Rowe, Hedley Gordon & Anor v Capital Territory Health Commission [1982] FCA 4

but grantees of scholarships - whether employees where primary purpose of arrangements is to teach - whether respondent had power to grant scholarships - whether breaches arose out of a course of conduct.

Evidence - admissibility of evidence that respondent in previous

HEDLEY GORDON ROWE v. CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION (A.C.T. No. 2 of 1981)

JUDITH ADELLA COONEY v. CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION (A.C.T. No. 3 of 1981)

Coram: KEELY J. Date: 14 January 1982 Place: Melbourne

A al en RRR RR Eire PIE RON RATT AAR At AYR ee a EE A RN NY Rt Ate

The Capital Territory Health Commission (the respondent

RR RET ET RET RET ETT DRIMETENEe TRE Ln remeron eee ae Re ee re ee ee yr

ae SS a Nc SL I RNR lt nS NL IO hE Ee ne aie ate ht dn tarred sm Ol

commission) by its defence admitted that it is and was at all material times a body established by the Health Commission Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory capable of being sued and that it is a party to the Hospital Employees etc. (Nursing Staff A.C.T.) Award 1980 and was a party to previous relevant awards. The current award was made on 16 February 1981 and was expressed to operate from the beginning of the first pay period to commence on or after 17 November 1980. It superseded, inter alia, the Hospital Employees etc. (Nursing Staff A.C.T.) Award 1966 and it was not disputed that the two awards were in substantially the same terms. In these reasons the word "award" may be used to refer to either or both of the awards as the context requires; 1f 1t becomes necessary to refer to only one

In matter number A.C.T. 2 of 1981 the applicant is Hedley Gordon Rowe, and in matter number A.C.T. 3 of 1981 the applicant is Judith Adella Cooney. The respondent commission admitted that the applicant Rowe is an officer of the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia (the H.E.F.), that the H.E.F. is an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) and that the applicant Rowe is authorised by the rules of the H.E.F. to sue on its behalf. Similarly, the respondent commission admitted that the applicant Cooney is an officer of the Royal Australian Nurses Federation (the R.A.N.F.), that it is an organisation registered under the Act

and that the applicant Cooney is authorised by the rules of the

AE ETE INI RE. RRR er oe ny turer] peo. ee es ee mee. me mm ee eee ee ee

number of students would do at any one time. It was not a picture of what one nurse would be required to do at any particular period of allocation to a ward". I accept as

accurate the descriptions by both Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer

of the work performed by them as student nurses in the hospital and other places in obtaining clinical experience. It is convenient to refer to that work in hospitals and other places

Le rR re tne Sn RR rR RE Te SERN Rm ens mar ce een mem fnew - mane armen waren SS SO ERATE wp

RENE Le ORE ROT ae a Om Ce Ue erm rene ye 2 a te ene

I find that both Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer, notwithstanding that they were "supernumerary" to the roster for the ward, did in fact perform as part of their normal work in the wards (in which they were obliged to wear uniforms) and other places to which they were sent by the respondent commission, a great variety of tasks which constituted general nursing care of persons who at the time were patients of the respondent commission. They were "subject to the directions of senior staff with respect to the actual tasks they performed and the manner in which they performed them". The nature of the duties performed by them can be shown by a fairly brief summary of the tasks normally performed by Miss Simms in giving general nursing care to the respondent commission's patients who were

Patients allocated. The names of Miss Simms and any other student nurses were written down by a tutor sister in a book containing the names of the rostered staff. The charge sister at the commencement of the shift, normally allocated the trained sister(s), student nurse(s), nursing aide(s) and/or pupil nursing aide(s) to the patients in a particular ward or single rooms. The allocation of the student nurses was normally done in consultation with the tutor sister. In the evidence some witnesses spoke of the student nurses being allocated to patients and others spoke of the patients being allocated to the student nurses but the practical effect was the same whatever

way the "allocation" was described by a witness. Further, a

ends Pe rs nt ad A rm a tne ee en Nae nr ne me dee dat Ream me a wats wt aas Salt

trained sister was normally allocated to eight patients including the four (sometimes six) patients allocated to a student nurse ~ under the supervision of the trained sister. It was normal for them to start at the time the shift in the ward started and they were "expected to do so" (Mrs Pinder). They could, however, on request start at a later time. I shall refe. later to the responsibility of the student nurse. Miss Simms and the others so allocated wrote down the names of all 20 patients in the ward, together with particulars of their diagnoses, e.g. whether they were to have X-rays or other tests,

whether they were fasting for theatre or to be discharged.

Recording observations. At prescribed intervals she took

the temperatures, pulse rates and blood pressure readings of the allocated patients and recorded those observations on charts which were kept by the respondent commission as a record of the

Preparing patients for theatre. Before patients were

taken to the operating theatre she explained to them what would happen before the operation and told them what tubes they would see attached to them when they became conscious after the operation. She also informed the patients what physical activities, by way of physiotherapy, they would be expected to perform after the operation. She ascertained whether the patient had signed the form giving his consent to the operation

and attended to the shaving of the patient (if necessary) and to

NS eer aad a ee cana ees gamer err RIN Bell ere er ee ae 8 es nd Em wo ee eee

the appropriate attire of the patient for the operation. With a

trained sister present she gave the injection containing the

pre-medication and instructed the patient not to get out of bed

• doubtless because of the danger of a fall by reason of the

effect of the injection. Then she accompanied the patient to

Duty in operating theatre. Miss Simms worked for eight

successive weeks in the operating theatre. For four weeks she acted as a "scout" nurse, getting items from outside the theatre for use during the operation. For the remaining four weeks she acted as a "scrub" nurse in gown, cap and mask - handing instruments directly to the operating surgeons. She was "responsible for checking that the consent is signed and for the

right operation on the right side and that the times are

correctly recorded" (i.e. the times that the operation commenced and finished). She also participated in the count of the instruments and other items used in the operation to ensure that

Dressing wounds and pressure area care. When a patient

allocated to her had returned to the ward after an operation, Miss Simms dressed the wound. If the patient was confined to bed her responsibility included, at specified intervals, pressure area care, whether by posture change or masSage, to

Ls anid ene co aes Be aakaten ia neal an em cad metic anaelinas ames eanacantadaadiiicbaneriha: teiectiasediieate teatime aiecdiestenelcanee oceadcecallicaet saiee ieee anellienticmtehemmehemeieendinndineimnaneamensemtaetnen tai ite |

ne ae ne lene ON mn ele OO nee etre eee ene es nmin On e o one wae

ce ns ee ee er oe aS ome RR EN NNER LOA AE oi A nats ky nt a

Sena nd mic ni nc ctdeacen be ham ane tnd leh anaeae nena dabidiadneeaieneinemnimemeet ener eee nore - .

pent nen ae ne NN ee ee ee tn eae ee ee ee ee eee aus ee

Intravenous drips. Miss Simms gave details of her work in respect of patients with intravenous drips. She was responsible, among other things, for checking with a trained sister that it was "the right flask, the right type of fluid ... the right number of drips per minute". She also had to ensure that "the cannula remains in situ, is not ... pouring out in to tissues", In the latter event she took remedial action immediately, slowing down the drip, and notified a resident

Fluid balance records. When a patient allocated to her

had a catheter Miss Simms recorded on a fluid balance chart, kept by the respondent commission as part of the medical records of its patients, the input to the patient from the intravenous flask and the output into the catheter bag. The patient's doctor was notified of any disparity between input and output

when the amounts were compared after 24 hour periods.

