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

NSW Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union v Newcastle City Council Re Alleged Failure To Size Position of Ranger - [2007] NSWIRComm 320 - NSWIRComm 2007 case summary — Zoe

[106]

51 The evidence of Mr Randall is that: 16. The two most important technological changes since 1995 have been the introduction of satellite positioning and the commissioning of the multibeam echosounder system (MBES). Satellite positioning was introduced by the Section in 1998 and this saw a substantial increase in productivity from the Section, so much so that when one of the Survey Officers left the Section in mid-1998, it was decided not to replace that position. The multibeam echosounder system was set-up in late 2004 by the Port Surveyor and the Survey Technicians, one of whom is the present Hydrographic Surveyor. Multibeam echosounders are state-of-the-art technology for hydrographic surveying and the NPC's system is equivalent to world's best practice for port and harbour surveys. The previous system used a single-beam echosounder, the main difference from a multibeam echosounder being the coverage of the port bed: single beam echosounders collect depth data in a single track beneath the vessel, whereas multibeam echosounders collect depth data in a swath (or cross section) approximately 50 metres wide (depending on water depth) perpendicular to the track of the vessel. This means that, with multibearn echosounders, 100% coverage of the port bed is obtained while with single-beam echosounders, coverage is determined by the spacing between vessel tracks (which are commonly 5-20 metres apart). For the MBES to produce depths across the full swath to the required level of accuracy, it uses a number of complex sensors and controlling software, all of which require careful inputs from the operator. 52 Mr Randall deposed that the MBES has an application in port security; provides critical depth data to the Swell Analysis and Underkeel Clearance System (SAUCS) used by pilots in planning shipping movements, and provides information which improves the efficiency of dredging work carried out by the NPC dredger, the David Allan. 53 Mr Randall acknowledged that although the SAUCS could function with information from the single-beam echosounder it is far more effective with data from the MBES. 54 Mr Randall deposed that in implementation of SAUCS he was required to verify accuracy of depth data produced by the MBES which he put was an onerous responsibility as there are many sources of error contributing to depth data. Mr Randall was advised by the manufacturer of the MBES that data could be accepted plus or minus 0.1 metres with 95% confidence level. Mr Randall deposed that he, and in a separate study the NPC's University scholarship student, undertook quality assurance performance tests which verified this level of accuracy. The evidence of Mr Randall is that this level of accuracy exceeds the maritime standard included in the Principles for Gathering and Processing Hydrographic Information in Australian Ports, published by the Australian Association of Ports and Marine Authorities, the national body advising ports on hydrographic survey. 55 Mr Randall deposed that introduction of the MBES has brought additional responsibility and skill requirements which he described in the following terms: 22. Because of the complex nature of the components of the MBES, there are many areas where the system can fail, so causing downtime in the hydrographic survey program. All manufacturers/suppliers of equipment and software are based in either Europe or America. This means that the Hydrographic Surveyor and I have needed to become adept at trouble- shooting breakdowns in the system to ensure that downtime is minimised. This requires a high-level of understanding of and insight into the functioning of all components and software that make up the full system. 56 Mr Randall deposed that further additional responsibilities since 1995 include the introduction of a Quality Assurance Standards and System to meet requirements of the Port Safety Operating Licence; the supervision of a student in the University of Newcastle Industrial Scholarship Scheme, which he described as mutually satisfying and rewarding, resulting in the student achieving the double degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and Bachelor of Surveying with first class honours in each degree; and provision of information to the recently created position of Director of Strategic Projects.

