Descovich v Suncorp [1996] QIRC 75 (1996) 151 QGIG 1706

1706 QCEENSLA~D GOVERNME rT INDU ST RIAL GAZETTE 22 Marc h, 1996 Ut## #/t## ##il##41 ###########ffl##ffl# ########### ## ######## QLiEE"ISLA"ID l"IDUSTRIAL RELAT I O>IS C0\1 \11 SS ION Industrial Relatwii< A<·t 1990 ' J2 I I implementauon of d1,pu1e «:nlemcnt Allan Roben [)e,co, 1ch AND Suncorp /No 81834 11/ 1995) CHIEF I NDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER HALL 12 March 1996 • Collccuve Agreement - Apphc:mon fo r Re,oluuon of lndu,tnal Dl\pute by Effect of Agrccntent - Apph~a11on to Onlc:r~ Implementing Agreement d P:u,icul:ir !'act, A,~c,,cd - Apphcouon Refu,c DECISION . a o It commenced "hen lhe Swte Th1' mJtter conunenccd man) )C:lf' 1 g bedded in the pubhc ,ector, f1 I • I r, I i ( I Go,cmment Insurance Otfice. then tindn y er~ e of m<un:r. of nurkeung f the then qand:1r prac ' d et I cho-..: to depart rom I cd ,alc,per.on, (kno" n a., ,Mn poh c1c, through age nt;, and cmp :m~;c1~ in,urance product, Suc h in<p«tor<.I to marl.t!l n< hfe and10 tal.c out union memh.:r,h1p The} did ,•mployces were of ~our~ cnutlcd of tune th.,. relat1on,h1p lx:tY..:en I 1 ~~ rorga1ncd Cllllectt,cl) In the cour,;e . . Office can~ to be I d h State Go,emment ln<uran~e ....... the ,Jlc,pcNln, an I t! d colkcu,e agreert1cn1~. ''"' or award, conlftlCt, an ..o,emcd b) a m:1111, • • nie r:ite, of com1nt-,,1on .. .,, an en,·1Jhk income ·•-A \Jle,pcf\On, came to en,-. . '~ eh that thc1 "'ere rc.,.ar""v and the opponu nI 11c, 10 cw n co11un I s,11,n "'ere • u . :JI h.111J-... me k,ch , The m,urance tmsine" of the S101~ I n1J1 er., i, long "n,c pa.,--cd h duianal inJuf\ and "°'1,.c~ I ce Ollice 101her l an '" • os / Go,crnrncnt n,uran ', olkd in IO a hu,incs, entity l,.noY.n compcnsauon in,uranccl h:is ticcn r actr\lttc, and the t,u.,,oe" ol Suncorp. Jlong "1th cl'nam hu1ld~ngu ,:~~1,111,pectors :uc "°" 1,.no"n :i.s providing 1inanc1al <;erv1ccs . Th" 1 hut the b:l'" of their 1 1he) are ,1111 emp o)ee,. ha, t-..-en m,ur..nce ~• ,ru,u '"'.'~ , , Add1uonolly. their capacn) to cam , rernuncratmn ha., changed: e, to the "'av in "hich Suncorp conducts :idHr-el) l'ffccted b) cl'n,un chanthg I,,.. ·r rat~ of comr111,s1on h:l\e t'et:" • r-, '" prQ<Juct, "-t t " · s corps ••~ hu-inc" c , • no longer rostercd into un introduced Insurance consultants ure th in,uranc<' produ..t< l'ho-;e s:ites ~ 10 de3I "ith enqume, "1 f r.illt:e retail branc s h It ant, Telephone l'nquIm:, c>r in,u . 1 • arc now mode h~ branc con,u ' Ill' surance c1,nsult.utl, I n,urance is I" ,lucLs '". oo IPnger rcfem:,Thlto t por~uml) ro ..:II corninerc1.1I and rural Id O er the telephone c op now ,o , , , aH, a,ailahlc to cnn..ult:1111, . lfi'1 JllCt.'" ,, 00\.\- Ol'I. g:1;ncr 22 M arch, I 996 QUEENSLAND GOVER MENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1707 So severe was the d1mmutron in the emolument~ of ~ruun of !he m,urance con,ul1an1s that 1hc State Pubhc Se!'\ ices Federa11on. Qut!ensland. Union of Employees, (which wa, the rcle1ant union) .,.a, compelled 10 mlef'\enc on !heir behalf A dr:il'n out dispu1e Y.h1ch bubbled mlo !hi\ Commi,~ion from 111nc 10 time Y..as ultrmately resol1cd b) an agreement pursuan1 to Y..h1cb golden parachutes were made available for in,urance consullMts of fi,e )ear, s1and1ng who had ,offered (agreed) drop m mcome Thrs mauer doc, not concern 1n<.urnnce consuhants It conc.:ms a regional '\ale~ manager Howe, er. the role, and !he fonunes of the insuran~ consultants and !he regional ~es manager. (hereafter RSMs) were alway, 1n1enwmed. The insurance consultants were as~1gned 10 a particular d151nc1 ln111ally. 11 appcan. 