Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Queensland Branch, Union of Employees v Queensland Ambulance Service [1999] QIRC 132 (1999) 161 QGIG 134

134 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 11 June, 1999 ##ffl###################ffl-###################################################1/#########################ffl################ QUEEKSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relaiions Act 1997 - s. 239 - notification of dispute Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Queensland Br.mch, Uni-On of Employees AND Queensland Ambulance Service (No. D103 of 1999) COMMISSIO�ER BLOO�FIELD 2 J une 1999 Dispute - Long Service Leave - Rejection of application for leave over Christmas/New Year period 1999 - Expected heavy workload with celebrations for new millennium - Applications approved on "first c ome-first served" basis - Arbitrated Maller - Operational requirements of QAS do not permit any more officers be allowed 10 take annual leave or long service leave - Commission not persuaded to interfere with rejection of long service leave awlication - Recommended that QAS review leave. approval procedure. DECISION This decision relates to an unresolved industrial dispute between a member of Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Queensland Branch, Union of Employees (ALHMWU) and the Queensland Ambu lance Service (QAS). The member, Mr J. Booth, had unsucc essfully applied for long ser vice le ave 10 be taken over the Christ mas/N ew Year period in 1999. Mr B oo th's application was lodged in the middle of January and was rejected on the basis that QAS had already approved a large number of apphcation-1 for annual leave and long service leave. Mr J. Martin of ALHMWU, who appeared for Mr Booth, argued that applications for long service leave should be treated differently to applications for annual leave. He argued t.hat Mr Booth had made his application eleven months in advance of the time which he wished to take and that QAS had been given a mple notice within which to accommodat e his reque1,1. He a.lso argued that if Mr Booth's application for long service )eave was granted he would be one of only two people on l ong service leav e. This was not a great number out of the I 00 or so that were likely to be absent during the Christmas period. In addition, Mr Manin indicated that it would be possible 10 ;•put a fence" around Mr Booth's application given his leng1h of service and the fact that the request had been made in January. Mr Booth told me that at the time he commenced employmen1 with QAS annual leave was expected to be taken upon each employee's annivers ary date. In later years it had become possible to take ann ual leave with more flexibility. In recent years he had attempted to take annual leave or long service leave over Christmas so that he might spend such time with his children. It was because of his express desire to spend Christmas and New Year with his children that he was <.-ontinuing to pursue the matter so strongly. Mr D. Himstedt, who represent ed QAS, informed m e that Mr Booth's applic ation had been rejected for operational reasons. QAS expecLS a heavier than usu al workload towards the end of J 999 because of an anticipated incr ease in celebrations as sociated with the commencement of the new millennium . O ver 80 leave applications had been approved and ii was simply not possible for the QAS LO approve Mr Booth's application. QAS had also rejected a number of other leave applications because of its operational requirements. Mr R. Galeano and �r D. Sell, who appeared with Mr Himstedt, further expanded on the operational difficulties which confronted the QAS and highlighted that leave within the QAS had oormally been granted on a ,.first come-first served" basis and that that procedure had been we ll known for many ye ars. Further, QAS normally sought to allow a maximum of 80 persons 10 be absent at the one time but - for various reasons - approvals had already been granted to allow an expected 106 staff members to be absent over the Christmas/New Year period in 1999. Indeed, QAS was now concerned about it s ability to handle the expected workload given the number of staff who would be absen1. The dispute had been dealt v,,ith pursuant to the Dispu1es Procedure in the Ambulance Service Employees' Award - State without resolution. Conferences were held before the Commission as prese1itly constituted on 13 and 27 May 1999, again without resolution. Accordingly, I resolved to decide the mailer pursuant to th e powers vested in me at s.240(2)(h) of the Workplace Relations Acr 1997. Al the first conference I aske d QAS to prepare a schedule showing the na mes of staff who had been approved to take Jong service leave or annual leave in the period between 13 December 1999 and 2 January 2000. Such period represents an available roster block within QAS's operations. Staff normally request permission 10 take leave to c oincide with an available roster block. The schedule was provided to ALHMWU and the Commission on 24 May