Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Australian Workers Union and BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1034 APPLICANT Australian Workers Union PARTIES: RESPONDENT BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 6506 of 2004 and 1353 of 2005 CORAM: Connor C CATCHWORDS: compulsory conference proceedings - industrial dispute - steelworks - procedure for water treatment - claim for regrading of positions - work value changes LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited - Port Kembla Restructured Ironworker Classifications Rates of Pay Award - unreported BHP O'Brien's Drift Employees Case - unreported Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) Award Case (1968) AR 85 CASES CITED: Scientific Officers Case (1962) AR 250 State Wage Case (1989) 30 IR 107 State Wage Case (2005) 142 IR 337 Wollongong City Council Regrading Dispute Case - unreported HEARING DATES: 20/02/2006; 21/02/2006 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/30/2006 APPLICANT Andrew Gorman Australian Workers Union LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Adam Dansie Australian Industry Group DECISION: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: CONNOR C Thursday, 30 March, 2006 Matter No IRC 6506 of 2004 and 1353 of 2005 Australian Workers Union and BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited Dispute notification under S.130 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 re regrading of water treatment operator positions DECISION [2006] NSWIRComm 1034 History 1 Pursuant to the provisions of S.130 of the 1996 Industrial Relations Act, the Australian Workers Union has lodged a notification of an industrial dispute with BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited. The S.130 notification describes the issue in dispute in the following manner: "...a breakdown in negotiations for wage increase due to change in duties at the slab caster and water treatment plant..." I am informed that since 2001 the water treatment operators have been unsuccessfully pursuing a claim for increased remuneration from BlueScope Steel. In the middle of 2004 BlueScope Steel met with the employees to inform them that an increase in rates of pay was rejected and subsequently they received a letter informing them that a study was being conducted to outsource the work. 2 The S.130 notification by the AWU was allocated to me and I set it down for a conference on Tuesday, 9 November, 2004. I was satisfied that this was not a matter which may be resolved by conciliation. I issued the certificate of attempted conciliation required by S.135, lodged it in the prescribed manner and programmed the matter for arbitration. But there has been considerable delay in advancing this matter further. 3 On Wednesday, 16 March, 2005 a separate S.130 notification had been lodged for and on behalf of BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited when the water treatment plant operators threatened industrial action and that matter came before me for a conference on Thursday, 17 March, 2005 (in Sydney). The S.130 notification recorded that: "...the WTP is presently manned by a total of five operators (including one annual leave relief). To continue operations of the WTP it must be manned by one person at all times. The operators in the WTP have threatened to '...make life very hard...' following the recent resignation of an operator. However, the operators have indicated the threatened disruption would not arise if the company pays them at a higher rate of pay..." 4 Water is an essential coolant for hot slabs and a stoppage of work by the water treatment plant operators may have resulted in the dumping of hot metal - serious enough and contrary to established grievance settling procedure in the steelworks. But the concern of BlueScope Steel proved to be unfounded on that occasion. The so called threat appears to have been no more than the operators "winding up" BlueScope Steel management. In any case, I listed both S.130 notifications together and they have remained together in subsequent proceedings before me. 5 Originally, I had programmed the claim for arbitration on Monday, 21 March, 2005 and Tuesday, 22 March, 2005 but my commitment on a Full Bench on those days (also an AWU claim involving BlueScope Steel) necessitated me vacating the hearing. I rescheduled the matters for hearing on Monday, 4 April, 2005 and Tuesday, 5 April, 2005. The hearing did not proceed on those days either, however. BlueScope Steel had sought a further adjournment because the AWU had not filed its evidentiary material in accordance with my directions. Nevertheless, an inspection had been arranged and it proceeded on Monday, 4 April, 2005. The matters were set down for a hearing on Monday, 11 July, 2005, Tuesday, 12 July, 2005 and Monday, 18 July, 2005 but those days were vacated too because of the AWU's late filing of its evidentiary material. 6 The two S.130 matters were set down instead on Monday, 19 September, 2005 and Tuesday, 20 September, 2005 but those days were also vacated to accommodate another urgent AWU matter. The hearing was scheduled this time for Monday, 28 November, 2005 and Tuesday, 29 November, 2005 but again the matter was adjourned at the request of the AWU which sought more time to respond to the evidentiary material lodged for and on behalf of BlueScope Steel. On Friday, 4 November, 2005 solicitors representing BlueScope Steel lodged a notice that they were ceasing to act for it. The matters resumed before me for a mention on Monday, 13 February, 2006 and, ultimately for hearing on Monday, 20 February, 2006 and Tuesday, 21 February, 2006. All proceedings with respect to this matter were convened in the Commission's premises at 90 Crown Street, Wollongong. 