting that in October 2000 the consolidation of Animal Control Officer and Ordinance Officer was evaluated at SP 4-6. The Council notes in its submission that resulting from competency assessments all Rangers were ultimately placed at Grade 5 from the date of appointment to the Ranger position.

142 Subsequent competency assessments resulted in Ms Pont moving to Grade 6 in October 2004; Mr Atkins to SP 6 from October 2005; and Mr Prout to SP 6 on 22 May 2006. Others are yet to meet competency requirements for SP 6.

143 The Council submits that there is no evidence that Council's job evaluation panel or any member of the panel made an error or omission in evaluating the Ranger's role in either 2000 or 2002.

144 The Council puts that an independent evaluation was conducted by Mercers in 2004, submitting that the relevant aspects of the valuation process are: 32. The evidence is that in conducting its evaluation of the Ranger role, Mercer: (a) were provided with the Job Evaluation Questionnaire and Position Description;

(b) conducted detailed telephone discussions on 31 March 2004 with Ms Alterator and Mr Gilligan, and then with the Rangers and Mr Peter Collins of the Union regarding the duties, responsibilities and qualifications required in the role ;

(c) undertook a work value assessment of the Ranger role using the OCR evaluation system, and evaluated the role based on the information provided in writing and the telephone discussions;

(d) regarded the information provided by Council and the Unions as essentially the same, with the emphasis varying in certain areas;

(e) noted that Council had employed persons with no prior experience and who with approximately 2 weeks training were competent to perform the major components of the role;

(f) discounted the Certificate IV - Local Government Qualification on the basis that Council did not consider this qualification necessary for the role; and

(g) identified that if the independent evaluation conducted by Mercers differed from 'internal equity' within Council, then a more detailed analysis and review may be required. 145 Council do not resile from the fact that the job evaluation questionnaire provided to Mercers included only those comments and alterations by the USU and Rangers which Council agreed with, and did not include those disputed.

146 The Council submits that the Key Result Areas (KRAs) of the Ranger position fall into two categories; the first and dominant category accounting for 90 per cent of the total role broadly described as enforcing a range of statutory instruments; the second concerned with improvements to customer service processes. Council submits that despite minor alteration to the position description, this has not changed since establishment of the Ranger position in 2000. Council submits that there is no evidence that the Mercer evaluation was conducted improperly or tainted by bias, or differed from any internal equity.

147 Council relies upon the evidence of Mr Gilligan (Ex 17) in respect to the work undertaken by Rangers.

148 Council submits: 36. Exhibit 17 shows that the Rangers are responsible for undertaking a range of compliance and complaints based activities: Cats Feral, Cats Surrender/Nuisance/Straying, Dogs Attacking, Dogs Barking, Dogs Defecating, Dogs Surrender, Dogs Nuisance, Dogs Straying/Impounding, Leash Free Areas Dogs, Aggressive Birds, Livestock Impounding, Abandoned Vehicles, Advertising Signs, Bicycles and Skateboards, Buskers, Spruikers, Stalls, Litter, Obstructions, Parking Enforcement, Rubbish Dumping, Vehicles in Parks/Reserves, and Weight of Loads

37. Approximately 74% of all complaints based work performed by the Rangers is in only five tasks: dogs straying/impounding, abandoned vehicles, dogs nuisance, dogs barking and dogs attacking

38. The evidence is that the number of complaints received and dealt with by the Rangers has increased by around 12% in the period 2000/2001 to 2004/2005, but that the increase in complaints has been dealt with through service efficiencies or task prioritisation. 149 Council submits that all of the Ranger duties are undertaken within written protocols with advice from Mr Gilligan. Council submits that such limited independence and autonomy do not justify SP 7 in Council's salary system.

150 Council submits that the evidence leads to the following conclusions: (a) there is no real dispute over the duties, responsibilities and competencies of the Ranger role;

(b) there is no evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy or reliability of Council's evaluation of the Ranger role in 2000 and 2002;

(c) Mercer's evaluation of the Ranger role was conducted on an impartial and independent basis; and

(d) the Ranger role is correctly evaluated at salary levels 4-6 of Council's salary system.