1ha1 the) "ere required to confine their UCll\llie, 10 tha1 d1,tnc1 In mon: recent 1imc1 the ngid1t) of tha1 system ha, broken do"'n An RSM y.a,, appointed to each dtstnct The RSM had the immed1a1c ,upen l\rOn or the in,urance con1ultan1< Y..1thin lhc d1stric1 Indeed ,upervNon 1s truly an madcqu:ue word The RSM .,.a_, a tr:uner. mentor 1!1(1(" a1or and father confe''°'· Contac1 betY.ecn the insurance con,ulran1 and the S1a1e Go,emment l n,urance Office Oatcr Suncorp) ...,a, through the RS\1 Although the RSM "'as p;i1d a ,maJJ 1um by way of salary, ht, ,ub,1anual income ":l.< dcnved from commission\ The RS~I', corrurn..-100;. J..no.,.n a.<, ,ur comm11,1on.,, Y.erc based on the COl1ll11J!>ston, pJtd 10 1he m,ur:ince con,ultant< "11hin 1hc particular RSM'< d11tnct When 1he commiwon cammg) of the insurance con;ul1anl!, "eni m10 rcnu,s,on m lhe earl) 1990's. w aJso did 1he earnings of 1he RS~ h HoY.e,cr. RSM< "ere not wnhin the scope of lhe agrecrneni between 1he Srnte Pubhc Scl'\1cc< Federauon. Qucen1land. Umon of Ernploy~-e, and Suncorp 10 Y..htch I ha,e previou,I) refe~ In thoo;e cucurru,tance, the Apphcant o;ee k, '°lace in a Memorandum of Agreernem eniercd inio bc1.,.een the Sime Pubhc Service, Federaiion. Queensland, Union or Emplo)ecs and ccn:un other unrom and the en1111es Y..hich make up the conglomcr-JLe known as Suncorp on 22 June 199-1 "regarding redundancf· The progen11or of !he Agreemcn1 of 199-1 wa.1 the Memorandum of Agrecmen1 of Jui) 1991 between Queen land Staie Service Union of Emplo>ee~ (o~ of !he arnalgarnaung ors:uu,auons rn the fonnatron of 1he State Pubhc Service, Fcderatron. Queen,lnnd. Union of Employee,) and cenam Other union,. Y.ith the emurc, Y..htch make 11p Suncorp Thai Agreemcn1 Y.:lS pan of a package of mea.-.ure de,,gned to accommodate 1he rolling toge1her of the businc,, ocm iu~ of Suncorp ln,urance and Frnnnce. Suncorp Bu1ldrng Soc1e1y and Suncorp Finance Limned An0thcr part of the pxlagc wa.~ the Su11c-orp <Tram1111mul) lmuurr A•wrd Srurt 144 QGIG 699. Indeed JU~l 3$ rhe 1991 Agn,'Cmem e"pr,MI} a.,,unic, e:m1ence of that Award. ,o to doe, the A\,ard e~prc,,ly a.,,ume cxmencc of 1hc Agreement of 1991 I accep1 the ,ubmM1on of Mr SoY.ter "ho appear. fo, the Rc,pondcm that the conqructron of 1he 1991 Agrel!rncnt " nOt 10 be app1oachcd lucrall) and Y.lthout regard to n~ commercial purpose or wnhou1 rcg:ud 10 the mdu,1nal Mtuauon. the re-.olutron of "hrch 11 " mtendcd 10 con1nbu1c W11hout de-ccnding rn10 paniculan!) 11 \Cclll1 to me that the purpo\C of the 1991 Agreen~n, .,..i., fi,c fold. Ftr'1. ll rc.:ogmscd the righ1 of1he cmplo~cr- 10 fold rhe1r oc11, Ilic, in10 1hc con11lor~rate Suncorp and to meld their busmc" JCll'lllc" 11<11"11h,1andrng tho1 1he con-.equcnce ...,a, :i lo" of job, Sl!cond 1t rc~ogm-ed that 1ho-.e emplo)ef\ and Suncorp had lhe concomnant obhgauon 10 -earch the ncv. conglomeraie fOf' emplo)mcni opponun111c, l'h1sh might he made a,aJ!Jhlc 10 employee-. dl\pl:iccd b) 1he re,truaunng or 1Ji., cmplo)er' , bustnc\\ affair. and. m appropr1aIc ta\Cs, imposed an obhgauon 10 provrdc the 11.umng nece,s:uy to "-quip crnplO)CC' for ,:ica,mc, l' hich 1hc <earch locoted Third. 11 '-OUl)hl 10 en,ure some rnc.1,ure of equ1t) tn the matching of d1,placcd e111plo)ee, to vac;mc1e, Founh. 11 lunned the nght Y.hich 1he employe" t>1hel'\<1-e had 10 tcmunaic cmplo)c~ b, nouce in lhe ta-c "here 1he need for the crnplo)cc,· «-nice, disappeared m consequence nf 1he mergrni: of :k.11\ 111c,, and 1mpo<cd an ohhgation 10 deal wuh ,u.