respect of patients allocated to her included at times (depending upon the condition of the patients) sponging them, "personal hygiene in general", helping them with their meals - "perhaps feeding them" - and brushing their teeth. She had to keep the patients clean or, if they were incontinent, "make sure

that they are as dry as possible and as clean as possible at all

LY Wee ah einer teens cere tebintt raat Bee manera! sane fin AL Outten ne

Tee PN NEE ES RE AEE LET AATMTE BR Te RTRM eB nN ee mete ee eet ee at ee ae eet ee me ee meee mee me Rt are

Giving medications. Miss Simms gave evidence as to her role in conjunction with a trained sister in giving "medications" after she had passed a medication round recognised by the Nurses Registration Board. Medications were usually given 2 hourly - starting at one end of the ward with the "medications trolley" which contained medications to be taken orally. She would stay with the patient to ensure that the pill, tablet or other medication was in fact taken. She gave injections to patients with a trained sister present, having done so during her first period in a ward and has "been doing it ever since". She had taken patients on her own to the E.C.G.

room and also took patients down when they were to be

discharged. Doctors' rounds. When doctors called to make their

rounds if the trained sister was unavailable (e.g. because she

was with another doctor) Miss Simms would accompany the doctor

• and then he will say, 'In that case I would like such and such done'. .e«. one example ... varicose

ulcers on his feet ... he was my patient for that particular day and there were quite a few doctors

that came to see him that day ... There was a skin specialist, there was an ordinary doctor and his . . . . . specialist and, yes, I took

instruction from all of them as to his positioning during the day and his skin care, also which way his dressings were to be done in the morning and at night and tnen he had a medication change as well which we talked about. ... (If there is no trained sister present) I will report, of course, what the doctor said, (a) in the notes and, (b) to the

a certains Noe GE Der ee he et te ee te Ol a Me ee TS

"... And down in casualty you work very closely with the doctors down there and they will see a patient who has come in with a cut or whatever or a sprain and the doctor will say to you, 'Nurse, bandage this person's arm or elbow, please'.""

Writing reports. Miss Simms at the end of each shift wrote reports on allocated patients which were countersigned by a trained sister, normally without adding anything to her report. Nursing aides were not permitted to write reports on

Responsibility of student nurses. Although the student

nurses worked under supervision and with tutorial and other assistance from nurse educators, I accept Miss Simms' evidence

"We were responsible for what we do to the patients, we are responsible for our standards but ultimate accountability I guess lies with the charge (sister) as does with all the student nurses.

(Mr Dalton) You have a duty to do such things as you do with respect to the patient as well as

you can in the circumstances?---Yes, correct." (1T210)

Similarly, Miss Pfeiffer agreed (T271) with Mr Dalton that "nurses have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the

ward is kept hygienic". In his reply on behalf of the

TA LION UN TREN TTL EERO OE ETM AI FY ATT ON RAT he OG warn

sea alah rae ate me Ce Mee re - _ - fe ee ee ee ae ee ee

respondent commission to the applicants' final addresses, Mr

"Tt is not our case, your Honour, that there was somebody looking over the shoulder of each of those students throughout the course. »e. and as their training progressed their need for such supervision diminished. Indeed, it was part of the training that she would perform higher skills without direct Supervision in order to allow her to exercise initiative."

Miscellaneous duties. In addition to the foregoing Miss

Simms gave evidence of her duties on dusting rounds, of cleaning Patients' bedside tables and lockers, of bedmaking rounds, of washing bed pans, of scrubbing bed frames (after the discharge of a patient) and of running messages to places such as the pharmacy to "speed things along". It will be necessary to say

Miss Pfeiffer, who had heard Miss Simms' evidence-in-

chief, gave evidence of those tasks detailed by Miss Simms which she had not yet performed. She also gave detailed evidence which I accept as to her duties as a student nurse. She had been working for three weeks at Allambee Nursing Home and had previously performed the same duties there for five successive weeks. One wing was for psychogeriatric patzrents, another for "patients who are fairly ambulant" and the third wing was "mainly a male ward" including patients with senile dementia and others considered psychogeriatric. Her participation in basic

nursing care for them involved "maintaining their hygiene ...

Nica ee aatnhe/ dn, ender ae aed hk Ate ena rr eh tl ne Riera atelier cte LeN nenelN t a t e

pe ae At ee ee cet cit St aaah ie ee ee ne ee ee Binet

their hydration, their general well-being" which, because of the nature of their condition, involved more than one bed round per shift - sometimes three rounds. Such a round, which included changing soiled linen and washing the patients when necessary, used to take one to one and a half hours. She also used to spend about one hour per shift in bathing or showering the four or six patients assigned to her "and then if help is needed we then help with any baths or showers" of other patients in the

On their evidence, which I accept, it is clear that generally speaking the two student nurses, in the hospital wards and other places to which they were sent by the respondent commission, were performing work which was an essential part of the services provided by the respondent commission to its patients. They were doing that work generally on three days per week ~ although the number of days varied from nil (e.g. during the initial study block) to five days per week. Although there was some evidence to the contrary, I accept that they worked as part of the nursing team, the function of which was to furnish the best possible patient care. Miss James did not regard them

as being part of the "work force" in the sense of persons

Planned to be used or rostered for the wards, but agreed that the two student nurses were "engaged in the overall provision of health care at the hospital". That work, if not done by the two

student nurses, would have been done by other persons who were

admittedly employees of the respondent commission, namely

trained sisters or enrolled nursing aides or pupil nurse aides. The latter were employees whilst they were being trained as nursing aides. Mr Dalton in his address submitted that even 1f, contrary to his submission, Miss Simms was held to be an employee, Miss Pfeiffer was not an employee. He relied upon certain differences in the activities of the students, the terms and conditions, the curriculum and the "subsequent actings" of

the parties (per Lord Fraser in the A.M.P. Society Case (post)).

Having considered the differences, including all of those Matters to which he referred, I am unable to accept this submission. I accept Miss Simms' evidence that, having worked alongside students from the 1981 course, she was unable to observe any difference in the way those students were treated,

The respondent commission contended, based upon its evidence, that student nurses in performing these tasks were "not giving a service to the hospital" because it was part of the student nurses' "clinical experience as directed by the nurse educator". There were some differences in the way in which the respondent commission's witnesses expressed the criteria which determined whether particular work by a student nurse was "service to the hospital" (or "service to the ward"). The respondent's difficulty on this aspect is illustrated by the following evidence (T811-3) by the respondent's witness Mrs

McQueen, a senior nurse educator with post graduate

eR EAB Rel Pd tae alee dP mele staan Lathan sancti meeNinitnne bien

iH ~ - a ott ee estan nee - a met wee tee tee ee ene ee ecole SSH

"And there is gradual accumulation of skills?---Yes.

Some of which build on others and some of which are not built on others but integrated, if you

And that goes on throughout the entire course until graduation?---It does,

And indeed for the rest of the nursing life, does it?-~-It does.

But once the nurse has finished graduation that learning process which continues occurs in the course of giving a service to the hospital, does it not?---It does.

And before that, it is not in giving a service to the hospital, is that what you. are saying?-~-For supernumerary students, that is correct.

Just consider, would you, the position of a graduate nurse and a student nurse sponging patients, two of them, one in each bed. If the graduate nurse is learning something while doing that, she is learning it in the course of giving a service to the hospital, is that what you are saying?---That is correct.