and ALHMWU was given the opportunity to study its contents before the conference resumed. The schedule show ed the name of the individual for whom le ave had been approved, their commencement date, their station, their rank, the date on which the "request for lea ve" form was lodged, the date on which 1he leave request was approved and, finally, details of any leave which the empl oye e may have taken over the Christmas/Kew Year period ove r the last five years. Leave details were also supplied for Mr Booth showing the annual lea ve and long sen,ice lea ve which he had taken over the last ten years. The schedule provided by QAS showed that annual leave had been approved for 74 staff members, long service leave had been granted to 8 Staff members and that there were expected to be 24 officers out of the operational roster on such leave as extended workers' compensation leave, maternity leave, Jong term sick leave or secondment to other duties. The schedule also showed that Mr B0oth had taken annual lea ve duri ng three out of the last five Christmas/New Year periods. It also showed that he had taken annual Jeave or long service leave over seven of the last ten Christmas/New Year periods. Importantly, the schedule showed that the last approval for a staff member to take annual leave had been given on 5 November I 998 and that the last approval for J ong service leave had been given on 26 November 1998. 11 June, 1999 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 135 Mr Booth has been a serving ambulance officer for 26 years. Although it may once have heen the case that annual leave was taken around the time of an individual employee's anniversary date that has not been the case smce al least I 991. The undisputed facts seem to be that )eave - at least until now_ ha.s been granted on a "first come-first served" basis and that such regime has been generally u nderstood by all ambulance officers, i ncluding Mr Booth. Mr Booth's application was made some two months after the last successful applicant. Past history should have sugg ested that any application lodged so late was unlikely LO be accepted. Although Mr Booth wishes to take leave so that he may be with his daughter it must be noted that he has managed to obtain leave over the Christmas/New Year period on a number of occasions previously. He is not the only ambulance officer who would like to be allowed to take leave over the Christmas/New Year period in 1999 for the purpose stated. The reality, however, is lhat the operational requirements of QAS do not permi1 any more serving officers to be allowed to take annual leave or long service leave. In my view, there are no special grou nds which would distinguish Mr Booth from an y other serving ambulance officer who has not had a leave application approved. This is so notwithstanding that Mr Booth has applied for long service leave and not annual le ave. In the circumstances I am not persuaded that I should act to interfere with management's decision to reject Mr Booth's application for Jong s ervice leave. However, the dispute points to certain inflextbilitie s in QAS' s current approach to a nnual leave and long service leave applicati ons. WhilSt the process con1inues whereby leave is granted on a .. first come-first served.. basis the re will always remain th e potential for dis putes such as this 10 arise. Further, there is nothing in the current arrangements which distinguish between long service le ave applications and applications for annual leave. Accordingly, I recommend to QAS that it review its leave approval arrangements such that all employees a.re ale.rted t o the need to make application for leave over the Christma.s and/or New Year period well in advance and all staff are given an equal opportunity 1 0 apply for leave at the same time. Further, a dedicated number of positions should be earmarked for l ong service leave applicants and the remaining number of available spots should be earmarked for annual leave applicants. The pr:ocedure should (ideally) allow for bidding to tak e place on a station by �1ation basis with all applicants being required to submit leave request forms by a given date. It should be made clear to staff who submit applications that l eave will only be granted after considering the needs of the station and after taking into account which employees may have successfully applied for le ave over the equi valeJlt periods in previous years. Such a regime would, rn my view, help lo reduce the potential for conflict as well as make the process more open and equitable. I determrne an d recommend accordingly. A.L. BLOOMFIELD, Commissioner. Released: 2 June 1999 Appearances:- • Mr J. Martin and Mr J. Booth for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscella neou s Workers Union , Queensland Branch, Union of Employees. • Mr D. Him�-iedt, l\,ir D. Sell and Mr R. Galeano for the Queensland Am bulance Service. ########################################################################################################################### -- 1 of 1 --