-h ca,c, in a.:~ordan"e w11h the agreed terms Fifth. Y..here dl\cha,gc of the t'mplo)er·, ohligauons 10 pfe!;Cf\'C employment "'~ una1a1hng. 11 provided for tll\pla,cd emplo)ee, 10 bc retired from \Cf\1ce on pa) mcnt ol a "'mof mone1 Sa,c fOf <>ne cru"al matter the 1994 Agrct'rrtent de\JatC, from the 1991 Agr~111cnt 0111) m 1mma1cnal Y.ay, Ille 1991 Agree111cnt ddinc, the c111cral noun redundanc) to ..mean a ,11ua111m were the "-Ork bc111g done I» an cmplo)c<'. or ,1 ma1or pan of 11. t< n., longer required to he do<1c a, the: result of the 8u,inc" Integration proJe<t undcnaken by 111.! Em11lo)'er, That Cktin111on .,.a., perfect!) und?Nand,1hle. h arose because of 1hc lrnt.. agc of Ille 1991 Agreemcm ""h 1he p<oce" of rolling 1hrce undenal..ings mto nne l he 199-1 Agr,-cment define, "redundancy" 10 "mean a ,11ua11on "-CIC lltc \\orl bem~ done by an emplt1)ee. or a mJJOr p;111 of 11 rs no ton,cr rcqu11\'d 10 bc done a, the rc,ult of the rnuoduction of change, undenJlen hy !he En1plo}er' Th<• 1mm11 fac,, ~ of the change of langua)!e L, to 158470- 11 6 extend the operation of 1hc 1994 Agreeme nt 10 all cases m which "the m1rodoc1100 of chani]t, undenalcen by thc Emplo)er'' \0 ,mp;iccs upon the "'Ork bemg done by J particular employee tha1 that work, or o tnaJor po.rt or 11. 1s oo longer required 10 be done The C\Jdencc such :i_, 111\, rclaung to 1he formauon of the 199-1 Agrecmcni " thal !here "-:l., a recogmuon 1hat change and redundancy would n o1 gnnd 10 a halt upon the de1ermination of the 1ntcgrat1on proJect and a re,i0lve on !he point of the union 10 put in plxe an agreemeni governing the mailer of redundancy III advance of any pamcular problem becoming presen1 The expression 'the introduction of change, undenaken by the Employer" 1s, of cou~c. l ess readily undeNandable th an 1he exprc,tjon "lhe in1roductron of changes made by 1he Employer" Tilt! M11cquurre C11ncue D1c111ma') define, "undenake, tool., - t:iken. 13!..i n g" 10 mean "I 10 lake on oneself (,ome ta~k. performance. etccteml. 131.e m hJlld. e,..a). nncmp1 • The mearun1t "to 1:11.e upon one-elf: 10 !al..e m hand: - " appears a, the 1h1rd meani ng in l hc Slwf/er O.1.f11 rd l•:n11/itlr D1Cmmt1n (th11d ed111on) On balance I thrnk the 1hr1h! of the definmon m thl' 1994 Agrecmen1" at !he introductton of change e,~aycd or 011emp1cd by the emplo)er Some altempt was m:ide by Mr Merrell "'ho appeared for 1he Applican1 to per<uaJe rrte that the 199-1 Agreement had become part of and n1m:d 1he Applicant', wrmen cngngemen1 as a RS M However he was unab le to poinl 10 an1 e11dence of ac1uaJ °' 0<1en~1ble authoril) or e,en of rat1licauon He rche,· on !he Agreemen1 II seem, 10 me 10 be i.enlcd that the mere ex,-1encc of :i collecthe agreement relevant to an emplo)ce·s emplo}ment doc, not ex1end or modif) the md1v1duaJ con1rac1 of employment, compare Roben.w11 - 1 Brt111'1 Gu1 / 1983) IRLR 302 per Ackner U A, l undeNand II 'The conlr:letu:il m1ent ha. 10 be found m 1he rndl\1dual contr:ie1 of emplo)ment and ,·ef) oflen 1hc evidence will not be ,uflicicm 10 e.iabl ish such an intent m 1he manner ,,.h,ch ~u<lic, accepted con1rae1uaJ cntena :ind <ausfic, ordinary cmena of cenainty.". Alexar,der ., ,. Standard Te/eplume., and C11blt'< u11111ed I 1991) IRLR 2116 :it 292 per Hobhouse J. appro,cd 81rrr<' 1 • A11mal1u11 Arrlmn l.,m,red (1995) 69 AUR 797 at 810 per McHugh and Gummow JJ I hn1c been unable 10 locate <uch an mtent here Indeed. granted th:u the 199-1 Agreernen1 .ipphe, to unromsh a, "ell ~ 10 000 · umomm and thot no union party had ac1U al imphcd o,ten,iblc authority to :ic1 on behalf of lhe non-unronI\ls. e,en the! collecme :igr=men1 l'ould ~ 10 lack the intent that 11 ~hould be con1rac1ual and bmd mg m re l nI 1on 10 mdividu:il employees