Commissioner for Railways v Australian Railways Union of Employees, Queensland Branch and Another [1991] QIRC 37 (1991) 136 QGIG 421

420 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE (9 March, 1991 9 March, 1991] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 421 QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1990 s. I0.12 - application for variation Comm issioner for Railways AND Australian Railways Union of Employees, Queensland Branch and Another (Nos. BIIO and BI 22 of 1990) RA ILWAY AWARD - STATE COMMISSIONER ASHWOOD 25 February 1991 Wages - Oible Jointer - Wage Structure - Wage Differentials - Definition - Skills - Qualifications - Responsibility - Training - Inspections by Tribunal - Special case - Wage Fixation Principl es - Structural Efficiency - Work Value - Arbitrated Matter - No final Decision on either appli cation at this time - In light of possible further developments as regards structural efficiency Decision deferred fo r four month s. DECISION These proceedin~s involved the hearing of the two (2) applications conjointly. Apphcation BI 10 of 1990 filed by the Commissioner for Railways requested a new structure in the Award for the Cable Jointer classificatio n, which is set ou t in clause 57 of the Award, to reflect the appropriate qualifications gained by such employees. Application BI 22 of 1990 filed by the Australian Railways Un ion of Employees, Queensland Branch endeavoured to establish appro- priate Award definitions and pay rates for a new structure of Cable Jointer classifications as determined by the Com missioner for Railways, having regard to the skills and responsibilities attached to such new positions. In addition to the two applicants. an appearance in the proceedings was made for The Electrical Trades Union of Employees of Aus- tralia, Queensland Branch (the ETU). The Commission was informed that the classification(s) for cable Jointers initially appeared in this Award as a result of the Industrial Court of Queensland hearing and determ ining applications 327 and others of 1946 , such classification(s) with attendant rate(s) of wages became operative from 3 March I 947 ( variation 32 QIG 846). It is noted that in those proceedings the Commissioner for Railways did not oppose the insertion in the Award of the Cable Jointer classification and that such rate was fixed at that of a base grade tradesman. Presently the weekly rate for a Cable Jointer is $41 7.30 and the Comm ission has observed that a similar rate of wage applies in the Award to Boilermakers, Carpenters, carriage Builders, Electrical Mechanics, Fitters, Painters, Plumbers, Sheet Metal Workers, Wagonbuilders, Linesmen (Power) and Telephone Technicians, to name but a limited number of other classifications. Inspections of the work of Cable Jointers and other employees in the Electrical and Signal and Telecommunications Sections were carried out at Mayne, No;1bgate and Ban yo (Brisbane Metropolitan Area) and between Gladstone and Rockhampton, Gracemere and Rockhampton. On several occasions in the course of inspections Cable Jointers demonstrated to the Commission the wide variety of equipment used in the course of carrying out their dut ies. Inspections in Rockhampton, which were undertaken at the request of the Commissioner for Ra il ways, involved the Ra ilway Centre where the Commission was shown Railway Control and Com- munications Equipment from which railway operations from Bun- daberg to Mackay, west to Winton and involving the mining areas west of Gladstone and Mackay are centred. In this building the Commission was shown a wide range of equipment covering such areas as telemetry, communications, signalling, voice recorders, modems. centralised traffic controls and microwave. Whi ls t this equipment did not involve Cable Jointers it was pointed out that it was ma intained by Telecommunications Technicians. Further inspections in Rockhampton were undertaken at the Signal and Telecommunications Workshops where the Commission was shown the scope of monitoring and repair work carried out by Telecommunications Technicians and Signal Electricians. -- 1 of 2 -- 422 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [9 March, 1991 At the conclusion of the inspections the Commission pointed out that whilst no formal subm1ss10ns had been made it appeared that the apphcat10ns should be referred to the Chief Industrial Com- missioner for decision as to whether the matter should be consid- ered as a Special Case. Following consideration of this reference the Chief Commissioner decided that whilst the applications should be considered as a Special Case they_ should, as permitted by the Principles, be heard by the Comm1ss1on as currently constituted and not bv a Full Bench of the Commission. • The Commissioner for Railways called evidence from Peter James Attard who had held_ the position of Divisional Signal and Tele- commumcat10ns Engineer m the Central Division of Queensland Rail for five and a half (5 1/2) years. In addition to explaining the area of his responsibilities the witness advised that the basic functio~ of a Cable Jointer was to carry out the maintenance and installation of all types of cables used by Queensland Rail. He went on to explain the qualifications of Cable Jointers and referred to (study) courses completed by Cable Jointers employed by Queensland Rail. He gave evidence that with the advent of main line electrification ope_n wire pole routes were replaced by underground cable and optical fibre cable was installed as the main bearer of the com- munications system. Eviden_ce was given as to the duties undertaken by Cable Jointers in the JOinting of optical fibres. (This area of Cable Jointers work had b_een demonstrated to the Commission in a workshop situation in Brisbane and adJacent to the railway line north of