Notification under section 130 by New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union of a dispute with Taree City Council regarding review of member's position [2012] NSWIRComm 1016

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Notification under section 130 by New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union of a dispute with Taree City Council regarding review of member's position [2012] NSWIRComm 1016 Hearing dates: 14 March and 17 April 2012 Decision date: 13 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Stanton C Decision: Principal Judgment Catchwords: Industrial dispute - whether position correctly graded in terms of Award and Council Salary System - Recommendation position be graded at Grade 6 Legislation Cited: The Industrial Relations Act 1996 Cases Cited: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines and Utilities Union and Lake Macquarie City Council [2011] NSWIRComm 94 Category: Principal judgment Parties: New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union (Applicant) Taree City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr N Martin (Applicant) with Ms N Rich Mr A Wilding (Respondent) with Mr T Shurety File Number(s): IRC 610 of 2011 Publication restriction: No

DECISION 1The dispute notification subject to these proceedings can be conveniently summarised as follows: * The New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union ("the Union") contends that Taree City Council ("Council") has not applied the correct job skill descriptors under clause 5 of the Local Government (State) Award 2010 ("the Award") to the position, Facility Supervisor ("the MALC Facility Supervisor") at Council's Manning Aquatic Leisure Centre ("the MALC Facility") held by Mr J Mather. * The Union contends the position should be graded at Grade 6 and in support of that proposition relies upon a performance appraisal and job evaluation undertaken on 14 July 2009 by Mr Mather and his then immediate supervisor, Mr I Potter, which graded the position at Grade 6. The performance appraisal was based on the completion of a Job Evaluation Questionnaire ("JEQ") provided by the OO-Soft Human Resource and Compensation Management System ("OO-Soft program") for Local Government in New South Wales. At that time, Mr Potter's position was Manager - Engineering Support. * Council contends the position is appropriately graded at Grade 5 and at that grading is consistent with other positions of equivalent responsibility including the position of Director, Manning Regional Art Gallery. * Council has rejected Mr Mather's various applications to have the position regraded consistent with the outcome reached with Mr Potter in July 2009. 2There are two issues for determination. The first is whether the position should be regraded to Grade 6. The second issue pressed by the Union essentially arose during the course of proceedings and challenges whether Council was able to intervene and re-evaluate Mr Mather's JEQ results prior to their input to the OO-Soft program. That intervention resulted in the position grading remaining at Grade 5. 3The Union contends no formal or agreed process exists that enables Council to interfere with the JEQ results as determined by Mr Potter and Mr Mather on 14 July 2009. Council has not determined a "mechanism" to deal with disputes concerning the JEQ evaluation process as required by the Clause 9 of the General Guidelines ("General Guidelines") that form part of the JEQ: 9. You and your supervisor will then review and hopefully agree on the responses to each question. Each Council will determine a mechanism to resolve the differences between the supervisor and jobholder. (Ex 1, Tab C) However, the Union also maintains there was no disagreement between Mr Mather and his supervisor, Mr Potter concerning the July 2009 exercise. Accordingly, Council was unable to intervene and amend the JEQ evaluation results so agreed.