7 At least part of the delay in bringing this matter to a conclusion was the decision of BlueScope Steel to outsource the work of the water treatment plant operators. It is now estimated that the process will be completed in the middle of 2006 and the existing water treatment operators will either transfer over to the new contractor on their existing wages and conditions or be provided with voluntary redundancy. That fact does not make the current proceedings redundant, however. The AWU is still anxious to ensure that the water treatment operators are remunerated at a higher grade. In the first place, as far as the transferred employees are concerned, if their grading is increased it will preserve that higher grading for the wages paid by the new contractor who will apparently pick them up at that rate of pay. In the second place, as far as those employees who have accepted the voluntary redundancy package, their severance payments will ultimately be calculated at a higher level. 8 In the hearing on Monday, 20 February, 2006 and Tuesday, 21 February, 2006 Mr Gorman represented the AWU. He had provided witness statements from two water treatment operators: Mr Darryl Jacques and Mr Mark Lovell. Those witness statements were comparable - in fact, identical - and Mr Dansie, who represented BlueScope Steel in the hearing, was content to call only Mr Jacques for cross-examination. Mr Lovell's witness statement was admitted into evidence without his being called for cross-examination. Mr Dansie called two witnesses to give evidence in the proceedings: Mr Gary Luyten, a technical co-ordinator for casting services, and Mr Peter Corkish, a workplace reform specialist. Ms Lylea McMahon, a human resources advisor (iron and slab) had prepared a witness statement but Mr Gorman was prepared to admit it into evidence without her being required for cross-examination. The Water Treatment Plant 9 The water treatment plant provides treated and recycled water to cool equipment in the steelworks - the slab caster machines, the vacuum degasser, scarfer machine and slab cooler. The recycled water is returned to the WTP where it is cooled, cleaned and dosed with chemicals so that it may again be reused in the steelmaking operations. The plant is operated and controlled by a computer control system (the Advant system) which was introduced in 2000 and which is linked to an electronic system (the Programmable Logic Controller system) which sends and receives signals through the WTP to operate equipment or respond to problems associated with the equipment. The PLC system is therefore the link between the Advant system and the actual steelworks equipment. 10 Essentially, the Advant system regulates the automated system of pumps which distribute water, the cooling towers where the water is pumped to be cooled, the gravel filters which filter the water to remove particles and the chemical dosing system. The cooling towers cool the water as it moves through the WTP. Some water is lost through evaporation and fresh water is added to replace it. The water treatment operators monitor water levels and temperature as it passes through the cooling towers and they record this information on an hourly basis, providing it to the Advant system. 11 The Advant computer system replaced a mechanical system - the Mimic panel - with an electronic system. The Mimic panel would identify a particular piece of steelworks equipment in use with flashing lights and it would be operated with knobs and levers by the water treatment operators. A light on the panel would also indicate when valves were opened or closed. When there was a difficulty in the operations, eg a low flow rate, the water treatment operators would need to manually review data from charts which were printed out and stored in the control room. Mr Jacques claimed in his evidence that "...everything was done in paper..." in the Mimic system. 12 The Advant system provides the same information as the Mimic system but it does so on screens rather than on written charts. The computer screens are able to display a single piece of equipment or the whole WTP process. Mr Luyten claimed that the Advant system provided the water treatment operators with better and more easily accessible information. According to Mr Luyten, the Mimic system was less reliable and would frequently break down. However, Mr Jacques argued in his evidence that he found the Mimic system easier to operate since he had more difficulties reading and working from the computer screen rather than the printed charts with which the water treatment operators had become proficient. 13 The gravel filters capture particles or solids as the water flows through it. There are 9 gravel filters in the WTP. On a regular cycle, the valves of the system are automatically operated in sequence so that the particles are removed by backwashing, ie reversing the flow of the water. The backwashed water is thickened into a slurry which is ultimately passed through a belt press where the solids are removed and placed in bins. The water treatment operators monitor the operation of the backwash system as shown on the Advant screens. 