The altemaii\e.,, are that the umon., con1rae1ed a, pnnc,pah and tha1 the Agn:emen1 .,.a., intended to be rndustnally bu1 not legall> brndmg The laner consU'UClion. Y..hich " coniended for by \.fr So.,.,er on beh:ilf of Suncorp. ~, to me 10 :iccord "11h the factual c11cu11t\lances rn which 1he 199 l and 1he l 994 Agreement, were made wid .,.,th the \()fl\CY.h:u ca.,ual drafting The propo,11ion th:u the Agreement ".t' intended 10 bi! legally bmdmg upon 1he union, as pnnc1po1' was con1c ndcd for b) no one I am not prepared m the ~nee of proper argumcnl 10 a,,umc that nn indu<tnal organr..,.mon of emplo)ec, regNercd under 1~ lndu,ma/ lfr/a1111111 Ao /990 may. a., here cn1cr in10 a collective agrttment "h,ch II dcchll\?, to regl\1er Funher. the "hole of the IJnguage of the 1994 Agreement (and of1he 1991 Agreemcm) is dircc1cd 10 c,I:ibh,hing duue,, o"ed 10 md1\Jduah and 10 e,,t.ibh-hrng indt\ldwl nghL, Tite Agreement " n0t :ibouI the nght, of the umon, nor aboul 1hc du11c;. owed 10 them In !TI} v1eY.· lhe Agn!emen1, are 10 he lftated a<. AgrL'ClllCnt, cniered rn to m 1he attempted re,oluuon of an mdu,tnal problem ,l!ld .i., mtendcd 10 be hrndmg indu,tnally m1her than in law I tum 1hcn 10 the maucr, of fact Mr Merrell <.eel, 10 make 001 h,~ ca.-e rn the followmg Y.UY He ~ub n111, 1h:11 there ha,e bl'en fi,e ,pecilic change, l'h1ch render the JIO'l11on held h~ the Applicant redundant Y..tlhin the rneruung of the 1994 Agrcemc111 Thr f11c change, are ,aid to be (al change, to 1c,pon,1h1lil} re recr'Ui11t1c111 of 111,urancc consu1t:u11,. (hi ,upcf\1,ion of the con,ultant- Y.ho sell crnnrncrc1al aJld rur ul insu,ances. (Cl loss of e1gh1 insurance cc111,ullant1 from lhe Mt Gra,a11 re~Ion due 10 earl> ~para11on. ldl los., of supcntsol') re,poo,1hth11e:. o,cr mwran,c C<>•huhant, ari,mg out of 1he 1n1roduu1on of branch consuhan1, and lei gencml lo" of au1hori1} of the Apphcan1 ,rnd other RSI> !< OH'r insurance cnn,uham, employed m the manager·, rel?tOn I go to eoch oftho,e mailers III tum 11!8!1 I DOC -- 1 of 2 -- 170 8 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT IND US TRIAL GAZETTE 22 March, 1996 The 1radiuon has been for a RSM 10 recru 11 and to train the salesperson, who const11u1e his team. On all 1he materials before me thal has always been a contrac 1u al ob li ga 1ion of a RSM. It remains a componem of the description of a RSM's po;nion now utilised by Suncorp. The Applicant', approach 10 the disc harge of 1hose responsibilities has 1radi11 onally been robu.,1 He has relied on his experience in life and on his gui le to su,5 ou1 those who would make good sal~rnen. In fairness 10 him, he seems on the evidence 10 ha,e been remarkabl} succ:es.sful over a long period of lime He is no1 now perm11ted to operale in 1ha1 way . The syMem w hi ch is now in place is quue d1fferem h appear.- that 1he RSM continues 10 bear the re,pon,1bilit} for nominating candidates for 1he se lection proce,;s However. ear ly on in the process the candidate is required 10 take a compuler lest prepared b} LIM RA International Inc. a trade association of some 650 life insuran ce and financi al ..crviccs companies around the world. The lc'1 is forwarded 10 he:id office for a.sses.smen1 If the candidate is awarded a grade of four or fi ve the RSM is ad vised to progr"'ss the can didate to the next step . If the candidate !