Gladstone.) The witness explained that the skill involved in jointing optical fibre was more practical than educational skill. In recent years breaks with optical fibre cables were less than two (2) breaks per 100 kilometres per year and in the main such breakages were due to backhoes or other machinery digging over cable routes or optical fibre being washed away in floods. Further in evidence Mr Attard stated:- "_In comparing Cable Jointers with other classifications espe- cially Signal Electnc1ans, and Telecommunications Tech- nicians Gra_des I and II in the types of work performed, I would classify Cable Jointers as being comparable with the base grade of the Electrical trades, i.e. Electrical Mechanic or Telephone Technician.". The second witness called by the Commissioner for Railways was Mervyn John Green who was the Lines and Cables Engineer in the Chief Signal and Telecommunications Engineer's Branch. Mr Green had been in that Branch for eighteen (18) years with twelve ( 12) years in his present position. His evidence included a statement to the effect that Queensland Rail was m the process of phasing out overhead lines and intro- ducing underground cables and that this work should be completed m five (5) years. One of the results will be that prior to that time Queensland Rail would accumulate a surplus of "overhead linesmen". Mr Green advised that for many years other tradesmen had accepted that cable jointers and linesmen as having "tradesman status". In cross~examination Mr Green pointed out that presently Queens- land Rail had one hundred (100) overhead linesmen and eight (8) cable Jointers. The witness agreed that in relation to the changes occurring in this area of Queensland Rail operations, matters were at as "a trans1t10nary stage". On commencing submissions in support of application BI 10 of 1990 the Commissioner for Railways drew the attention of the Commission to six (6) matters contained in the Statement of Facts and Issues, these items are listed below:- "(i) The application seeks to provide a structure for employ- ees in the Cable Jointer classification in Clause 57 which reflects the appropriate qualifications gained by those employees. (ii) The new positions of Cable Jointer Grade II and Senior Cable Jointer have been established to parallel the classifi- cauons_ of Linesmen and Senior Railway Linesman (Power) respectively. (iii) These changes are necessary due to the reduced require- ment of Q.R. to use overhead power, signal and commu- nication lines and the increased need to use underground cabling. (iv) To allow for greater flexibility of those employees in the Linesman grade, suitable qualification courses have been established which allows these employees to carry out the increasing functions and duties of Cable Jointers. (v) _This flexibility is then enhanced by creating the new pos1t10ns in Clause 57. (vi) The Railway Staff By-Law 1175 of 1985 was amended in Clause 39(4) to provide equal avenues of promotion for both Cable Jointer and Linesman through to Cable Jointer in Charge and_ Linesman in Charge. Criteria for appointment to those class1ficat10ns are now set out in the Bv-Law 1224 of 1989.". • Included in the points made for Queensland Rail during the submissions were:- • The application sought to recognise the experience gained by Cable Jointers and put a suitable structure in the Award. • The present Award has provision only for the classification of Cable Jointer. • Proposed structure would have the following alignments with related employees:- Cable Jointer II - Linesman ($371 p.w.) Cable Jointer I - Linesman (Power) ($417.30 p.w.) Senior Cable Jointer - Senior Linesman ($426.20 p.w.) • At present for employees to be appointed as Cable Jointers they are required to be "suitably employed" in assisting a classified Cable Jointer in his everyday duties. • Under proposals employees would commence as a Labourer gain experience and skill to comply with criteria for clas~ sification as Cable Jointer II. • To be appointed to Cable Jointer I a requirement of two (2) years experience as Cable Jointer II, pass required exam- mat10ns and be issued with a certificate of competency. • The new classification of Senior Cabie Jointer allows for a structural promotional avenue for employees within the Cable Jointer classifications. • Queensland Rail requested rates of pay for new classifi- catwns based on rates previously determined by this Com- misswn. The Australian Railways Union of Employees, Queensland Branch (the ARU) in commencing submissions in relation to Bl22 of 1990 amended their application with the result that the following rates were requested:- Cable Jointer II - $435.50 (present rate for Signal Electri- cian Grade II); Cable Jointer I - $454.60 (present rate for Senior Railwav Electrician); • Senior Cable Jointer - $477.00 (present rate for Electronics Tradesmen). T_he ARU submitted that in amending their application the Union did so "in order that an ambit might be established to facilitate an upward movement beyond that amount set bv the claim lodged by the Railway Department". • The Union called evidence from John Churchill employed by Queensland Rail as a Cable Jointer for ten (10) years. In course for evidence Mr Churchill referred to his education training and experience. The witness gave evidence as to the area~ of the State in which he had worked as a Cable Jointer, the eqmpment he had used in various aspects of his duties and to the need for maintenance of the cables. The Union then proceeded to make submissions as to the rates of pay proposed by both applications and made the observation that unless some clarification was made by Queensland Rail some present employees could be reduced in pay as the rate proposed for Cable Jointer II was less than the present rate for a Cable Jointer. 