Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: NSW Health Service Health Professionals (State) Award [2007] NSWIRComm 300 APPLICANT: Health Services Union PARTIES: RESPONDENT: Director-General NSW Department of Health FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 2681 of 2006 CORAM: Walton J Acting President; Grayson DP; McLeay C CATCHWORDS: Award - application concerning allied health professionals - creation of new award giving common salary structure - modified arbitration - special case and work value principles made out - recommendations as to outstanding issues - non acceptance of hospital scientist rates - substantial industrial merit - new award made. CASES CITED: BHP Billiton v Australian Workers' Union (NSW) [2002] NSWIRComm 378 State Wage Case (2007) 163 IR 253 HEARING DATES: 29 June, 17 and 19 October, 12, 13, 21, 26, 28 and 30 November 2007 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 30 November 2007 APPLICANT: Mr J Murphy of Counsel Health Services Union (Mr D Ravlich, Manager, Industrial Services and Mr G Tyrrell, Industrial Officer) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr M Kimber of Counsel NSW Department of Health (Mr T Craft, Assistant Director, Employee Relations and Ms C Synnott, Senior Industrial Officer, Employee Relations) JUDGMENT: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES FULL BENCH CORAM: WALTON J, Acting President GRAYSON DP MCLEAY C Friday 30 November 2007 Matter No IRC 2681 of 2006 NSW HEALTH SERVICE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS (STATE) AWARD Application by Health Services Union for a new award DECISION OF THE COMMISSION [2007] NSWIRComm 300 (Ex tempore) 1 The amended application for an award now before us is the culmination of an extensive process of conciliation and a modified arbitration process. The proposed award weaves the disparate strands of industrial regulation for allied health professionals into a single award, having a common salary scale regulated by skill based definitions. 2 Some comment should be made about the process. The traditional forms of conciliation undertaken by Grayson DP and McLeay C produced a large measure of agreement. There were only seven issues remaining after that process, although they related to very significant aspects of the proposed award. Those contentious issues had, with the consent of the parties, applied to them arbitral processes, similar to those adopted in BHP Billiton v Australian Workers' Union (NSW) [2002] NSWIRComm 378. In short, the parties agreed to be bound by recommendations made by the Commission as to issues remaining after conciliation had been exhausted. In making those recommendations, the Commission had regard to the very substantial affidavits and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and engaged in a highly interactive process, which ranged from formal submissions to an informal discourse resembling conciliation. The result was highly productive with greatly reduced expenditure of time and costs. 3 The amended application reflects, therefore, consent arrangements and the provisions inserted in accordance with our recommendations. Given the considerable improvements in industrial regulation deriving from it and, in our view, the very great merit of the provisions of the award, we are moved to commend the parties and their representatives for this singular achievement. We intend to make the proposed award. 4 The methodology employed in the resolution of this matter does limit the prospect for giving detailed reasons for our recommendations. We would, however, propose to make one observation. 5 It will be clear by our recommendation as to classifications and salaries that we consider the Union has made out a special case and demonstrated that significant changes in work value have occurred, which are sufficient to meet the requirement of the work value principles (see State Wage Case (2007) 163 IR 253). There was, therefore, a compelling basis for an increase in salaries for this group of public health professionals. Further, the reclassification process which was adopted to reflect and underpin appropriate salary adjustments is entirely commensurate with the provisions of the wage fixing principles, and has the merit of improving promotional opportunities for employees. 6 In assessing the question of salaries, however, we have not adopted the Union's submission that we should slavishly apply the rates of pay for hospital scientists or pharmacists as a benchmark for the setting of salaries for that classification structure (let alone adopt the manner by which those rates, on the Union's case, should be translated into the classifications in the proposed award). We acknowledge that the agreed position of the parties at salary levels 1 and 2 does seem to derive from the rates of pay for hospital scientists. However, the rates of pay for hospital scientists and pharmacists reflect the peculiar basis upon which those rates were fixed by the Commission and could not be determinative, in our view, of the resolution of the disputed salary questions in this matter. 7 In all the circumstances, we make the NSW Health Service Health Professionals (State) Award in terms of Exhibit 88. That award shall operate, except for salary rates, from 30 November 2007. As to salary rates, the award shall take effect from the first full pay period on or after 30 November 2007. The award shall remain in force for a period of three years. _________________________ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.