53. Finally, the Commission must conclude that the Rangers conduct their work within the confines of written protocols issued by Council, and that when Rangers are faced with situations outside the parameters of the relevant protocol, they call their supervisor for advice. The Commission must also conclude this evidence mitigates against a finding that the Ranger role is undervalued in Council's salary system.

151 Council submits that Rangers are not required to hold Certificate IV in Local Government to perform their functions, and accordingly it cannot be regarded as an essential criteria for the position or be any part of the job evaluation process.

152 Council submits that the requirement by other councils that Rangers hold Certificate IV is not relevant to these proceedings. Council rely upon the evidence of Ms McDougall to the effect that: … … only 2 out of 6 councils surveyed in 2003 required Rangers to hold the Certificate IV qualification, and one of those two councils only required part of the qualification. Four of the six councils surveyed required no formal qualifications. 153 Council submits that Ms McDougall's evidence on this point was not challenged in cross examination.

154 Council submits that there is no training or qualification deficiency in the Ranger position.

155 Council refutes the evidence of salary relativity, putting that arrangements at other councils are not properly comparable and the examination of relativity with rates of pay for tradespersons is inappropriate and suffers from lack of evidence of the full range of duties performed by co-ordinators and gangers, further limiting validity of comparison.

156 The USU submits in reply that Council has wrongly identified the present proceedings as a Special Case or Work Value matter brought in accordance with the State Wage Case Fixation Principles.

157 The USU contends that the present matter is a dispute concerning placement in the Council's grading structure, which does not require a new classification. The USU submits that such disputes are relatively common and are traditionally and conveniently resolved as a grievance with the assistance of the Commission. The USU acknowledges the referral agreement made between the parties pursuant to s 146A, noting that a determination or order is sought, not a variation to the Award.

158 The USU notes that the dispute first arose during the term of the 2003 Award. The USU accepts that the relevant industrial instrument is the 2006 Award, putting that examination of policies and procedures applied by the Council in administration of the Award, and the results thereof, are open to examination in dispute proceedings.

159 The USU seeks to bring additional information in respect to the retirement of Mr Prout. This is opposed by Council.

160 I accept the argument put by council that this issue is not available to the USU and accordingly it is excluded.

161 I accept the submission by the USU that this matter is one of dispute over application of the Award and administration of the salary system. This matter is not properly characterised as a Work Value or Special Case to be determined in accordance with the State Wage Case principles.

162 The evidence reveals some disturbing elements of the job evaluation process applied to the Rangers' classification.

163 It is regrettable that Council did not resolve the issues of dispute and disagreement concerning the job evaluation questionnaire before providing a document including only those parts with which it agreed for use by Mercer.

164 It is further regrettable, and I conclude most inappropriate, for the job evaluation interview to be conducted by teleconference, further exacerbated by separate discussions between Mercer, Council management, and employees.

165 Though those events are unfortunate and lead to concern as to the validity of the job evaluation process, the fundamental issue is the correct placement of the Ranger position in the salary scale.

166 I find on the evidence of duties, functions and responsibilities that Rangers are required to carry out a complex and difficult role in the interpretation and implementation of a range of legislation in often emotionally charged circumstances involving hostile members of the public.

167 Rangers provide a front line service in the maintenance of good order in society. While the role may have been that of "dog catcher" many years ago, it has evolved to encompass a broad range of animal control, personal conduct, and ordinance implementation issues. The evidence demonstrates that the role of Ranger is much more than one of animal control. 168 The tasks required of Rangers are assisted by council protocols and management guidance, this does not remove all responsibility and skill from the individual.

169 The evidence of duties carried out demonstrates that Rangers must exercise discretion and take responsibility for application of the protocol.

170 The evidence of Council demonstrates that Rangers have taken on a higher workload which they have managed by application of technology and improvement in processes.

171 I find the assertion that Rangers can carry out their functions after two weeks of instruction to be unsupportable. 172 I make no specific determination about the level of training or the inclusion of Certificate IV in the essential criteria. I direct Council to address those matters in discharge of it's obligations pursuant to cl 9, Learning and Development of the Award.

173 I determine that the Ranger classification engaged by Newcastle City Council is properly placed at salary point 7 of the Newcastle City Council Salary System. 174 Matter No IRC 4383 of 2004 is so concluded. oo0oo

AMENDMENTS HISTORY: 08/11/2006 - incorrect copy initially imported - Paragraph(s) 1-174

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.