>COre, one, two or 1hree the RSM is required 10 reject the cand1da1e The evidence is. I should add. 1hm a RSM 1, told only whelher the candidate 1s to proc~d fu11her or 10 be reJecled and is not infonned of the grad e (There i~ also so me ev id ence 1h a1 another RSM successfully 100k up the ca..c of a rejected can dida1e "11h 1he manager career representatives. Mr Justo. convincing him thal the compu1er ques1ions did no1 adequ:nely fit the candidate's situation.) A survl\mg candida te is then further intcr.ieY.ed by the RS M and a funher LIMRA selection guide completed . This together with the candidate's apphca1ion is fornarded 10 a selcction panel for evaluation The RSM is no1 a member of the se lect ion pane l. If the applicant p,tsses the evalu,uion. the RSM refers 1he candidate 10 a con,uhan1 psychologist contrac1cd by Suncorp. The psychologist conduclS an in-<lep1h psycholog1cal a,~essment (in 1he absence of the RSM) and then mak~ a reconuncndation (always accep1cd) that the candida1c be progressed further or rejcc1ed . T he infomiation tra11 smu 1ed 10 the RSM by the pS}chologist i~ ~ligh1 and seem, to go no fu11hcr than advice 1hat 1he candidalc sh ou ld or should no1 be iaken fu1ther 1hrough 1he proce~s . A surviving candidate 1hen en ters a "pre-contrael agreemem" pursuant to which s/be work.., with the KSM . and i~ not permiued 10 sell in the absence of the RSM. for a sufficicn1 period of ume for 1he candidate to gain practical exposure and for the RSM 10 fomi a view as 10 whc1her the cOJ1 did a1e wi ll in facl be a successful salesperson . I am told by Mr Ju~10 that a1 1ht: conclusion of the pre-contract tnal It is 1he RSM who dctenrnnes whether a contrnc1 will or will not be offered to 1hc candidaie. I have some difficuhy with thal The cost of the p,ychological test is ,ubs1an1ial I would have thoug h1 thai 1f all 1he LIMRA 1cs1s and psycholog1cal 1es1, ind1ca1ed tha1 a candidate woold bc a succe.<~. given all lhc money had been 001laid by Suncorp. Mr Ju~to would 1101 accepl a rcj ec1 ion wi1ho u1 a1 leaq querying 11 14 i1h the RSM. On the e, idcnce. reJec1ion by a RSM n1 that late s1age see ms not 10 haw occun·ed. The problem which I ha,c wi1h Mr Merrell's ,ubnus,ion is 1ha1 the Applican1 was engaged on the expl icit basis tha1 the final decision as dmmc1 from the final recommenda11011 "'ould no1 be made by the RSM. and on the explicit ba.<is 1hat he would obscive " 1h e selec11on procedures as advised from 111ne to 1ime b} the marketing manager'' It seems 10 me 1ha1 1hough 1hcre may have been a change in 1he way m whi ch m fac1 !h e Appltcam performed his role, there ha.< been no change in the controctual role 1Lself Cenainly no part of 1he po<i 1ion has ceased to ex 1<t. It is 10 be cmpha., 1sed that the definiuon of "redundanC) .. doe 5 not define redundancy in term, of a major change in duties h defines redundancy in 1enns of an employer cea.,mg to req uire the perfom,ancc of 1he worJ.. being done b} an employee or a ma1or pan of ii Indeed. m limning the concepl to 1he cmegory of ca.,e in w hi ch the absence of n:qmrement for the \\Ork 10 be done 1< " a re,ull of the mmxluction of change, undc11aken by 1he employer". 1he definition makes ii clear 1ha t change in work i, msufficient When the parties "',shed 10 u,e the no un "change" the} did so. h is irrelevan1 1ha1 other parties m olher circums tan ces h ave defined red undancy in 1cm1s of "major c hange." I turn now 10 the maierials relating 10 1he supervision of consultants who ~ell commercial rural insurance. The e, idence 1, that for a ,ery long period of 1ime each RSM had 1he supervision of insurance consultants wi 1hin his region in respect of the ,ale of lifo insurance. supcrannua1ion pohcics, commercial m~urance and rural insurOJ1ce It appears 1ha1 a.s from I July 1995 the super. ISI0n of insurance co nsuhanlS in respec1 of 1he sale of commercial insurance was tran~ferred from the RSM 10 an emp loyee of the l. 1fe and Superannua11on Business Un11 kno"' a., a Commercial Insurance Officer. Mr Sowter made some attemp1 to persuade me that clerical empl oyees of Suncorp have .