The student nurse, if it is part of his or her patient care clinical experience as directed by the nurse educator, 1s not giving a service to the hospital in carrying out that task, is that right?---That is right.

What if it (the bed) is to be made because Mr Brown has wet his bed and they simply want Mr Brown's bed changed?---That 1S service to the hospital.

Even if the student understands that the purpose of the change is to make Mr Brown comfortable, hygienic, to get everything cleaned up and to Make him presentable for his relatives who are coming to visit him shortly. It still is a service even though the student understands it fully, is that right?---It is not a

an ete ee - - ~ - nae at teen ate cents eee wr ewe Pee

SO, Setanta el ek in La al el Se lle end A Ah fee Nee ene atAL Ae t A R NRLAA t Re

4a tr 8a le ec mee memati eatin meee ladaieh ie ameemeiend imate ~ - - - ~ - ~ smemeniain Soins)

~ student's assigned patient. It is a service if Mr Brown is not a_ student's assigned

• patient or allocated patient."

In my opinion the error in this contention is that it assumes that if a task carried out by a student nurse is part of the learning process for the particular student nurse, (or, as it was expressed by a number of the respondent commission's witnesses, "a valid clinical experience" for her) then it follows that the performance of that task cannot be "service to the ward". That contention assumes that the two concepts of "learning experience" and "ward service" are mutually exclusive. I am quite unable to accept that assumption. In my opinion the "one activity may be both part of "a valid clinical experience" and also "service to the ward" whether it be taking the temperature, pulse or blood pressure of a patient, attending to his hygiene, his bed making and pressure care, to his pre-operative or post-operative care in all its aspects or working in the operating theatre as either a "scrub" or a "scout" nurse. That which is a "valid clinical experience" looked at from the point of view of the student nurse may also be part of "ward service" looked at from the point of view of the respondent commission's obligation to provide "health services" to the patients in its hospitals. In my opinion those tasks were "ward service" when they were tasks which, if not performed by her, would have been performed by a trained sister or a nursing aide - and so performed because the task was a

necessary part of the general nursing care required to be given

pe ne ete te nt ne ne ee ee ee aR ern! nn te wu eenmseerhatie Sa

BM al aL tela ge etal lt ge eRe hn cate thle deca at ee - tn ep enfin a Bn Na Naina Lanna

by the respondent commission to its patients. In my opinion, most of the tasks performed by Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer

were "ward service" although that would not be so in some

circumstances, e.g. when they were merely watching a trained sister demonstrate a technique. I have reached that conclusion notwithstanding the evidence that the work in the wards is performed without the need for additional staff when the student nurses are not in attendance - because trained sisters work faster than student nurses and do not have to. spend time instructing or supervising the student nurses. However, the fact that the respondent commission can operate the wards

without student nurses does not alter the fact that the student nurses perform tasks in the wards which are a necessary part of

the general nursing care which the respondent commission is

On the respondent's own case it is clear that, under the supervision of a graduate nurse, the two student nurses were responsible (in the sense which I have discussed earlier) for the basic nursing care of the patients allocated to them. It was not suggested by the respondent commission or by any of the witnesses called by it that the student nurses were present in the wards merely "to watch - to see how things are done" - per

Lord Denning M.R. in Wiltshire Police Authority v. Wynn [1981] 1 Q.B. 95 at p.109.

In this connection the respondent commission called as a

2 ERNIE RI OL A LATO RAR EAT R RRO EME et AR ST EN NN Ae

witness Mrs Wishart, a trained sister with post graduate qualifications, who was 1n charge of the orthopaedic ward at the Royal Canberra Hospital. Two student nurses from the 1981 course had been in her ward as part of their clinical consolidation unit quite recently for five days per week for three weeks. Aithough she said that nurse educators in referring to the student nurses had stressed "their supernumerary Status", she gave evidence that they were allocated three or four patients and they undertook that basic nursing care under the supervision of a graduate nurse, She explained (T615-7) that the "basic nursing care" given by the

with meals, such tests aS were necessary, preparation for theatre, receiving them back after theatre, observations necessary and ordered at the

time, basic dressing techniques if they were qualified to do them. ...

«+. they were responsible for the cleanliness and safety of their own patients which is a basic requirement of all nurses. They would have undertaken such cleaning as was necessary for their own patients. eee

«.«. they had the overall care of the patient. ... ».. they were under the care of another member of staff usually a graduate who also had the care of

eight patients, four of whom would have been under the direct care of the supernumerary nurse."

Notwithstanding the evidence to which I have referred the respondent commission contended that the student nurses were

"not part of the work force" and were "different". Mrs Wishart

Le PARE RTROETRER Dg RE IE ESET RRR RT A NR - a - oe ee

nad ew ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee Ne ee le nt ate in Ne Die

"The number of patients they are allocated, in the first place; the fact that the supernumerary student has a graduate overseeing the work

that she does; that they cannot be shifted around the ward to suit my convenience or the convenience of the patients or the loading of anything else; and that they can be taken off the ward at any time for lectures or further clinical experience.

But subject to those things, as far as the actual duties that they perform in the ward are concerned, what they do is no different to

what members of the workforce do?~--For their own patients, no."

In my opinion those "differences" did not have the effect that

Other witnesses called on behalf of the respondent tried - and tried vainly in my opinion without any fault on their part - to support the contention by drawing a distinction between a "valid clinical experience" and "service to the wards". Mrs McQueen (to whose evidence I have already referred) did concede, under cross examination as to tasks which were "clinical experience" for the student nurse, that "indirectly, it could be termed as service to the hospital but if the supernumerary student were not there to perform that task another member of the staff would". Also, Mrs Pinder, a nurse educator employed by the respondent commission at the Royal Canberra Hospital, conceded under cross examination by Mr

Nicholas "that matters which contributed to the efficient

an ais EB iA De aR OR HA RSP Sat IL ch SA la es arsine ln eg ls It Ne leet a er wn rar tate meet UNE,

Om OO Sy Se UR Sen DEO OT OES OO Tne FE SOON TODDS PaaS

operation of the ward would be of benefit to the patients in it". Apart from these statements it is fair to say that each witness for the respondent commission appeared to assume that, if an activity could fairly be described as being "a valid clinical experience" for the student nurse, then it necessarily followed that it could not be said to fall within the category of "service to the wards" - even though precisely the same activity (looked at from the point of view of the respondent's obligation to provide service in the wards to those persons whom it had admitted as patients in its hospitals) would undoubtedly be "service to the wards" if the activity were carried out by a

To my mind such an assumption is simply not sustainable. It is not correct to assume (either as a matter of logic or of language) that the one activity by a student nurse cannot be accurately described as falling within both categories. An activity of an apprentice (or an articled law clerk) may well be both valid practical experience for him as part of the process of learning his trade (or profession) and yet, at the same time, be fairly described as providing a service to his master or aS providing, on behalf of his master, a service to the master's client. Nor is it any less a "service" that the activity of the apprentice has to be supervised by the master (directly or through other employees) or that the "service" provided by the apprentice or law clerk, either to or on behalf of his master,

has to be checked or counter-signed or certified by the master

Lastly, I find on the evidence that the two student nurses performed tasks which were plainly not part of a valid learning experience. I refer to the evidence of the student nurses cleaning bedside tables and lockers, scrubbing bed frames after the discharge of patients, participating in dusting rounds and bed making rounds through the ward including patients not allocated to the student nurse, washing bed pans (as distinct from making necessary observations), running messages to places such as the pharmacy, handing out menues, distributing tooth mugs, cleaning dentures, preparing and taking supper to the patients when on evening shift and performing "extra duties" on "quiet" days, e.g. cleaning thermometers, the poles from which the intravenous bottles hang and getting intravenous bottles from the storeroom to restock the ward. I make that finding notwithstanding certain evidence called by the respondent commission which suggested that there was a valid learning experience in almost every task performed provided that it "related" to a patient allocated to the student nurse. For example, Mrs Wishart answered "Yes" to Mr Nicholas' question "Thus whatever you have seen students doing in wards under your care you would consider to be related to the provision of patient care, would you not?". Miss Norrie, a nurse educator, said that "provided a function is related to the care of a patient or patients it is part of the learning experience ...".

