1 This Statement is the penultimate step in the resolution of a major industrial case involving the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. The case proceeded on the basis of two applications by the Health Services Union and three counter-applications by the NSW Department of Health.
2 The union applications respectively sought a new Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award and a new Ambulance Service of New South Wales Superintendent/Operational Managers (State) Award.
3 The employer counter-applications sought a new Operational Ambulance (State) Award; a new Ambulance Operations Centre (State) Award and a new Ambulance Managers (State) Award. The latter two employer applications sought, firstly, and as the title implies, to create a separate award for ambulance personnel employed in the four Operations Centres throughout the State and, secondly, in the case of the Managers' Award, to create a new title and career structure for ambulance personnel employed in the traditional role of Superintendent.
4 There was also, for completeness, a sixth application dealt with by the Full Bench in the course of these proceedings, namely, a dispute notification filed by NSW Health at a time when industrial bans had been imposed during the currency of proceedings. The bans were lifted after the intervention of the Commission.
5 In their entirety, the proceedings gave rise to an exhaustive and far reaching analysis of the existing classifications structure, conditions of employment (including the vexed question of shift rosters) and rates of pay for approximately three thousand employees of the Ambulance Service from the level of Patient Transport Officer, through the traditional grades of Ambulance Officer (and new classifications relating thereto) and beyond, into the promotional hierarchy up to and including Superintendents and other senior managers.
6 As may be apparent from those observations, the proceedings involved a very large number of claims prosecuted upon a broad evidentiary canvass, including eighty three documents consisting of sworn statements and other documentary material. The claims prosecuted, in addition to the question of shift rosters we have already mentioned, included matters of clinical profiling. This is essentially an identification of the skill mix required at each ambulance station including, in particular, the skills required of Paramedic Specialists and the means by which such persons would complete or decline to complete in-service instruction and relevant certification examinations. Matters involving incentive schemes to promote appointment in remote areas were also canvassed in order to overcome recruitment and retention difficulties experienced in remote and rural areas of New South Wales. Provisions similarly intended to provide by incentive rather than compulsion for special events coverage by ambulance officers including public holiday celebrations, VIP visits, disaster exercises and sporting events were dealt with as were matters such as time off in lieu of overtime, introduction of change, casual conversion arrangements and a range of other matters.
7 The proceedings were dealt with to near completion by the Full Bench between May and September 2008, culminating in some final Recommendations made yesterday to clarify the effect of earlier Recommendations and to deal with some drafting issues. Most notably, for the purpose of this Statement, the proceedings were conducted largely, but not entirely, in camera in a process which has become known as the 'BlueScope Model'. By contrast, proceedings of a similar scope and order of magnitude have, over time, taken much longer and involved much more in terms of the resources of the Commission and the industrial parties before it. The process, as the name 'BlueScope Model' implies, had its more recent origin in proceedings over which his Honour Walton J, Vice-President, presided almost a decade ago (see Re Notification under section 130 by the Minister for Industrial Relations of a Dispute between BHP Billiton and the Australian Workers' Union NSW and others re proposed strike action [2002] NSW IRComm 378), although it has been refined since that time.
8 In that matter Walton J described the particular procedure then adopted in the following way:
11 This recommendation is made in conciliation proceedings. However, it has the effect of resolving the issues in dispute because the parties have indicated their agreement that, where an issue is the subject of a recommendation by the Commission, it will be treated "as being agreed" in the terms of that recommendation.
12 The Commission has adopted this procedure with some trepidation, having regard to its unusual features. The procedure effectively involves adjudication of serious disputed issues by reference, in part, to the positions adopted by the parties during the course of conciliation. This approach would normally be impermissible in any arbitral proceedings as to such issues. However, there are a number of factors which warrant the adoption of such a procedure in this matter:
1. There is consent of the parties (including acceptance of the procedure by a mass meeting of the members of the unions) to the procedure. Indeed, it may be said that the parties actively encouraged the use of the procedure.
2. Notwithstanding its consequences, the recommendation will be issued in conciliation proceedings.
3. The matter has special features. It involves, inter alia , a reconsideration of the Steel Industry Agreement which has a number of terms which are unfamiliar to awards and enterprise agreements.
4. There has been a sharp deterioration in industrial relations in the industry which, for its ultimate correction, requires a resolution of all relevant issues (including issues concerning the terms of the Steel Industry Agreement).
5. There is a significant imperative for an expeditious and effective solution in light of the 'spin-out' and that deterioration of relationships.