14 The pumps automatically turn themselves on and off without the intervention of the water treatment operator but the employees are required if any maintenance is performed on either the pumps or the steelworks equipment which receives water from the WTP. Mr Luyten asserts in his evidence that such maintenance would occur approximately once in a week. Water treatment operators may also be required to change the selection of the standby (off duty) pump which acts as a back up if one of the operating pumps in the system should fail. 15 Chemicals are introduced into the system by small dosing pumps at various stages of the process to control Legionella and other bacteria, assist in the removal of solids and particles, assist in the removal of oils and grease, maintain acidity or alkalinity (pH) levels of the water and reduce corrosion of pipes and equipment. These dosing pumps are either controlled automatically through the Advant system. Alternatively, either the contractor supplying the chemicals or the water treatment operators may from time to time make manual adjustments on site. Mr Luyten considers that the water treatment operators would only infrequently perform this work. Mr Jacques' evidence was of the range of chemicals now used to replace a former chemical (Chromate) which was effective but found to be environmentally unsound. 16 The water treatment operators are required to carry out a visual inspection of the WTP at least once on every shift. This involves them walking around the WTP and observing the state of every piece of equipment in use for any noticeable signs of fault. If there is an operational fault in water treatment, the Advant system will automatically sound an alarm and identify where the fault lays. The water treatment operator must then determine what action is required, inspecting the relevant piece of equipment and, if necessary contacting maintenance staff to repair or replace the piece of equipment. There are also emergency backup systems in place in the event of system failure with Advant - Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) . There is an emergency head tank with gravity feed to the slab caster machine if the pumps should fail and the pressure drops. If the PLC system fails, there is a backup PLC to control the operation of all pumps, fans and valves. 17 The WTP is a secured area of the steelworks and the water treatment operators have the responsibility for giving steelworks employees and visitors access to it. Authorised personnel may enter with swipe cards. The water treatment operators must ensure that all persons entering the WTP sign the register for that purpose, make sure that they are properly inducted and ensure that the proper protective clothing is worn. They must maintain radio contact with the two gates and monitor access for deliveries and to admit contractors and maintenance personnel. 18 In his submissions Mr Gorman has particularly emphasised the work performed by the water treatment operators over authority to work forms (ATW) for the WTP and the role they now have with respect to environmental issues in accordance with Environment Protection Authority Licence No.6092 held by BlueScope Steel. Mr Gorman tendered into evidence the extensive manuals provided for the water treatment operators for the handling of ATW's and concerning the EPA licence. I accept that much of the tasks described in the manuals falls on the water treatment operators. The Grading for the Water Treatment Operators 19 Originally (in 1989), the relative margins for all classifications in the slab caster department, including the water treatment operators, were assessed and determined based on the range of responsibilities involved in their work at that time. The margin for the water treatment operators was assessed as lower than the margins for other slab caster staff - the slab caster crane driver, the slab processing attendant, the machine scarfer operator and the despatch pulpit operator. It was equated with the margin for the slab caster operator 3. 20 It was originally the intention of the steelworks management, as part of the restructuring, to rotate all operators through each of the pulpits and the WTP. But by agreement with the AWU, it was decided by BlueScope Steel that the rotation would not occur. Instead, designated water treatment operators and pulpit operators were appointed with each employee specialising in particular tasks which suited him. As a result, the dedicated water treatment operators would not be required to work in the slab caster pulpits and did not require to obtain the skills to do so. 21 Mr Jacques and Mr Lovell describe the specialisation of the functions of the water treatment operators as something dictated by safety and operational requirements for BlueScope Steel and they now complain that as a consequence they were prevented from gaining a higher operating level through a career path. According to Mr Corkish, the employees tended to prefer to work one role over another and the arrangement facilitated them to that extent. A letter in the middle of 1995 from the then manager of slabmaking for the steelworks which was attached to Ms McMahon's written statement throws further light on this issue. In the letter is the comment that Mr Jacques and the other water treatment operators were: "... prepared to remain at the water treatment plant..." Which suggests that the steelworks management proposed to abandon the rotation of positions and confine the water treatment operators to work in the WTP alone and that the employees simply accepted that position. That, in any event, is Mr Gorman's recollections. 