However, she said that scrubbing wheels on a trolley and running

A AED Vane enh na hn Label Laat LA Matte al a ath ania an emerndenls Sb Aemn dl

I am not prepared to accept Mr Dalton's sumission that on

the evidence such duties were occasional happenings and not

significant enough to constitute the service of an apprentice to his master. In my opinion, notwithstanding the evidence that the student nurses were instructed to inform the nurse educator if they considered that they were being "used for ward service", the two student nurses were employed to perform work which included those duties which I have just listed. Witnessés called by the respondent classed almost all of those tasks as "valid clinical experiences". In my opinion, by reason of those duties, they were employed under the award even if, contrary to the opinion which I have expressed, the other duties in the wards were not "service to the wards" and accordingly not service to the respondent commission because they were valid

I turn now in more detail to the arguments advanced by Mr Dalton in support of his submission that the student nurses were simply the grantees of scholarships and were not "employees". He cited a number of cases and relied strongly upon Wiltshire

Police Authority v. Wynn (supra). In my opinion that decision

is distinguishable for a number of reasons. They include the following: (a) the particular statutory provisions which the Court of Appeal had to construe. As Lord Denning M.R. said (at p-108) "It cannot have been intended that police cadets should

have recourse to industrial tribunals and probationary

ee re ern em nnn te tet Vietnam nee serene memati eaentnadntaasiesalalecs anaes,

constables should not ... both ... are on the same footing"; (b) the "very special position in our system" occupied by a police constable - per Lord Denning M.R. (at p.109) citing Viscount

Simonds in Attorney General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd [1955] A.C. 457, 489-490; (c) the particular

facts there under consideration - unlike the student nurses the police cadets were "there to watch ~- to see how things are done e+e sometimes they help in a minor way ... to see how the job is done ..." per Lord Denning M.R. at p.109 (see also Waller L.J. at p.lll); (d) the nature of the police cadetship was such that the police cadets, unlike the student nurses, were "in no way at the conclusion of their cadetship qualified to become a police constable ... not possible to say that the applicant was an apprentice, or anything approaching an apprentice" - per Waller L.J. (at p.111) - see also per Lord Denning M.R. (at p.109) - "They are not being taught a trade such as would make them an 'apprentice'". Accordingly, in my opinion the decision of the Court of Appeal does not support the respondent commission's

decision of the New South Wales Industrial Commission in Court

Session (Beattie J., President, Sheehy and Sheldon JJ.) in In re

Crown Employees (Technical Teachers) Award (1974) 74 A.R.

(N.S.W.) 450. However, in my opinion that case is distinguishable on its facts and does not enunciate any

principle of law which supports the respondent commission in

[ier ane amadt adabencoledcnemcamtonenaeaa apeciaeeseeaehaaemenda dhe detain ieieenedae adenine eam aetemieenen ieee ne

this case. The Industrial Commission said (at pp.460-1) "What has to be determined is whether during the period of training specified in (a) above he is performing basically work in an

industrial sense and, if so, for whom". In the present case it is not necesary to consider whether the student nurses were performing basically work in an "industrial" sense because s.5(2) of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1973

"(2) For the purposes of the application of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1972 in accordance with the last preceding sub-section-

(a) a person employed, otherwise than in an industry, for the performance of work wholly or mainly in the Territory shall be deemed to be an employee in an industry; ...

"Tt is clear that trainee teachers are not part of the Teaching Service as defined in the Teaching Service Act and to regard persons who for some years are devoting most of their time to the pursuit of courses in academic institutions as part of an organization which 1s a government department would require language to be strained."

Such a statement cannot be made of the student nurses to whom the respondent commission had itself (not through a separate

the development of a competent beginning registered nurse (practitioner) through correlation of theory and practice.

To develop the student's ability to recognise individual needs and effectively apply the components of the nursing process to the delivery

of patient centred care through participation in the activities of the health care system."

On the evidence before me the student nurses were not "persons who for some years are devoting most of their time to the pursuit of courses in academic institutions" whereas "the greater part of a trainee's time is spent in pursuing his or her academic course by attending lectures, etc. and in study related to the course" [1974] A.R. at p.464 - see also p.463. Further, on the evidence of the tasks performed by the student nurses in the wards, to which I have referred at some length, it does not require "language to be strained" to regard the student nurses as part of the respondent commission's organisation -

The trainee teachers were held (at p.470) to be "not part

of the Teaching Service as defined in the Teaching Service Act";

here the Nurses Registration Ordinance 1933 expressly contemplates (s.22) the attendance at approved hospitals of persons admitted to a two year or three year "course of training in the cheory and practice of nursing". I accept Mr Ryan's submission as to the distinction between on the one hand a

student who attends an academic institution which gives

educational instruction only (as distinct from "practice

Ne eRe CRT EMT WNT PO, PS COT ERTL oe & oem me mn mare My - ne

Dee bREGACES gE ec Dh eed RE A Ah ed ON Dare AL kd a aN detente aatentnentninn smi tet Beet ok Sue Mls oe Anette A nttente Narmeny man nteeta te Res mem wry ara ns me A RE AEN et Pm le NEA team.

cane Ae Red oN Cee _ - wo pied ae wee an een eres core wares bse

PERE TES GEE Te sees Cee errr er: - ~ _ a aenn call

31. : teaching" to which the Industrial Commission referred (at p.463)) and, on the other hand, either a person apprenticed to a Master carrying on a trade or profession in which he offers

"person who (a) attends, for not less than three years ... the practice of one or more hospitals approved by the (Nurses Registration) Board as training schools for general nurses; (b) undergoes, during the attendance ... the prescribed course of training in the theory and practice of nursing ..." (s.22(1) of Nurses Registration Ordinance)

Further, the Health Commission Ordinance 1975, defined "nurse" as meaning, inter alia, "a person who is employed by the Commission and who is ... (c) a pupil nurse ... within the

It is convenient at this stage to deal briefly with a further submission advanced by both Mr Nicholas and Mr Ryan, namely, that the respondent commission had no power to expend money on the provision of scholarships or on the training of persons other than employees. Section 34 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975 requires that the respondent commission's staff shall consist of officers appointed under s.3s or temporary employees engaged under s.38. The respondent commission stated that its "service based" student nurses and its pupil nurse aides were engaged under s.38. Mr Dalton submitted that the respondent commission had power to grant the

scholarships under s.7(1)(a) and s.7(2)(c) and (h) of the

cen ATLL, SR Te tee Bl ae ne tinh i inn el in at Seah ake ae ata st nS tt NL nite Nee A el Mi Neneh Anchen

(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), the following services shall be

taken to be health services for the purposes of this section:

(c) information and education services for the preservation of health;

(h) services ancillary to the provision or conduct of services specified in this sub-section."