9 March, 1991] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 423 Whilst the Union understood the proposal by Queensland Rail as to the need for flexibility the definitions proposed by Queensland Rail could result in "provision for cheap labour". The ARU drew to the attention of the Commission that for a considerable period of time "Cable Jointers in Q.R. have enjoyed tradesman status". The Union submitted in line with Award Restructuring Principles recognition should be given to Cable Jointers having in mind the changing nature of the Railway Industry. In summary the ARU submitted that the present base rate of a Cable Jointer should be preserved and not reduced as proposed by Queensland Rail and the new rates could b~ established for the Cable Jointer I and Senior Cable Jomter class1ficat1ons. Further it was submitted that insofar as Cable Jointers in Queens- land R~il are concerned, work requirements will increase and there will be changes in technology. It follows that there will be a greater emphasis on training and the extent and intensity of such training should be remunerated. The opportunity was then given to the ETU to present submissions. It should be noted that this Union had participated in all inspections and in the examination of witnesses. '1. supporting the application by the ARU, the ETU submitted }nat a case had been established for the proposed structural changes. It was pointed out that similar changes in classification and rates of pay had occurred in the Electrical an~ Signal and Telecom- munications Sections of Queensland Rail. These changes had resulted in certain classifications receiving rates of pay in excess of the "base tradespersons rate". ln replying to ARU submissions Queensland Rail clarified that it was not their intention for any employee on the present Cable Jointers classification to have their wages reduced should their application be granted. Further, Quee_nsland Rail submitted that the inspections. did not provide a basis for mcreases m rates of pay for Cable Jointers as proposed by the ARU application. Conclusions In the course of considering the material placed before it in these proceedings, together with the information gained from the inspec- tions, the Commission took the opportunity to refer back to the most recent Decision given by this Commission as to the Second Payment under the Structural Efficiency Principle and matters 1ssociated with structural efficiency in the Railway Industry and iie Railway Award - State (134 QGIG 242-4). It is noted that in that Decision the Commission noted the work of the various Co-ordinating Groups formed within the Railway Industry and received reports, as exhibits, from such groups includ- ing the Signals, Telecommunications and Electrical Maintenance Group containing an outline of the activities of that group and lecommendations made. Submissions in those proceedings went on to outline proposals for the new wage and classification structures within the Railway Award - State. In granting the Second Progress Payment by that _Decision the Commission indicated it was mindful of the ongomg nature of matters relating to structural efficiency in Queensland Rail. The nature of the proposals put to the Commission on that occasion and the appreciation of such proposals causes me to hesitate on a final Decision on these applications. The Commission has been made aware of the work of Cable Jointers in Queensland Railways and of the work of other employ- ees in the Electrical and Signal and Telecommunications Outside Section of Queensland Railways who are on either the same rate of pay or on a higher rate of pay. For the Commission to even contemplate a change in structure of Cable Jointer classification(s) could cut across matters proposed in the course of progressing structural efficiency in Queensland Rail. The above comment should not be construed as meaning the Commission would accept that a Special Case has been made out and the work value of Cable Jointers has increased in accordance with the relevant Principle of this Commission. The parties should bear in mind that an increase in_the knowledge of an employee which enables him to carry out his duties could 110481-33 have resulted from changes in techniques, methods and procedures. Such changes may not be the basis for accepting that the work value of the particular employee has increased in accordance with the Work Value Principle of the Commission. In handing down the Decision to grant the Second Progress Pay- ment and associated matters the Commission was of the view that matters relating to structural efficiency in Queensland Railways would have progressed much further than appears to be the case at the present time. Accordingly the Commission will not make a final Decision on either application at this time. In the light of possible further developments as regards structural efficiency in Queensland Rail, the Commission proposes to defer such Decision on these appli- cations for four ( 4) months from the date of this Decision. At the conclusion of such period the parties are given liberty to request that the applications be relisted for further hearings in order that further submissions can be made to the Commission in the light of circumstances applying at that time. It may well be that developments as to structural efficiency in Queensland Railways in those four months could occur resulting in a number of the proposals canvassed in these proceedings being resolved. Order accordingly. G.M. ASHWOOD, Commissioner. Appearances:- Mr P. Lucas and Mr B. Janke for Queensland Railways. Mr L. Crofton and Mr R. Chilcott for the Australian Railways Union of Employees, Queensland Branch. Mr N. Roberts and Mr W. Randall for The Electrical Trades Union of Employees of Australia, Queensland Branch. Operative Date: N/A Decision - Cable Jointers -- 2 of 2 --