22 Nevertheless, the agreement with the AWU at the time also involved retaining the water treatment operators at the wage level of the slab caster operator 3 position. The decision to that effect was communicated to the employees in the middle of 1995 in a memorandum marked "without prejudice", viz: "...The company has considered an appropriate rate of pay for the water treatment operator. It is proposed that the rate of pay for the water treatment operator should be the same as the slab caster operator 3 on the understanding that there will be no extra claims should minor changes in duties occur in the future . The water treatment operator will be classified as a slab caster operator 3..." 23 Whilst that offer is over ten years old, I believe that Mr Dansie is still entitled to rely on it. On its face, it suggests to me that the steelworks management at that time regarded the wage level for the water treatment operators as greater than they believed they were entitled but they were prepared to offer the higher remuneration on a "without prejudice" basis, provided the employees did not press for further increases for anything less than a substantial change in the work performed by them. 24 For over ten years BlueScope Steel (and its predecessor, BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Limited) has been involved in the restructuring of steelwork positions into a grading system and, in the process, the reduction of over 100 marginal rates of pay into 15 and later 16 graded positions. As far as the slab caster department was concerned, 3 pulpit operator positions evolved. The water treatment operator retained its position as the lowest paid position in the slab caster department - a position which Mr Corkish asserted was an agreed position with the AWU at the time. 25 The grading scale was initially set in the BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Limited - Port Kembla Restructured Ironworker Classification Rates of Pay Award, a splinter award for steelworks operations. When the grading scale had been in its infancy - in 1993 - it had come before a Full Bench of the Commission (Fisher J - President, Hungerford J and Sheils CC) as a special case and the matter had been subsequently delegated to Hungerford J to hear and determine. In his unreported decision of Wednesday, 30 June, 1993 in Re Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited - Port Kembla Restructured Ironworker Classifications Rates of Pay Award [Matter No.2639 of 1992] Hungerford J commented (at p.15) that: "…I find on the evidence that the history of structural initiatives, the outcome thereof and the cultural changes provide persuasive support for recognition by award of improved employee wages consistent with structural efficiency and work value considerations…" The rates of pay and grading scale are now incorporated into the BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited - Port Kembla Steelworks Employees Award. Steelworks employees have progressively been placed into the grading scale, chiefly by agreement between BlueScope Steel and the AWU but, occasionally by way of arbitration when there is no agreement reached over the appropriate grading for a group of steelworks employees. 26 For instance, on Monday, 20 December, 1999 in my unreported decision in the BHP O'Brien's Drift Employees Case [Matter No.IRC 3343 of 1999] I regraded the work of production operators engaged at that time by the steelworks at an escarpment of Mount Brisbane (between Mount Kembla and Mount Keira) involved in the transfer of coal from nearby collieries to the steelworks - from Level 10 to Level 11 - on an application for variation to the BHP Ironworker Classification Rate of Pay Award made by the AWU. 27 The grading scale is based on a matrix which Mr Corkish described in the written statement which formed the basis of his evidence in this hearing, viz: "...The matrix is utilised...to ensure there is parity in pay for restructured ironworker positions across the steelworks... There are approximately 200 restructured ironworker positions at the steelworks which are aligned with 1 of the 16 classification levels of the matrix... In order to determine which of the 16 classification levels of the matrix is appropriate for a given ironworker position, the position must be assessed. An assessment of an unclassified position will usually involve a review of the unclassified position description, and a comparison of the requirements of that position with the requirements of other positions in different departments that have been classified. An assessment is also made of any additional responsibilities and accountabilities added to a role and, conversely, any responsibilities and accountabilities which have been removed. In addition, reference is also made to the relevant Work Value principles arising from the current State Wage Case. Requirements of a position will usually include duties, training, competencies and accountabilities. By comparing the requirements of the unclassified position with the requirements of positions that have already been classified, it is often possible to determine a classified position with similar requirements, a classified position with less onerous requirements and a classified position with more onerous requirements. This helps establish relativity between the unclassified position and other classification levels of the matrix. To assign a matrix classification that is not justified by reference to position requirements will affect the integrity of the matrix by destroying the established relativities between classification levels. This will impact on all current and future position classifications under the matrix as consistency in pay rates for equivalent positions will not be able to be guaranteed..." 