~ way, perfonned mmis1enal duucs m res~ct of 1he sale of commercial m,urance and 1ha1 no more was involved in the rcloc:uion of those employees fro111 · 'head office' 10 !he branches . I ha,e no difficulty 14hai.so.:,er m acceptine 1ha1 cle1ical employees have alway, had 1a.sks to perfom1 in relation to 1hc sale of commercial 1nsurnnce However. 1he duty statemen t of the Commercial Insurance Officer 1s in e, 1dencc. On the face of the documenl the Commercial In surance Officer doe~ ha ve 1he rcsponsibili 1y of supervising, and indeed mo11vaung, those insurance consultanlS in,olved m !he sale of commercial insurance. The Applicant ~ys that the role described was the role which he previously pe rfomied . A recently appoimed RSM called by the Responden1 ga,·e evidence 1hat 1he role dcscnbed was the role which he l)t!rfonncd in rel ation 10 insurance consullants in respect of the sale of life m~urance policies and ,uperannuation policies Mr Ju s10 had an swered a wrinen enquiry a, to whe1hcr 1he Commercial Insurance Officer "il' 10 ha,c "conuol" of insurance consultanlS in respect of the sale of commercial policies He answered 1h e enquiry by returning the memorandum 1>ih1ch had b.?en ,;ent to him after addmg the a.nno1a1ion "yes" h seems 10 me 1hm the on ly proper conclusion is 1ha1 RSMs are no longer required to perfomi 1ha1 pan of the "'ork pre\lOUSly performed by them which related 10 the ,upervision and motiva1ion of in ,uran cc con suhams dealing with commercial in,urance h l-eem, 10 me alw that in as..-;essing whc1her lhe adjective "major" i, appropriately app lied 10 the pan of the Job which ha~ been l ost I nm cmi1led 10 have regard 10 the imponance a.<. well as 10 the quamum of 1he work which has been lo,t. compare The Ma cqu<1rt e Co11t'ise Dic1io11ary which gives a., 1he fifth meaning for ··major~ - "greater. a., in size. a.mount. c~tem. imponance rank, etc." The Apphcan1 is cenain ly of the view tha 1 bis s1atu, ha., been downgraded. That appeared 10 be 1he ,•1e\\ of ce11ain fonner insurance consuhanL, who were cal l ed 10 give evidence by the Applicant I am inclined to agree. I con,ider that 1h1 s maner does "eigh in fa,our of the case Yihich Mr Merrell seek.s to make lim ita1ion or those who may sell rural insu r ance i, an aggravating factor. Ho"'ever. the weight to be aunbuted 10 this ma11er mus1 be tempered by the minimal contribu1ion that commercial m&urance sales make 10 a RSM 's remunerauon. I rcjec1 the e,'idence of the Applican1 lhat the 1ypical RSM spent 40 per ccn 1 of hi< 1inie upon the co 111mercial insurance sal es. I accept rhm becau-.e of his panicular 1al ents and background the Applicant did But he wa.~ not typical And from his (average) lwo days a wee k effon he earned aboul one sixth of his non salary income In tho<:e c1rcum,taoccs i1 1s bolh po!,Sible 10 understand why Suncorp chose 10 di vcn the responsib ilities relating to commercial insurance from RSM~ and leg111ma1e 10 de,aluc the impo11a.nce of the re~ponsibilitics divencd. Mr M errell', third ground, 1·1z the lm,s of cigh1 insurance cons ultants from the Applicant's region a., a result of th~ con,ultants exuing their cmploymem pursuan1 to 1he separation ammgements negotia1ed bet ween Su ncorp and the union,, seems to me IO have no we 1gh1 On.: 's prtmajaci, cxpeclation would be 1ha1 over time in\urrutce consullanLs would come and go. The historical evidence is thai 1he Applican1 had been confromed _.;th and had dealt with a \lgnifica.n1 number of departure< and with a ,igmfi can t influx of new pe rso nn el on oLher occasions . h $<!em, 10 me tha1 the hismry of a po.s111on i< relc,·ant in as<essing whether a major part of n ha.s cea.