[107]

57 The evidence of Mr Randall is that 63 hydrographic surveys are required to complete the annual survey program, with another 30 to 40 surveys carried out annually for dredging or project work. 58 Mr Randall deposed that each survey requires approximately five hours of field work to collect data, followed by collation of that data into a useful report. The evidence of Mr Randall is that office time required to process data from the single-beam echosounder was approximately five hours, however, the MBES collects fifty times the data increasing processing time to twenty hours, which has been reduced to between 10 and 15 hours with two years' experience and purchase of more efficient software which he put remains well in excess of the work required with a single-beam system to be undertaken with one less staff member. 59 Mr Randall detailed other major changes to work methodologies and responsibilities since the 1995 job evaluation in the following terms: (i) the Harbour Master relies on me to assist in the preparation of the regular Depth Notices which port users use for draft calculations for shipping movements; (ii) the 3-monthly Dredging Priorities are now prepared by me (formerly prepared by the now defunct position of Marine Maintenance Manager) and include volumes of material to be removed; (iii) the Harbour Master now relies on me to supervise external dredging contractors since the abolition of the Marine Maintenance Manager position; (iv) the licence to dredge the berths and channels under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act is now administered by me (formerly administered by the Marine Maintenance Manager); (v) since the retirement of one-time Property Manager, Peter Blume (who himself was a Registered Land Surveyor) in September 1995, the responsibility of managing external survey contractors has passed to the Port Surveyor position; (vi) similarly, the retirement of Peter Blume has meant that the responsibility of providing expert advice on land title matters has also passed to the Port Surveyor position, with a subsequent saving on legal fees in many instances; (vii) the Port Surveyor now has full responsibility for the Section operating budget, whereas this was the responsibility of the Harbour Master in 1995; (viii) as a result of changes in management techniques in 2000, the Port Surveyor now has full responsibility for preparing the Section's annual business plan, including reporting on progress against it and accounting for departures from planned outcomes; and (ix) as Port Surveyor, I am now required to be a member of the following committees and groups, which was not a requirement of the 1995 position responsibilities: (a) the Operations Branch Management Team, (b) the David Allan Shipboard Management Team, (c) the Quality Management Review Team, (d) the IT Steering Group Committee, (e) the Survey Industry Liaison Committee at the University of Newcastle, as the public authority surveyor representative, (f) the Survey Course Advisory Committee at the University of Newcastle, as the public authority surveyor representative, (g) the UNISS (University of Newcastle Industrial Scholarship Scheme) Steering Committee as the NPC's representative. and (h) the Survey & Mapping Managers Forum as the NPC's representative.

[112]

72 Mr Connors deposed that in the course of his almost 33 years of employment in this position he was employed by the Maritime Services Board of NSW, a predecessor to NPC, and had become familiar with the work of the Survey Section and equivalent positions in what are now the Port of Sydney and the NSW Maritime Authority. 73 Mr Connors' evidence is that he has read the statements of Mr Nusco and Mr Woolfenden. 74 Mr Connors evidence is (TR 11/10/07, pp 42, 43): A. Well, I would envisage my position at Newcastle Port Corporation to be somewhere in between the two positions of senior hydrographic surveyor and hydrographic surveyor. There are similarities in the positions, in all positions and there are also differences. For instance, we have differences in Newcastle where because of the multi beam echo sounding system and the quality and quantity of data enables us to also do additional surveys such as port bed clearance surveys, security surveys and object definition surveys. Other things that we touched that are in my job description that aren't in the other hydrographic surveyor positions are computer aided drafting, which is a substantial part of our job description, which involves using CAD techniques to prepare plans such as lease plans, strategy plans, engineering plans. These aren't touched on by any of the hydrographic surveyors in either Sydney Corporation. Other things that we do here in Newcastle, the hydrographic surveyor does here in Newcastle, is also dredging support. The NPC has a dredger and we offer support to the dredger. That includes things such as configuration files for the dredge, updating its data base, transferring data bases to them. We also have an environmental response which Sydney I believe do so also, but we're also trained in the use of GIS to be able to manipulate and access the OSRICS, which is the oil spill atlas. 75 Mr Connors confirmed that he agreed with the position description for NPC Hydrographic Surveyor used in the job evaluation process. 76 Mr Connors was taken to analysis of the Sydney Ports Corporation Senior Hydrographic Surveyor and Hydrographic Surveyor in the evidence of Mr Callaghan (Ex 20, attach. DC13). Mr Connors' evidence is that he undertakes eight of the eleven functions of the Hydrographic Surveyor and seven of the eleven functions of the Sydney Ports Corporation Senior Hydrographic Surveyor. 77 The most significant difference is that the Sydney Ports Corporation Hydrographic Surveyor is required to: · Give advice as a Hydrographic Surveyor including Cadastral as a registered (degree qualified) surveyor experienced to gain Hydrographic Surveyor Certificate · Obtain quotes and recommend engagement of consultants · Required to be a member of various committees 78 The NPC Hydrographic Surveyor is not required to undertake these functions. 79 Mr Connors deposed that there are some functions of the NSW Maritime Authority Survey Technician which he does not perform, however, he does undertake the majority of the tasks identified in the Maritime Authority position.