28 The water treatment operators are currently graded at level 12 - equating with the grading for a slab caster operator 3. As I indicated earlier in this decision, they have for some time been pursuing with BlueScope Steel the renegotiation of their grading and they have formed the view that the work they perform would more appropriately fall at Level 16 - the highest level in the grading scale - which equates with the grading for a slab caster operator 5. That is the application which the AWU now makes on their behalf in the hearing, ie to vary the BlueScope Steel (AIS) Award in that respect in accordance with S.136(1). Mr Gorman has sought that the adjustment to the grading for the water treatment operators extend from the date the AWU lodged its S.130 notification on their behalf - Monday, 8 November, 2004. That would be the limits of my jurisdiction for any retrospectivity on a wage adjustment by virtue of S.15(3)(a). 29 The matrix showing the current rates for the restructured ironworker classifications was provided by Mr Corkish as an annexure to his written statement. I set out the relevant levels for the purpose of comparison: Award Rate Overaward Total per week per week per week $ $ $ Level 12 698.70 199.50 898.20 Level 13 717.40 211.40 928.80 Level 14 736.00 211.40 947.40 Level 15 765.00 211.40 976.40 Level 16 792.60 211.40 1,004.00 Wage levels which, as Mr Dansie submitted, were increased further by shift penalty payments. Issues in Dispute 30 According to Mr Jacques, the water treatment operators regularly take their meal breaks on the job and sometimes miss out on morning tea and lunch on day shift due to work commitments. Mr Jacques gave evidence of his concern to eat his lunch with people watching him. Mr Dansie suggested in his cross-examination of Mr Jacques that there was some "quiet times" for the employees, permitting them to watch television or read the newspapers or DVD's. Employees are entitled to meal breaks and arrangements should be made to ensure they take them but I am not convinced that the failure to take meal breaks is a legitimate basis for an increase in the grading of an employee. 31 Neither, in my opinion, is the reference Mr Jacques made in his evidence to the lack of career prospects for the water treatment operators flowing from the 1995 decision of the steelworks management to confine the water treatment operators to work in the WTP alone. Whilst employers should always act to ensure that there are no barriers to career paths for any of their employees, in assessing the appropriate grading in which to place a group of employees, it is not appropriate to include as a factor any limitations which may exist on opportunities for advancement in employment [the Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) Award Case (1968) AR 85 at p.101]. The assessment of the correct grading for any position is governed entirely by the nature of the work actually performed in that position - not what employees occupying such positions may be able to perform but have not been called upon to do. It is the actual work in the position which forms the correct guide. Moreover, as Mr Dansie submitted, the water treatment operators were not excluded from applying for vacant positions anywhere in the steelworks if they sought a promotion. 32 If there is to be any adjustment of the grading for the water treatment operators, that must be measured against the work itself and, in that respect, there must be compliance with the Work Value Changes principle of the current wage fixation principles flowing from the decision of the Full Bench of the Commission (Wright J - President, Walton J - Vice President, Harrison and Sams PP and Boland J) in the 2005 State Wage Case (2005) 142 IR 337 at pp.354 and 355, viz: "Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification. In addition to meeting this test a party making a work value application will need to justify any change to wage relativities that might result within the relevant internal award structure but also against external classifications to which that structure is related. There must be no likelihood of wage leapfrogging arising out of changes in relative positions. These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed in accordance with this principle." 33 The work value changes are ordinarily measured from 1989; more specifically the Work Value Changes principle provides that the measurement is made from the date of operation of the second structural efficiency adjustment allowed under the 1989 State Wage Case (1989) 30 IR 107. However, Mr Dansie argued that the rates of pay for the water treatment operators were last comprehensively reviewed in 1993 and any examination of the work of those employees should not go back further than that date. 34 In attachments to their written statements Mr Jacques and Mr Lovell have highlighted a range of functions which are relevant considerations and which they believe justify them receiving more than the wages they presently receive at Level 12; viz 1. They assert that the water treatment operators work largely unsupervised. They claim that they supervise the WTP on a daily basis, making decisions at the level of a supervisor. Mr Dansie pointed out in his submissions that the water treatment operators ultimately report to Mr Luyten but I accept that they work under low supervision. 