<ed 10 exist. compare Lu11e .,•• Arrmvcre.,1 Group Pty Ud ( 1990) 27 FCR 427 at 435 per Von Doussa J ( and I note that 1he uluma1e lest m 1ha1 case was "major change" not "major pan"). Whilsi 11 1s literally trnc that the Applicant has last rhe work of su pervising the eight msur.ince consultanlS who have dcpaned, he has acquired the work (or should h ave acquired the work) of recruiting and training new consultant, It 1, in 1he nature of the posuion that such vanution< will occur in the di~charge of the du ties of a RSM. I accep1 1ha1 recruitmem of su11able per.,on, 1, difficult. although the recent provl\1on of a ,alar} ,ubsidy during I.he initial period of engagemelll by Suncorp should m ake 1he process less d1fficuh. Bui recrunrnent i, nOI 1mpos\lble. The Applican1 was never promised 1ha1 ii \\ould be ca.sy and I am 001 affirmatively satisfied that 1t is any harder than II previously wa< I accept that when the system of roMering in ,urancc con,ultants into 1he retail branches came to an end. the Apphcant lost the opponun11y 10 supervise insurance co nsuhan1s whilst they were wit hm rhe b ranches. Granted the "'~dth of a RSM's supemsory respon,ibihues I do not con<1der 1he e,ci,ion from 1ho<e du ties of the respon,ibili1y to supervise in l imi ted geographic locauons 1s of any present moment Of more moment or so ii <ccm, 10 me. wa< the 1ntroduc1ion of telephone ,clling During the period when telephone enquiries were referred to the rn,urance consultants. the} \\ere refe rred through the RSM, Matching an enquiry with the mOSl su itable consultan1 and disinbuting enquin e, equuably over the co nsultan15 f "'·a., doubtless a demanding 1ask The clement of large<- involved mus1 have comri buted to the RSM s' standing au1hori1y amongst the con,ultants NI oi ( that ha., now been lost , The evidence seem, to me not 10 <ustain ~lr Merrell's final submis ioo 1hat over 1111ie tl1c re has been a general l oss of au 1honty of RSMs o,er insurance consuhanlS The evidence relaung 10 insurance consu han!i dealing directly with senior managemen t ms1c;id of honouring the pasl I ( I f ( I I ( ff I 22 M arch, 1996 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE pracuce of working through ihe RSM . . m,urance co n, ultanis onl> "· h f 1 ~ evidence which relates to '"'O j . • c.,c O 1he111 IS a very , , . con,u 1an1 with an enviable ~le h. cxpen cnccd in surance Apphcanl'~ region for adminis1ra11v: istory. Although allocated lo the or about "head o ffice" It is to be purposes they arc ph ysically loca1ed ru "'nh senio r mana<>e~nt The expected lhat they will come into comae, I . " • con versa 11 ons ap=a . I h cnlll'\! Y innocuous maue,,, I r- 1 0 ave been about b · am n o1 prepared to ace h w,ts .:mg by-passed or undemiini.:d. ept I a, the Applicant I I I accept tha t other Suncorp officers now . . . consuh ants reccl\ e relating to the sale •0f Jnllllde mto 1he training which case of tliosc who now se ll rural commercial insurance and tn the _, , insurance rura l insu ' 1..,.en accoun1 of the transfer of au rhont . fr· ranee. I h ave already co,ru11c1cial irl~urance. > 0111 RSMs m relati on 10 1he sale of h would be irnpen ine01 to cha., 1i sc lhe . dtfinmg redundancy by re ference t~ parues to !he 1994 AgrL>emcnr for legislature now seems 10 fav h conclusion,. Rcgrennbly, eve n lhe our I a1 course ihoo"h -1 d . :i.:cepted meaning of "defi ne " Th , SJ • " 1 oes violence 10 the f"d Ii •· • . • c 1011er Oxford Enfll ; o· o e me in 115 rclcvalll mcanmg, • is' wtumu ry ,ays "b. To make definite in ou1l1ne or form 1 . . -1 . To lay down definitely, lo fix u 153 8~5 . 