[113]

Mr Frederick Eckford 80 Mr Eckford has been employed in the marine industry for 19 years and holds a certificate of competency as a coxswain. Mr Eckford was employed by NSW Maritime where he gained experience in using global satellite positioning systems (GPS) and marine survey work prior to joining NPC as a Survey Officer on 29 January 2006. 81 Mr Eckford deposed that Mr Francis, subsequently the job expert in the evaluation process, had occupied the Survey Officer position prior to his appointment. Mr Eckford's evidence is that Mr Francis assisted him in the early stages of employment by providing job specific information. Mr Eckford deposed that the work he performs is the same as that required of Mr Francis during his time as Survey Officer. 82 Mr Eckford's evidence is that the Survey Officer is primarily responsible for helmsman's duties on the survey vessel, maintenance of all survey plant and equipment, and acts as instrument operator and/or field hand for land and engineering surveys. 83 Mr Eckford addressed changes to the position of Survey Officer at para 15 of his statement (Exhibit 5) in the following terms: Since 1995 the Newcastle Port Corporation has upgraded its primary survey vessel with state of the art, world's best practice survey equipment consisting of multibeam technology. Along with this technology came the added responsibilities, skills and knowledge for the Survey Officer Position to operate and maintain this equipment with risk pertaining to damage costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. · Cost replacement vessel fitted with single beam - Approx 250 thousand dollars · Cost replacement vessel fitted with multibeam - Approx 1 million dollars · An increase of 300% in responsibility pertaining to damage and maintenance. 84 Mr Eckford agreed with the position description for the Survey Officer used in the evaluation process. 85 In his oral evidence Mr Eckford deposed that his salary at Level 8 in the NPC is less than his salary as a Survey Officer when employed by NSW Maritime. Mr Eckford deposed that he was required to undertake more functions with a greater degree of responsibility in the NPC position compared to NSW Maritime. Mr Eckford described these as (TR 3/9/07,p60): … … greater input into integral part of the survey section and more functions relating to the multi beam technology calibrations as well as occupational health and safety. Mr Tony Nusco

[114]

86 The evidence of Mr Tony Nusco is by statement (Exhibit 6). Mr Nusco was not required for cross examination. 87 Mr Nusco is employed as Senior Hydrographic Surveyor with the Sydney Ports Corporation and has been working in the survey industry since 1971, specialising in the hydrographic area from 1976. Mr Nusco is an accredited Hydrographic Surveyor Level 1 in the specialism Surveys for Coastal Zone Management. 88 Mr Nusco deposed that his salary is $87,217 p.a. with an at risk component of $4,360, which is 5% performance management. 89 The position description, which details the job objectives and accountability, for the position held by Mr Nusco, and the Sydney Ports Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2004-2007 is attached to his statement. The position description describes the main purpose of the position in the following terms: Plan, organise and execute hydrographic and engineering survey services to maintain Port Safety Operating Licence requirements for the Corporation. Schedule and coordinate the survey and coastal activities to ensure they are carried out within the Corporations time and budget constraints. Advise internal and external stakeholders on Hydrographic, Geographic, Tidal and Survey matters as a Level 1 Accredited Hydrographic Surveyor. Prepare and negotiate contracts for the section and make recommendations. Manage the operation of the Corporation tide gauges and supervise provision and distribution of tidal information as required. Assist with maintaining all aspects of the survey quality system including documentation necessary to retain the Survey Section's accreditation to AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000. 90 Key areas of responsibility are identified as: 1. Hydrographic Surveys 2. Team Co-ordination 3. Consultants 4. Financial Control 5. Professional Specialist 6. Data Management 7. Risk Management 91 Mr Nusco's evidence is that: The role of Hydrographic Surveyor is similar in any Port. The safety of ships is paramount and it needs a person with high surveying abilities and knowledge to maintain the Port safe and operational. The Newcastle Hydrographic Surveyors perform similar functions to Hydrographic Surveyors in Sydney Ports. Mr Peter Woolfenden 92 The evidence of Mr Peter Woolfenden is by statement (Exhibit 7). Mr Woolfenden was not required for cross examination. 93 Mr Woolfenden is employed as a Technician Surveyor with the NSW Maritime Authority and has been working in the survey industry since 1972. Mr Woolfenden is an accredited Hydrographic Surveyor Level 2 in the specialism Surveys for Coastal Zone Management. 94 The position description for the position held by Mr Woolfenden is attached to his statement. Also attached is the Waterways Authority of NSW Enterprise Agreement 2004-2007. 95 Mr Woolfenden deposed that his salary is Level MA 13, $79,610 p.a. 96 Mr Woolfenden's evidence is that the role of Technician Surveyor is similar to that of Hydrographic Surveyor at NPC without the emphasis on hydrographic surveying of commercial shipping channels. 97 Mr Woolfenden's position description provides an organisational overview of the position in the following terms: 3. ORGANISATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