2. The work which the water treatment operators perform with ATW's is ordinarily reserved in the steelworks for staff positions. For instance, the completion of ATW's is performed by slab caster shift supervisors. Mr Gorman asserted in his submissions that no other steelworks employees with responsibility for ATW's was remunerated at less than Level 16. 3. There remains some argument that emergency control work, ie work as a Department Emergency Controller, falls under the responsibility of the water treatment operators. Mr Jacques indicated that the water treatment operators have refused to perform the DEC function in support of their wages claim. As I understand the position, BlueScope Steel have not pressed them into performing that DEC work. In other words, something of a stalemate appears to have arisen over the DEC and it is not something I may effectively include in any assessment of the work performed by the water treatment operators. 4. The new computer operations - Advant and the PLC - have impacted on the work the water treatment operators perform and fundamentally changed that work. Mr Jacques and Mr Lovell claimed in the documentation accompanying their written statements that they "...had to learn how to operate the plant all over again...". At various times the personal computers for the water treatment operators also had established a new data base for ATW's (2002), induction procedures (2002), the e-mail system (2001), material safety data for the chemicals used (2001) and standard operating procedures (2001). 5. New equipment had been introduced into the WTP for adding sodium bi-carbonate to the recycled water to maintain pH levels in place of the largely manual method previously used by the water treatment operators. Previously, the employees tipped the sodium bi-carbonate into the recycled water manually from large bags. The new system feeds that substance in gradually (although Mr Jacques claimed that the new system does not always work). Other equipment has also been introduced, eg a new cooling tower, an alkalinity machine and 3 new PLC units. 6. More stringent environmental requirements flowing from the EPA licence held by BlueScope Steel have meant new duties now fall on the water treatment operators to ensure that proper environmental standards are followed and that water does not escape the process and leak into creeks and rivers in the vicinity to the steelworks. 7. An oxy/sok resuscitation unit has been provided in the WTP to provide oxygen to employees and visitors when it is needed, eg through heart attack, exposure to chemicals or stress. The oxy/sok comprises a small bottle of oxygen, pressure gauge and mask. It replaces the previous resuscitation unit (oxy-viva). Mr Dansie asserted in his submissions that the oxy/sok required little training and Mr Jacques confirmed in his evidence that the oxy/sok was safer and easier to use than the oxy-viva. Mr Gorman also emphasised in his submissions that BlueScope Steel management had adopted a stricter approach to disciplining steelworks employees over breaches of policy, particularly issues of workplace safety, and that must impact on much of the work of the water treatment operators. 35 Mr Luyten has worked in and in connection with the WTP for over ten years, although Mr Gorman claimed in his submissions that he lacked detail knowledge of all the work in the WTP: for instance, whilst the workings of the system with the Mimic panel in general was known to him he did not have direct knowledge of the particular Mimic panel that had been in use in the WTP. Mr Luyten accepted in his evidence that there has been some change to the work of the water treatment operators. For one thing, the introduction of the Advant system clearly is new technology which has impacted on the work they perform. Mr Luyten nevertheless claimed in his evidence that the changes experienced by the water treatment operators were not sufficient to give rise to a regrading of their positions and an increase in their rate of remuneration. Mr Corkish and Ms McMahon share that view. 36 In particular, Mr Corkish's evidence categorises the work of the water treatment operators. He regards that work as properly falling under Level 12; to perform some supervision at the plant supervisor level; to complete all tasks within their range of responsibility in the WTP; to have a thorough knowledge of WTP operations; to be able to make decisions regarding several operations or uncommon occurrences where there are several options; to have a significant degree of control over operations where those operations are largely automated; to be able to "trouble-shoot". Mr Corkish contrasts and equates the work of the water treatment operators with positions which are similarly classified at Level 12 - raw materials operator 3, blast furnace operator 2, BOS operator 4 and slab handler operator 2. 