In my opinion, the granting of a scholarship - as distinct from training for employees - for two or three years to student nurses who are under no obligation to work for the respondent commission after the completion of their courses is not authorised by any of the heads of power relied upon by Mr Dalton. Accordingly, I accept the applicants' argument that, if the student nurses were not employees, the respondent commission

was not authorised to expend money on the scholarships.

I accept Mr Ryan's submission that the Ordinance provides a comprehensive code dealing with contracts into which the respondent commission may enter and the matters upon which it

May expend moneys and that accordingly there is an implied

PTET ETE NPE AE ORE Fe Re erat RE tt Y Ne Br Rt I arma me oo - orn neem cal

ttm DSM vuaneanblebe nila Ras hehe aah A inher acer ON ER Talia ante tA Ln arta tat me Lt a Nt et Mths anes A tetera iNet BORA mines tm me eam a Ahad oA

enn teenies AP ee a a ee ct at we ela neater enum Doni ote i NAT a leh woe"

prohibition against its entering into other forms of contractual relationships or expending moneys on matters not within its

express powers - R. v. Wallis and anor; Ex parte Employers

Association of Wool Selling Brokers and others (1949) 78 C.L.R.

529 at p.550 per Dixon J. citing North Stafford Steel, Iron and Coal Co. (Burslem) Ltd_v. Ward [1868] L.R. 3 Ex. 172 at p.177. I also accept his submission that if, contrary to the opinion which I have already expressed, the nature of the relationship between the respondent commission and the two student nurses

were ambiguous, then the court should construe the contracts in

such a way as to be within the power of the respondent commission (i.e. aS contracts of employment) rather than as the

Mr Dalton in his final address agreed (T944) that "in a sense" (cf. Mrs McQueen in passage cited earlier) the student nurses were providing ward service in that they were "partaking in providing nursing care" for the patients. However, he relied upon the fact that the purpose of the respondent commission's relationship with the student nurses was to train them to become qualified nurses. He submitted that there is a principle of law "that where the primary object of the contract is teaching or learning there is no contract of service" - relying upon the

following passage from Lord Denning M.R. in Wiltshire Police

"In determining the question, there are two cases which seem to me to be useful. They were under the

nia Saba dA nateneteles C m EE elegant be 7 tata eal alten mene te ad ans eee ln Pt teeta anne ah aetna! ae

settlement of paupers: see Rex v. Inhabitants of Laindon (1799) 8 Term Rep. 379 and Rex v. Inhabitants of Crediton (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 493. In those two cases the question had to be considered whether a pauper had been employed under a contract of service or under a contract of apprenticeship.

The courts drew a distinction according to which Purpose was the primary purpose: and which was secondary. If the primary purpose was work for the

Master - and teaching a trade was only a secondary purpose - it waS a contract of service. But if teaching a trade was the primary purpose - and work for the master was only secondary ~ then it was a

contract of apprenticeship. The distinction between the cases where teaching and learning is the primary purpose - and the cases

where the work done is the primary purpose - is helpful in the present context."

In my opinion the courts, in the cases referred to by Lord Denning, in drawing "a distinction according to which purpose was the primary purpose" were doing so only for the purpose of determining "whether a pauper had been employed under a contract of service or under a contract of apprenticeship". In these proceedings I do not have to determine that question. The question is, as to each of the two student nurses, was she "an employee employed in a classification specified" in clause 5 of the award. It is not necessary for me to determine whether their contracts fell into the category of contracts of service as distinct from contracts under which either student nurse was "an apprentice, or anything approaching an apprentice" - per

Waller L.J. in the Wiltshire Police Authority case (at p.1ll).

Mr Ryan submitted that they are apprentices or analogous to

he tikes LIA, let ern deme ted all nL TR mn Ol i tna et eS Rat ed Rk am me ee

Granted that there is a distinction between a contract of service and a contract of apprenticeship and that the distinction is crucial for some purposes, such as the settlement of paupers, in my opinion it does not follow that a person performing work pursuant to a contract of apprenticeship is not,

aS a matter of law, "an employee employed in a classification specified" in clause 5 of the award, namely, "junior student nurse", Clause 39(j) defines "student nurse" as meaning "a person who is undergoing a course in general nursing, conducted by the employer" and "employer" as "the Capital Territory Health

In the ultimate Mr Dalton submitted that the Arbitration Commission "does not have jurisdiction to make an award with respect to apprentices ... because they are not employees". He

relied upon the following passage from the judgment of Dixon,

Fullagar and Kitto JJ. in R. v. Foster; Ex p. The Commonweaith

Life (Amalgamated) Assurances Ltd (1952) 85 C.L.R. 138 at p.153:

"We think that the kind of relationship to which the definition in s. 4 of 'industrial matters' refers by the expressions 'employer' and 'employee' is, under another name, in substance the relation called at common law master and servant."

The passage must be read in the light of the question there under consideration and in its context, including the discussion

of earlier cases which led their Honours to say (at p.152):

view seems to have been adopted that there must be a contract of service, or a relation of service, 1f aman was to be an employee ..." .

Having regard to the words in that discussion of earlier cases that there must be a contract of service, "or a relation of service", if a man was to be an employee and to the words "in substance" appearing in the passage relied upon by Mr Dalton, in my opinion their Honours did not enunciate any principle that apprentices could not be - or would not normally be - employees

As long ago as Whybrow's Case (1910) 11 C.L.R. 1 the High Court dealt with prohibition proceedings relating to claims (see p.32) brought before the Arbitration Court as to the rate of wages of apprentices - and did not suggest that apprentices are not "employees" within the Act. In John Heine & Son Limited v. Pickard (1921) 29 C.b.R. 592 the High Court upheld the conviction of an employer for failing to pay to an employee, who was apprenticed to it by articles of apprenticeship, an amount prescribed by an award in respect of apprentices. In Fletcher

v. A. H. McDonald & Co. Pty Ltd (1927) 39 C.L.R. 174, the High

Court dealt with an award which prescribed the minimum rate of wages to be paid to apprentices. In Culbert v. Clyde Engineering Co. Ltd (1936) 54 C.L.R. 544 the High Court held (at p.553) that an employer committed a breach of a federal award

"in that it did ... apprentice a certain boy and did not

apprentice him in accordance with the provisions of the award"

arattanadndea inyPhabbthe wo tne mmenenea sal ee ee en i ee ne cen Nn RC sent nte he el

(at p.551). In my view those four decisions of the High Court

give support to the principle in the Junior Constables Case

(supra) that the fact that an apprentice (or other person) is performing duties under a contract, the primary purpose of which is to teach that person an occupation, does not prevent that person from being an employee. As Mr Ryan pointed out, s.52 of

the Act expressly contemplates the Arbitration Commission

determining disputes "in which the rates of pay ... applying to

For the reasons which I have set out, in my opinion Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer were both "employees employed in a classification specified" in clause 5 of the award, namely, that of junior student nurse. I find that the respondent commission in each matter has committed a breach of clause 5 of the award in that it failed to pay to Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer the weekly rate prescribed for classification 17 in that clause. [In reaching that conclusion I have not found it necessary to consider the submission put (but not elaborated) by Mr Ryan that the respondent commission, by reason of its consent to certain award provisions is estopped from denying that Miss Pfeiffer was

entitled to be paid the rate prescribed by clause 5 of the

Notwithstanding the conclusion to which I have come on the evidence relating to Miss Simms in 1980 and 1981 and Miss

Pfeiffer in 1981, it is necessary that I rule upon certain

an SAA near ciccnntriad re bc taser trea NILE sae Beat eee tM ata Si es Ra AL te Wns abe at a

ATE ARES AQUI RIE FORE TS See "ee Fee erp ne me. oo re ert en rng i

Anes Sie alcatel UN TON nr dined Ln en ate a ml eee at nt Rs wee rae a rama et Aarne i,

OER PRE RR ENA R T I e O TR ROTTS t ° rae ae. - ye ter ge !

evidence which was admitted at the hearing "subject to

objection". Before doing so I shall refer to the pleadings.