[121]

98 Mr Webb's evidence is by affidavit (Exhibit 17) and oral deposition. 99 Mr Webb commenced employment with the NPC as a Surveyor in February 1989, progressing to Survey Manager; Marine Maintenance Manager; and General Manager Operations prior to appointment as CEO from 1 October 2004. 100 Mr Webb holds a Bachelor of Surveying with Honours from the University of New South Wales and a range of other qualifications including TAFE accreditation as a teacher of surveying. 101 Mr Webb was the job expert in the second review of the Port Surveyor position conducted on 23 April 2007. Mr Webb deposed that he met with the job evaluation panel and answered questions, some of which were provided in writing prior to the panel convening. Mr Webb's evidence is that once he had completed answers to all questions put to him by the panel he withdrew and took no further part in that process. 102 The advice by Mr Webb to the second job evaluation panel is recorded in the evidence of Mr Maddison. 103 Mr Webb deposed that the function of the Survey Section has not changed since the positions were subject to job evaluation in 1995. Mr Webb's evidence is that the equipment used to gather data has changed and will continue to change. 104 Mr Webb deposed that the Survey Section is not required to make decisions in respect to vessel movements or harbour maintenance but to provide information to those sections of NPC which carry responsibility for those aspects. Mr Webb put (Exhibit 17, para 30): As with any surveyor, the Survey section is required to understand the equipment they are using such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Multibeam Echosounder (MBES). This is reflected in the position descriptions for the Port Surveyor and Hydrographic Surveyor reviewed in January 2007. 105 Mr Webb deposed that any pressure felt by the Survey Section was from volume of work not additional responsibility or accountability, adding that the volume was managed by the use of contractors as required. Mr Simon Lobley

[122]