37 Mr Corkish points out in his written statement that: "...Level 16 is the highest classification level of the matrix. Positions assigned this classification level are positions with considerable accountabilities and responsibilities and are generally considered to have a component of supervisory or technical skills that would have historically been performed by staff employees. Ironworkers in Level 16 positions are usually expected to: * have a high level of accountability and responsibility for technical operational processes; and/or * problem solve with regard to technical operational processes; and/or * assume team leadership; and/or * be responsible for scheduling..." 38 Currently there are only 4 ironworker positions at the steelworks which have an assigned Matrix classification at Level 16. Of those positions, presently 3 positions have employees working in these roles in accordance with the full position description - the trainer in the rail operations department, an operator 3 in the hot strip mill department and a senior slab handler. The other position which does not have an employee working in accordance with the full position description at the moment is slab caster operator 5. The slab caster operator 5 is required to perform all the functions of slab caster operator 3 and 4 as well as those of process controller. 39 Mr Dansie suggested that to re-grade the water treatment operators would upset relativities between the grades and lead to leapfrogging of the rates for classes of employees in the steelworks. He claimed that employees in other steelwork positions at Level 12 - raw materials operator 3, blast furnace operator 2, BOS operator 4 and slab handler operator 2 - could be expected to pursue similar claims in the light of any regrading of the water treatment operators. Mr Gorman argued that my only concern in this hearing was the water treatment operators and wage justice to them alone. There were no claims on behalf of other steelwork employees before me and any such claims should be considered only if and when they are made. 40 I believe that Mr Gorman is correct in that approach. My function in this hearing is essentially to assess what is a fair and reasonable wage to the water treatment operators according to the work actually performed by them [the Scientific Officers Case (1962) AR 250 at p.178]. But that does not mean that I should consider the wage claim for the water treatment operators in isolation: it is part of the Matrix and it must be considered in the context of the overall grading scale throughout the whole steelworks. It is in that context that any concept of individual work contracts for employees, with different rates of pay being negotiated for the same type of work, becomes totally unrealistic - indeed, industrially naive. Wage assessment for one group of employees in an establishment should always be considered in relationship with other groups of employees in the same establishment. If that is not the case, the wage inequities which will emerge must lead inevitably to future industrial problems. 41 As I indicated in my unreported decision of Wednesday, 28 July, 2004 in the Wollongong City Council Regrading Dispute Case [Matter No.IRC 4508 of 2002 at pp.13 and 14]: "...the assessment of (the employee's) competencies appears to have been conducted... within the framework of the structure of the council's design division, drawing comparisons with other members of the council's employees. (The council) has measured (the employee's performance against the ten criteria for assessing regrades in the council and had found that it did not reach the (grading sought)... The council concluded that, although (the employee) was performing well in the landscape section, his 2000 regrade application and his comparative performance did not warrant a regrade. I consider that to be the correct approach.... The council's grading scale should, to that extent, be considered in isolation..." 42 The words I highlighted in my decision in the Wollongong City Council Regrading Dispute Case - "...comparative performance..." - provide the key. The appropriate grade to place any employees in the BlueScope Steel operations must be considered within the context of the grading scale and the matrix on which it is based with comparisons drawn within the grading scale with other groups of employees. That is the manner in which Mr Corkish has operated in assessing the respective grading scales for the range of steelworks employees, including the water treatment operators. 43 Mr Dansie concedes in his submissions that the work in the WTP was now more structured than had hitherto been the position. I hold no doubts that there have been changes in the work of the water treatment operators. Mr Luyten acknowledges that to be the case. It would be a very rare employment environment which over a period of six years has not experienced some change due to new technology. But the question flowing from the Work Value Changes principle is more restrictive, viz: "...the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification ...". That is a strict test and I do not believe that Mr Gorman has demonstrated that to be the case for the water treatment operators. There is nothing before me to suggest that the water treatment operators are not correctly graded at Level 12. Conclusion 44 I therefore do not believe that there is any justification for my intervention in support of the regrading of the water treatment operators in these proceedings. Accordingly, I dismiss the AWU claim made on their behalf. P J CONNOR Commissioner 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.