In his amended statement of claim the applicant Rowe alleged that the respondent commission purported to alter the conditions under which it trained student nurses, that in or about February 1980 it purported to cease taking into its employ student nurses and purported to grant scholarships to the persons the respondent commission accepted for training instead of paying them award rates. In her amended statement of claim the applicant Cooney made similar allegations. The applicant Rowe's claim related to a two year "general nursing course" at the Royal Canberra Hospital which began in 1980 whilst the claim by the applicant Cooney related to a "three year general nursing

programme" at the Woden Valley and Royal Canberra Hospitals

The respondent commission by its defence denied these

"(3) ... that at all relevant times up until about December 1979 (it had) employed and trained nurses

and that it paid such employee nurses, whether in training or otherwise, in accordance with the relevant awards in force from time to time ...

(4) ee. that in or about Feburary 1980 it instituted a course of student nurse education and

training and that pursuant to such course it - a did not pay wages to such student nurses;

b granted scholarship allowances to such student nurses." '

Samm aSeaceruiedrumicahlenrnima spar etiny annie cae mane antenna Diet al eee he ted aba rt SSP met Sn ta a hake ta Se BAe el eet Ra tN rd teal atl ae en Nat an sta Re ht oer Somer wna

SEAT TEE CERT IETE L eemm - o - - on a ete arr enn en taki

Mr Dalton in final address conceded '(T896) that the "process of negotiation" leading up to the signing of the terms and conditions document was relevant in determining the true nature of the legal relationship and therefore admissible. However, he submitted that evidence that the respondent commission treated "Superenumerary"™ student nurses as employees throughout the nine year period 1971-1979 was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible in these proceedings in considering whether Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer became employees in 1980 and 1981 respectively. I accept Mr Ryan's submission that it 18 permissible to look at the surrounding circumstances in considering what was the true nature of the legal relationship between those two student nurses and the respondent commission. The statements of claim contain allegations by the applicants that the terms and conditions document used for student enrolment in the nurse education programme (which the two student nurses were required to sign) "does not represent the

true relation and is nothing but an attempt, by means of a form,

to escape industrial regulation" - per Dixon, Fullagar and Kitto JJ. in R. v. Foster; Ex parte The Commonwealth Life

(Amalgamated) Assurances Ltd (supra) at pp.153-4. An employee

cannot contract out of her right to be paid rates prescribed by an award made under the Act and, as Mr Ryan submitted, it can not be the law that an employer which required its employees to sign a document stating that they were not employees could

thereby evade its legal obligation to pay an award rate. In any

Teste Ltnecareest | elt nt einai mentee ental ee te eee ee --. ey a. ie tee ee Panta em le aoe ee eae

beet OSEE, Sa, tate nee memento tlt enn tai ble Pen Pree a eesti

ET AT TCM OE OR RR TREE ARN Nth J RO nares ee ee oe

event, im the present case the terms and conditions document does not make such a statement (cp. clause 3 of the agreement

set out below in the passage quoted from the A.M.P. Society v.

Mr Dalton submitted that the court cannot look outside the terms and conditions document and that "the general rule is that 'verbal evidence is not allowed to be given ... so as to add to or subtract from, or in any manner to vary or qualify the written contract.'" (Chitty on Contracts (24th Edn) paragraph 735). However, in my view the more relevant passage is

paragraph 745 of that work which states, inter alia:

"Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the true nature of the agreement, or the legal relationship

of the parties, even though this may vary or add to the written instrument."

Mr Dalton also sought to rely on the A.M.P. Society Case (supra). In that case the parties had signed a written agreement, clause 3 of which stated expressly that the relationship between the parties was "not that of Master and Servant". Notwithstanding the presence of that clause the Privy

"Phe written agreement is the principal, though not the only, source of information as to the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties «e. Clearly cl. 3, which, 1f it stood alone, would be conclusive in favour of the Society, cannot receive effect according to its terms if they contradict the effect of the agreement as a whole.

See reunce ete Ta oct; eee lta ace] Tice, wt ien ST hes cen ie a ae aii ienealinetne tannmeeteten heteatelh Sieetiereth aateaesniaehenniananenateniementanmmntie

Nevertheless, their Lordships attach importance to cl. 3, and they consider that the following Statement by Lord Denning M.R. in Massey v. Crown Life Insurance Co. (4th November, 1977, unreported) correctly states the way in which it can properly be used: 'The law, as I see it, is this: if the true relationship of the parties 1s that of master and servant under ak. contract of service, the parties cannot alter the truth of that relationship by putting a different label upon it ..." ... In the present case, where there is no reason to think that the clause is a sham, or that it is not a genuine statement of the parties' intentions, 1t Must be given its proper weight in relation to other clauses in the agreement."

In my opinion the A.M.P. Society Case does not support Mr

Dalton's objection to the relevance of evidence that supernumerary student nurses enrolled in substantially the same "general nursing course" during the period 1971~1979 were accepted by the respondent commission as employees and treated as such. That material is part of the surrounding circumstances to which consideration may properly be given in determining whether "the true relationship of the parties" is that of employer and employee (cf. dictum of Lord Denning M.R., quoted in the A.M.P. Society Case). Accordingly, I have decided to overrule Mr Dalton's objection to relevance and to admit all of the evidence which was admitted at the hearing subject to objection. However, I will refer later to its weight.

I turn to the evidence admitted subject to objection. Miss Simms had applied in 1978 to become a student in the two year supernumerary general nursing course. After being awarded

a Rotary Exchange Scholarship for 12 months in the United States

tet eA Leer ton Mle eet etemensistees, Ame ~ - en ee re Mae ae ee et

of America she applied to defer her course. She was informed

that it was not possible to grant a deferment but that the respondent commission would "keep your application open". On 16 October 1979 Miss Simms, who had written again to the respondent

"The only course to be offered next year by Royal Canberra Hospital will be the Two Year programme

and a brochure is enclosed giving details of the | course.

If you would care to be considered for this course under the new terms and conditions please write back immediately".

The brochure enclosed differed in some respects from the

Mr Boardman, the chairman of the respondent commission from September 1977 until May 1980, gave evidence that the student nurses from 1971-1979 "were employees" and that the respondent commission "Signed them on as employees, ... provided the workers compensation (and) payroll tax cover ... as we do

for all other members of staff and paid them a salary". He said

that this was so notwithstanding that "those nurses were not

taken into account in the staff formula (used by the respondent .

commission in operating the hospitals). They were genuinely

supernumerary. ... they were not expected to provide service". He also said in evidence that he had "admitted in writing" that they were employees. It seems clear that had Miss Simms pursued

her application in 1978 and been accepted as a student nurse for

SMALE MIR ATONE Et MAE Ne Oe cram poem em ae, A N,N RR NR RN GS, ee

fea ner eat a ae _ en re ee eed ee teen meet ne TM he

the 1979 intake of student nurses, then she would have been

treated by the respondent as an employee falling within the

classification of "junior student nurse" in clause 5 of the

A letter dated 19 December 1979 (Ex.W) over the signature

of Mr Boardman to the applicant Rowe said, inter alia:

As you are aware, changes will take place in the arrangements for the two year nursing education

program at Royal Canberra Hospital, commencing in 1980.