106 The evidence of Mr Lobley is by affidavit (Exhibit 11) and oral deposition. 107 Mr Lobley has been employed by the NPC since 1989 and is currently in the position of Master Engineer. Mr Lobley progressed to this position by internal promotion from Seaman on the dredge "EOK Green", Port Officer Grade 1, then Engineer/Deck Hand Grade 2 on the pilot vessel. 108 Mr Lobley deposed that he was trained in the OCR process in March 2006 and has been a member of a number of evaluation panels, including the panel for the Port Surveyor/Hydrographic Surveyor and Survey Officer convened on 29 January 2007 and the second review convened on 23 April 2007. 109 Mr Lobley's evidence is that each panel observed the OCR process, took appropriate information from the designated job expert and concluded evaluation from the OCR points table. 110 Mr Lobley deposed that he was not aware of the outcome of the first review (29 January 2007) at the time he participated in the second review of 23 April 2007. 111 Mr Lobley's evidence is that, in settling upon the score for each of the four OCR descriptors in respect to the Port Surveyor, Mr Maddison advised panel members of the points to grade score applicable to the Port Services Manager position. In assessing the Hydrographic Surveyor comparison was made with the Port Surveyor. 112 Mr Lobley deposed that his role did not go beyond establishing a points to grade score for each of the four OCR descriptors. The resultant OCR points and salary level were undertaken by Mr Maddison from the relevant OCR Manual. Mr Lobley did not participate in this process and is unaware of the outcome. 113 In cross examination Mr Lobley was taken to the job evaluation score sheets for the Port Surveyor position ( Ex 13, 29 January 2007; Ex 14, 23 April 2007) and Hydrographic Surveyor (Ex 15, 29 January 2007; Ex 16, 23 April 2007). 114 Compared to the first evaluation of 29 January 2007 the second evaluation of the Port Surveyor position on 23 April 2007 downgraded Knowledge Skills and Experience from 13 to 12; Problem Solving from 12 to 11/12; Communicating and Influencing from 12/13 to 12; and Accountability and Responsibility from 13 to 12, resulting in a reduction in total score from 607/50 to 526 and a reduction in recommended salary level from 17 to 16. 115 Mr Lobley explained that where there was a difference of view in the panel a dual score such as 12/13 was recorded. 116 Mr Lobley could not recall the basis on which different assessments were reached, however, did put that the information from Mr Webb as the job expert in the second evaluation process was, while no different, more in depth than sought by Mr Norman in the first evaluation.

[125]

Mr David Callaghan 130 Mr Callaghan is employed by NPC as General Manager Finance and Corporate Services, a position he has held since 1 November 2003. Mr Callaghan commenced employed with the Maritime Services Board - Hunter Port Authority (now NPC) on 29 May 1995 as the Financial Accountant. Prior to his current position Mr Callaghan was employed by NPC as Compliance and Risk Manager from October 2000 to July 2003. 131 Mr Callaghan's evidence is by affidavit (Exhibit 20) and oral deposition. 132 The evidence of Mr Callaghan is that he had no direct input to the OCR job evaluation process, however, he reviewed the outcome with regard to internal and external relativities. 133 The principle issue taken by the Unions is the ultimate fixing of salary levels different to those resulting from the panel analysis on the basis of internal and external relativities 134 Mr Callaghan deposed that in addressing the internal relativities he satisfied himself that the position description was accurate and correctly reflected the business needs. Mr Callaghan put that there was no issue with this aspect and he then turned to consideration of equivalent positions having regard to role, responsibility, delegations to ensure that the internal relativity was fair, equitable and consistent with the rest of the organisation. 135 Mr Callaghan deposed that he compared the valuation outcome for the [Randall] position with the Safety and Environment Manager, the Finance Manager, and a recently evaluated position of Commercial Property Manager. Mr Callaghan was unsure whether the latter position was titled Property Manager at the time it was valued during the recruitment phase for the position. 136 Mr Callaghan deposed that positions above and below the relevant position were also considered, citing the Port Services Manager position which has a larger number of direct reports than the Surveyor position and attracts remuneration two levels higher. 137 Mr Callaghan's evidence is that the Port Services Manager is responsible for approximately 30 staff, is responsible for many aspects of the Port Safety Operating Licence, and has a financial delegation of between half to one million dollars per annum, compared to the delegation of the Port Surveyor position of about two hundred thousand dollars per annum. 138 In addressing the technological advancement and continuous improvement in the Survey Section Mr Callaghan deposed that these are an inherent feature of the organisation. 139 The evidence of Mr Callaghan acknowledged that Mr Randall had taken a leading role in the introduction of the MBES and GPS systems. Mr Callaghan confirmed that Mr Randall had recommended the reduction of one Survey Officer on introduction of the GPS and had researched and prepared the capital expenditure proposal for the MBES. 140 Mr Callaghan's evidence is that other positions on Level 16 include the Finance Manager position, which is constantly required to implement new technology and improve information output; the Information Technology section which faces a complete change in the infrastructure employed every three to four years; the Vessel Traffic Information Centre which is required to introduce new technology and co-ordinate its application with the Harbour Pilots. 141 Mr Callaghan noted that the second evaluation was consistent with internal relativities. 142 Mr Callaghan described the review against external relativities as a broadly based process taking information from the Port of Sydney, NSW Maritime Authority, the Port of Brisbane, Flinders in South Australia, and Maritime Safety Queensland, all of which have hydrographic survey capability. 143 Mr Callaghan's evidence is that some external corporations were higher and some were lower, which, while there is no attempt to find a line of best fit, the external results provided a level of assurance that the OCR process and internal relativities had been correctly applied. 144 Mr Callaghan's evidence is that this process was undertaken for the positions of Hydrographic Surveyor and Survey Officer with similar results. 145 The evidence of Mr Callaghan is that, as a consequence of the review of internal and external relativities, he and the General Manager Operations made a recommendation to the Chief Executive that salary levels be set at Level 16 for Port Surveyor and Hydrographic Surveyor and Level 8 for Survey Officer. This recommendation was accepted.