3. To_ltm1L confine - 1643. p1ce1sely" . pon • • 5 - to dcC1Clc - 16 12 5. To state The mevi1able con • S\!<j uence is that 1herc "''" fror • . bctY.een the panic, 10 ihe Ag n ume to tune be d1spuia1100 . • reemclll a.s 10 whethc lh ad. . appropn.uely describes the siiu· t . . r c • ~cc11ve " rrntior" f h a ion 1n w'hich a.s a re, 1 f o c anges undenakcn by th , 1 • su I o the mtroduc11on employee is no longer requi~;m~yer. ~an of the work being dooc by a.n th a1 th • I~ I$ JUSI .such a case Not • h • , e case con sumed many days of h• . • . • w 11 standing d1fforence betY.cen th e pan . cann g. n seems 10 me 1hat the real h 1es" not abou 1 the foc 1s b I bou c arac1erisation of lhc fu nclions . d . . . . . u 3 t th e appropriate los1 On balance I a.m an iespons1b1h11es which the APPli can 1 has 'h•··· . • d ' not per;uadcd !hat rhev a.re . c ,uac1en se ,ls ma.,or. I have considered w , appropna1ely obJccts and purpose,s of the A= hether having regard to the • . ·r; d . . ... ~emcnt, on the whole of ·ts I I Ju,u 1e m 1111pressin<> an othe lh . 1- emis. would be ' e r an u,uaJ meaning upon the_,. . . acce pt the proposiuon that since 1 ""JCcuvc I can meaning rc levaru to rcdund • h I ~ purpose is 10 de fi ne red und ancy a f ancy , ould be <;elected B the • o rhc ad.1 ectiv e, which r ha ve set Olli 3 . • ut nonnal mea.nrng redundancy In ordinary circwm1ancc~• ~ve, is relevant to the de fini 11on of "A redundancy will arise "'here job . em ployee - is no longer required \h .s - ~~ d1Mmc1 from a particular has labour m excess of the • . I co u occur where an employer . 1 requirements of the bus ' . h emp oyer no longer r eq uires 10 h . . mess. w ere the the emplo)er want, to amaJ. av e a P3J1icular Job perfonnc(I; or when r gamatc Jobs R ~· f nd I C .J11U1lt A11s1ralia; ex par/e Adel<11de, . • 11.<trw mw11i.u111n r1/ C1977J -14 SA JR l?O.., B Wilk Supply Co-operm ii ,t! Limi1e,J fMWU(l99?)46 tR 9-8per ra} CJ at 1205: Gromar( Pucl..,1!/inx ·I'· - per Franklyn J at J05 .. per Spender J in Mi1chell - Co/1,nr 1. 480 ai 488 For com pl t:1ene,s I add ·h -· The lmrobe Council (1995) 60 IR the Applican1 to remain in 1is empl~}~n lhe eviden ce Suncorp does wis h lnlt>011 on of amal gama1ing his po,uion \ ,:1 as ~ RSM and has no prc<ent lllt!y "i,h lhc Applicant toe t •. v1 anot er pos111on . It is lrue thni th . n er 11110 a new cont f ere " a benign cxplana11 on for l hat Th mc1 o employment. Bur consultant made lhe previo ~ b . f e changmg role of the insurance w~, impo 11 a111 tha t a new re1~u ne~:~o~ p~:u™:':mg RSMs inequitable. It lx~n 3Cceptcd by all RSMs Olher than th c age . devel oped It was . h has Suncorp would wish to employ al l o f't e Applicant. I can undemand why I s managers on the <ame lerm.s In the premise, I am ~aris fied that tlie . . • COntemplated b} the 199-l A Applicant " no1 in a si1ua1i on orders implementing the agree,!:~::1::n :od~:1~ss the Application for Dated 1h1~ lwelftb day of March. 199 6. D.R. HALL. Chief l ndu~1rial Commissioner. Appearan ce.<. Mr J Merrell of the State Public Se . Employee., for lhe Applicam. rv1ces Federation. Queensland. Union of Mr c s " - O\\ter of Queensland C'onfedc • employer, for lhc Re,pondent. ra11on of lnd u<1ry L 1mi1ed. Un ion of 1709 Opern11ve Date . NIA Decisi on - Suncorp l nsurun Redundancy • ce and Finance - Regional Sales \fanagcrs _ Relca.\ed : 12 March 1996 18811_1 DOC -- 2 of 2 --