In view of your organisation's interest in this matter I am writing to advise formally of the Commission's intentions and to seek your Federation's comments.

applicants accepted for the course of study in 1980 will be students rather than employees of the

It is to be noted in passing that in a similar (but undated)

letter from Mr Boardman to Mr Rowe (also contained in Ex.W) it

ae Rae hearse tamale ischial So AED tet nt ES el ltl ah ca Searle lalate Aimar th te bate te RIE tn Pt tt

was expressly stated that "The most significant alteration is

the change in status from employee to student of those

applicants accepted for the course of study in 1980"

(underlining added). By letter (undated but apparently about February 1980) to the senior assistant commissioner at the taxation office, Mr Boardman, writing as chairman of the

na nth patna st nacre ins ten Nt ~ _ cee ttc ed td a Ln ce ee er ssa

"hl. The structure of the new course is no different from the former 2 year nurse education course. However, the Commission decided that students entering the course in 1980 would be paid a student allowance in lieu of a full salary as has been paid to date." (underlining added)

A letter (Ex.W) dated 11 April 1980 from the acting chairman of the respondent commission to the chairman of the Tertiary

"The 1980 supernumerary students in the two year course are in receipt of an annual non means tested allowance of $3,500. The Commission decided to introduce this allowance in September 1979; the allowance to be indexed to nursing salary movement. Prior to granting the allowance to these students in lieu of salary, all two and three year students were paid under the 'Award' Hospital Employees etc {nursing staff ACT) and were Temporary Employees of the Commission." (underlining added)

Of course the question of whether the "supernumerary" student nurses trained by the respondent commission during the nine year period 1971-1979 were employees is a question cf law, and as Cross (2nd Australian Edition 1979) expresses it (at p.507) "There is dispute as to whether admissions may be made of Matters of mixed law and fact: see Phipson 12th ed para 684 and Mahoney JA in Grey v. Australian Motorists & General Insurance Co Pty Ltd [1976] 1 NSWLR 669 at 684; cf Glass JA in Grey's Case at 675." If the student nurses were not employees then the statements by Mr Boardman and the acting chairman of the

respondent commission would not result in their being employees.

ATVMTBbAY INSEE SDs etd | a nmeieadanmtel an Samarrs banat Sith die ie ernest sent, et tale bie Lente ae mate Altle melt ete nile Fv tad Nihernenen reveinantieete ant matte atin ml dia Ae PR, te antenna al Me rs in a

a ae EIA TIN te Ndr Maa ml an Mc CI Lal sted ER Pl a Cal nena Lala a Castine ene nftan wnt rarnsnn netic tenant tee

SM RT ES OTE Oe ATR TT I Re een ee. ce en Re ce Oy en ee meen (a '

However, where, aS here, at the very least it cannot be said to be clear that the student nurses were not employees during that nine year period, then in my opinion, in considering what was the true nature of the relationship which the parties intended to create, it is permissible to take into account to some extent the evidence of Mr Boardman that he, as chairman of the respondent commission, accepted that the supernumerary student nurses from 1971-1979 were employees and to the evidence that the respondent commission itself treated them as employees. Even if evidence of statements by the respondent commission or by its chairman were not admissible, I would reach the conclusion that the supernumerary student nurses from 1971-1979

Having decided that they were employees, it is necessary to consider what changes were made by the respondent commission in respect of student nurses accepted for the 1980 two year general nursing course. The document headed "Royal Canberra Hospital School of Nursing General Nursing Course Curriculum 2 year programme 1980" (Ex.F) may be compared with the document headed "Canberra Hospital General Nursing Two Year Programme 1979" (Ex.P). I shall refer to each as the curriculum as that word was used throughout the hearing in referring to the two

i \cmamanteveesiencaimeian operates Ae a a ce ee ee ee re ee hee ee 2 Batt diet

In 1971, Canberra Hospital introduced the first two year nursing programme in Australia, to offer

supernumerary students the theoretical and clinical experience necessary to produce first level

Twelve students were accepted and prepared under the guidance of one Nurse Educator, and of these, ten finished the course, passed the New South Wales Nurses' Registration Board examination and were able to register in the A.C.T.

The scheme has continued without interruption since its inception and in 1974 the student intake was increased to thirty~six with additional tutorial support." (Details of the number of students in 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 were then given.)

Within the framework of the aims and objectives an intellectual and functional education will evolve,

and optimal development of both student and educator will occur.

ie as atelier Ay Nand ees J LN IR Lis Le a Ne NEN 2 ttl nN RRA A ERAN Refer

This provides the student with the cognisance and behaviours necessary for registration together with the resources to meet the needs of persons under his/her care."

The corresponding passage in the 1980 curriculum (p.2) read:

develop his/her social, psychological and nursing ' skills to function effectively as a first level

4 epeeeentmnenp: ray er nare tense ieee ene mein ee cannon ener ee ne ne a +

To provide a basic nursing programme facilitating the development of a competent beginning registered nurse (practitioner) through correlation of theory and practice.

To develop the student's ability to recognise individual needs and effectively apply the components of the nursing process to the delivery of patient centred care, through participation in the activities of the health care system."

The 1980 curriculum was virtually identical apart from the

omission from paragraph 2 of the words "to provide the patient

"General Objectives of the Two Year Programme That the student should:-

1 : have acquired theoretical/practical knowledge of the Social Sciences, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences to apply to the nursing process.

2 : use this knowledge to develop the techniques of planning, implementing, assessing and evaluating patient care, to provide the patient with comfort, treatment, safety and support.

3: identify the nursing role, understand the role of other health professionals and recognise the need to collaborate with these other professions."

"Principles of student status within the two year programme:

A eae OP anal at tenet Am eG ee ETN tees me adn et am

experiences determined by the Course Tutor in consultation with the Ward Sister.

3. To develop nursing skills required to deliver health care in the community.

experience be generated by the Course Tutor and the Ward Sister.

5. To work in the Ward Team, but, be relieved of sole responsibility for nursing service, so that he/she can be withdrawn from the ward for further educational experience according to the student's needs as determined by the Course Tutor and in consultation with the Ward Sister.

6. To have access to all educational resources within the A.C.T. irrespective of Regional Boundaries.

7. That rostering of his/her clinical experiences will be controlled by the Course Tutor in order to facilitate correlation of theory with practice.

8. In order to maintain the relation between theory and practice, the student will not be moved from the designated area for nursing practice unless the Course Tutor has been consulted and the alternative experience is considered suitable.

MAJOR EMERGENCIES are excluded from this principle."

The corresponding page in the 1980 curriculum read as follows:

"Principles of Student Status Within the Two Year Programme

2. To assume responsibility for self directed learning using a problem solving approach.

3. To have valid clinical experience determined by the Course Tutor in consultation with the Ward Sisters.

5. To have access to all educational resources within the A.C.T.

RTT A ETC NLT RI et ORL EO ED AR eR A SE TR A RS _ ae oe

6. That rostering of his/her clinical experiences will be controlled by the Course Tutor in order to facilitate correlation of theory with practice."