[128]

158 Mr Fleming referred to a Decision of the Commission as presently constituted in NSW Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union v Newcastle City Council Re Alleged Failure To Size Position of Ranger [2006] NSWIRComm 352 ("Rangers Case") as authority for review of job evaluation and appropriate principles. 159 Mr Smith did not dispute that the Rangers Case was good case law, however, submitted that the circumstances are distinguishable by reference to the components of the OCR process and the rigorous application of the process by NPC. 160 I accept the submission of Mr Smith in this regard. Each case must be considered on its own merits within the framework of the job evaluation system applied. 161 The case presented by the NPC has within it an insurmountable contradiction. 162 The overwhelming evidence of Messrs Webb, Lobley, Francis, Maddison and McLelland is that the OCR job evaluation process was properly and correctly carried out. 163 Contrary to this evidence management declined to accept the outcome on the basis of internal and external relativities. 164 Acceptance that the OCR process was properly applied poses further contradiction arising from the differing results from the first and second reviews. The only consistency is in the evaluation of the Hydrographic Surveyor at Grade 13 on each occasion. 165 The evidence suggests that the job evaluation panel outcomes are influenced by the perception of the relevant job expert. The evidence in this matter allows a balanced consideration of the views of the job expert, the incumbent, and relevant management. 166 The submission of the NPC that the result of the first job evaluation be disregarded and the second evaluation the only one considered relevant is to deny the facts of the matter and the application of the disputes settlement procedure. Both job evaluation outcomes are relevant to consideration. Survey Officer 167 The Survey Officer was valued at Grade 9 on the first occasion and Grade 10 on the second. 168 The evidence that internal and external relativities suggest Grade 8 as the appropriate salary level is not made out in the face of evidence from Mr Eckford that his duties as Survey Officer at NPC are greater than those performed by him in the same position at NSW Maritime, yet the salary is less. 169 Having regard to the evidence in respect to duties and responsibilities of the Survey Officer I determine that the appropriate salary level for the Survey Officer Position is Grade 9. 170 I conclude that it is unsafe to accept Grade 10 having regard to internal relativities with the Cutter Master and Port Officer, however, there is no difficulty in adopting Grade 9. Port Surveyor 171 The evidence discloses substantial change in the duties and significant productivity increase from the introduction and adoption of GPS equipment and the multibeam echosounder. The evidence further discloses that Mr Randall was a driving force in the introduction of this technology. It was Mr Randall who researched the capability, put the capital expenditure submission to management, and was responsible for commissioning of the equipment. 172 Mr Randall, in his role as Port Surveyor, assisted by the Hydrographic Surveyor, was responsible for effective implementation and application of the equipment. 173 The evidence of Mr Webb that technology has changed and will continue to change supports a view that the Port Surveyor will hold a responsibility to keep abreast of new technology, evaluate its use, make appropriate advice to management, and implement in the manner attributed to the position in respect to the MBES. This is an ongoing responsibility different to a requirement to simply implement new technology. 174 This is confirmed by the evidence of Mr Callaghan which includes the Strategic Project Development Plan (Ex 20, attach. DC3) and the Budget Allocation Report compiled by Mr Randall in respect to the MBES. 175 The evidence of Mr Callaghan is that the Port Surveyor was also responsible for evaluation of the MBES, which he discharged in a report in January 2007 which included a recommendation for increasing desktop calculating speed by introduction of new computer systems and increasing the efficiency of data collection by increasing survey vessel speed. Mr Callaghan deposed that the NPC has made provision for a new survey vessel within the next two years. 176 While this matter is not a work value case there is sufficient evidence to support the outcome of the OCR process which concluded salary level 17 for the Port Surveyor position. 177 I am not convinced that there is sufficient argument to discount this position on the basis of internal relativities. The argument advanced by the NPC that internal relativities will be compromised, that a salary level higher than Grade 16 would be unfair to other employees, and that industrial disharmony could result is rejected by the Union. 178 There is no evidence to support the contention of the NPC in this regard. 179 I accept the submissions of Mr Fleming that determination of a salary level above Grade 16 for the Port Surveyor will have no detrimental effect upon other employees or relationships. 180 The evidence is that internal relativities were considered by the OCR job evaluation panels in an appropriate manner in arriving at the conclusions reached. 181 The evidence of Messrs Sorensen, Callaghan and Webb to the effect that the Survey Section is responsible for accurate information to decision makers within the operational and functional arms of the organisation place it in a specialist category. The changes in work and work value relied upon by the job evaluation panels go beyond the mere rollover of technology to substantive change in the nature of the work and responsibility of the positions in the Survey Section. This is emphasised by the introduction of a range of management systems, the most prominent being SAUCS, which rely upon accurate data from the Survey Section. The Port Surveyor is the responsible professional leading the Survey Section and the salary should reflect that fact. 182 Having regard to the nature of the survey work it is difficult to made direct internal comparisons with line managers for whom salaries are set having regard to the number of employees and dollar expenditures. 183 The evidence supports the conclusion that the Port Surveyor is a senior position requiring a high level of specialist expertise providing authoritative advice and information on survey matters up to the level of the CEO. The Port Surveyor position requires a strategic focus in managing a complex section with minimal review from the next level of management. 184 I determine the appropriate salary level for the Port Surveyor position at Grade 17 as found by the first job evaluation panel. Hydrographic Surveyor

[130]

188 The Unions seek an operative date in January 2007. 189 Mr Fleming submitted that the NPC had first agreed to revise position descriptions in 2003. 190 Position descriptions used for the job evaluation process subject to these proceedings were concluded on 19 January 2007. 191 The NPC seeks a prospective date. 192 The issue of appropriate operative date from job evaluation proceedings was considered by the Commission as presently constituted in Notification Under Section 130 By Pacific Power Of A Dispute With The Construction, Forestry, Mining And Energy Union Of Australia, New South Wales Division And Others Re Work Restrictions - Eraring Power Station (Matter No IRC 2973 of 1997, 17 June 1999, unreported). In that matter reference was made to the Decision of his Honour Marks J in Matters No IRC 200 of 1995 and 280 of 1995 (22 May 1995, unreported) concerning job evaluation disputes at Munmorah Power Station ("the Munmorah Case"). 193 In the Munmorah Case Marks J held that: I start with the proposition colloquially expressed to the effect that employees should receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Accordingly, if a work position is determined as a result of a complex work evaluation process as attracting a certain range of salary, prima facie that range of salary should be applied to the employees concerned for all of the period during which that work is performed. … … For all of the above reasons it is my opinion that the claims of these employees should be determined on the basis that the operative date and any increase in grading of an existing and evaluated position will be the date from which it is agreed the duties of the position can be identified as having substantially changed. 194 It was recognised in these decisions that there may be legitimate circumstances of delay and that the date of signing off on the relevant position description is an appropriate reference point. 195 The appropriate date of operation is 19 January 2007, the date of approval of the position descriptions by the CEO, which is effective agreement between the parties that the duties, functions and responsibilities which are the foundation of the job evaluation process were actually being undertaken by the employees. 196 On the evidence in this matter and for the reasons set out above I determine the following salary grades:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (132 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)