As the respondent commission said of the 1980 course in its letter to the senior assistant commissioner of taxation set out earlier, "The structure of the new course is no different from the former 2 year nurse education course", The terms and conditions document for signature by student nurses in 1980 had been drafted in such a way that, as Mr G. Faichney, assistant commissioner of the respondent commission said by minute, dated 12 November 1979, to Mr Boardman (Ex.R.12) "Conditions that might have the appearance of conditions of employment have been omitted, e.g. entitlement to uniforms ...". The brochure for 1980 differed from the 1979 brochure, e.g. by omitting references to current rates of pay and such passages as "rostered for duty any time over the seven-day week". There were other changes including that the 1980 student nurses normally worked morning shifts, they were not required to fill in time sheets, were not included in the roster of staff for the ward and they were to be withdrawn from the wards if they were asked to give "ward service". They also were at times taken out of the ward for theoretical instruction and they could be taken out of the ward by the nurse educator if the supergvision in the ward was inadequate. They were instructed to tell their nurse educators if the number of ward staff fell below the number

allocated. I have dealt earlier with the evidence as to "ward

ted aaa 1s aot ea cenae del cata anmamaeie a cedeallemeniemesaerediedicndemmeniteehateneenendlttt ined demeameatenemmednnmentatatinmetn tama ntantienemtcetianmentaes a ~~

service". In my opinion none of the changes effected in 1980 or 1981 had the effect that supernumerary student nurses in 1980

There remains for consideration the question of whether a penalty should be imposed in respect of either or both of the two breaches of the award which I have found to have been committed by the respondent commission. The maximum penalty that may be imposed by this court under s.119(1) of the Act in respect of a breach of a term of the award is $1,000. That figure leaves relatively little scope for argument as to the amount of penalty that is appropriate and probably explains why neither counsel for the respondent commission nor counsel for the applicant Rowe put any submissions as to penalty or sought an opportunity to do so later. In his final address Mr Ryan (in reply to a question) said that he did not wish to put any submissions at this stage. However, I do not consider that a further hearing on this aspect is necessary and it is desirable

I assume that the respondent commission has not previously breached any award under the Act. I also take into account the fact that, on the evidence of Mr Boardman, the commission was placed in a very difficult position by reason of the staff ceiling imposed upon the respondent commission by the Federal Government. Speaking of the Government's decision to

reduce the staff ceiling figure fixed for the respondent

SERRE ER PERRI EER EET ANY EER ETE SIAM I ATI Par ae rere weet tr cee ae ~ _~ =~

eRe aera teenie wats Niet ent te ee cane nt eel ee wy a ne ne ee a ee er ee ee

commission, Mr Boardman said that it "was too hard an imposition on the commission at that stage", although he added that he believed that the Government "did its best to be fair to us". On Mr Boardman's evidence ultimately the commission was forced "to accept it because that is the level set", although it was "a Matter of continuing argument". Previously he had told Miss James that he "could see no alternative but that the two year course would have to be abandoned". The decision to attempt to change from salary to a scholarship basis was undoubtedly partly to save costs. The respondent commission had professional nursing advice that the two year supernumerary course was not only a superior form of training nurses, but "was in Australian terms outstanding" so that, in Mr Boardman's view, "some step to retain the course because of its quality was required". It was in those circumstances that the decision was made by the respondent commission that, although "the structure of the new course is no different ... students entering the course in 1980 would be paid a student allowance in lieu of a full salary as has been paid to date" - see Mr Boardman's letter to taxation office quoted earlier. Accordingly, the respondent commission decided that the student nurses in 1980 would be required to sign a form which differed from the one used previously - from which form "conditions that might have the appearance of

Mr Boardman denied that the respondent commission gave

instructions "to make sure it took effect from a legal point of

NE OR are ee a RT ITN LT NAA TD, ERE ETH ON TR SO a - - nn eee rr

Di hidek caent tk Le clots tn th elon ame ia a te nr ne Pater - - ~ _ - - -- a ~ - - - - ap

view" and in re-examination said that he did not remember seeking any legal advice either as to whether the action "was beyond our power" or as to its "compatibility with what had been done before ...". He added "I do not think the legality of the Matters ... actually entered into our considerations" and that he "did not have any fears whacsoever that the legality of it would be questioned". I accept that the respondent commission did not deliberately set out to breach the award. However, on that evidence the commission decided to depart from its own Practice of the previous nine years {i.e. of treating supernumerary student nurses as employees) without even considering whether it had any legal power to grant scholarships and without even considering whether its action might be a breach of the award in respect of which it could be sued for a

To act in such a way without obtaining legal advice was reckless and irresponsible conduct by the Capital Territory

Health Commission which was a body required by the Ordinance under which it was established to "perform its functions in accordance with any directions given by the Muinister". Notwithstanding the "budgetary constraints" and the Government imposed staff ceilings under which the commission was operating

at the time, the breach of the award can not be regarded simply aS some momentary aberration. Had that been the case the respondent could have taken time to reflect upon the matter and

seek legal advice and possibly taken steps to rectify its

(Title Lares Cae ta ate - ee we etter art neem nhtcodds

A Le emeinea e cet enoel eeeeeAe et Ml neem eR ee a

sneiaadadesimoielachaaeh' na dntoaatatabetetienedhs badeeddmaeein aneiienaaeameieeiaamaienntine meneame - _ a 2 - _ - -

breach. In June 1981 the respondent commission committed a

further breach of the 1980 award in respect of Miss Pfeiffer.

I am not prepared to find the two breaches "to have arisen out of a course of conduct" by the respondent within the meaning of those words in s.119(1A) of the Act. 'The breach in respect of Miss Simms in November 1980 resulted from the respondent 'commission's decision in 1979 in respect of the 1980 two year course. Any other breaches in respect of student nurses enrolled in the 1980 two year course would have arisen out of the one course of conduct. However, the breach in respect of Miss Pfeiffer, which occurred in June 1981, arose from the respondent commission's decision in respect of the three year course for supernumerary student nurses which began in 1981. I have noted the smallness of the amounts paid relative to the award rate. The respondent commission was aware of this at the time of its decision as the report to it by Miss 'James (the director of nursing) said "There is considerable saving in adopting a student stipend for 2-year students as opposed to student salaries" (Ex.9). In all the circumstances, including the fixation by Parliament of a maximum penalty of $1,000, I consider that an appropriate penalty in respect of each of the two breaches of the award is an amount of $500. Under s.120 of the Act I order in matter A.C.T. No. 2 of 1981 that the whole of the penalty be paid by the respondent to the

Hospital Employees Federation and in matter A.C.T. No. 3 of 1981

that the whole of the penalty be paid by the respondent to the

ne eA cards "ieee "Soh 2s anemia datacenter eral wats et a At i Ma Sa ne wt tae hn en mek oe Bee '

The further hearing of both matters is adjourned to a date to be fixed to enable the applicants in each case to pursue, if necessary, their applications for an order that all trainee nurses who have been granted such scholarships be paid

the underpayments due pursuant to the appropriate awards.

T certify that this and the 53 preceding page. are a true copy of the Reasors for Jadgvlat Lerein of the

ETS ROE TET ARR LAL FP ee AE aGTREETR One wn tay eee mee - a ae ro.