Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2015
  4. United Voice (Volp) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2015] QIRC 42

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

United Voice (Volp) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2015] QIRC 42

United Voice (Volp) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2015] QIRC 42

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

United Voice (Volp) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2015] QIRC 042

PARTIES:

United Voice Industrial Union of Employees (Volp, Andrew)

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

HP/2013/41

PROCEEDING:

Action on industrial dispute

DELIVERED ON:

5 March 2015

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2014

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Black

ORDERS:

Proposal for reclassification refused

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - ACTION ON INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Classification of position - New classification structure - Employees engaged as health practitioners - Job descriptions, roles and responsibilities evaluated against new work level statements - appeal process unsuccessful - Evidence

CASES:

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 230

Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No 1) 2007

Newton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP/2013/35) [2014] QIRC121 http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QIRC

APPEARANCES:

Mr D. Peverill, United Voice Industrial Union of Employees, (for Andrew Volp) the Applicant.

Mr K. Ryalls for the State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the Respondent.

Decision

  1. [1]
    United Voice Industrial Union of Employees (UV) filed a Notice of Industrial Dispute on behalf of their member Andrew Volp on 6 December 2012.  Mr Volp was employed by Queensland Health (Metro South Hospital and Health Service) in the position of Clinical Services Manager - MRI, at the relevant time (30 May 2008).  The Notice of Industrial Dispute concerned the classification of Mr Volp's position at the HP5 level rather than at the HP6 level.  Attempts to settle the dispute by conciliation were unsuccessful and the dispute was referred to arbitration. 
  1. [2]
    The Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No 1) 2007 (HPEB1) established a new classification structure for employees of Queensland Health (QH) engaged as Health Practitioners.  The process for implementing the new classification structure was set out in Clause 18 of HPEB1.  Phase 1 allowed direct translation of employees who met certain criteria.  Mr Volp translated from Professional Officer Level 4 (PO4) to Health Practitioner Level 4 (HP4).
  1. [3]
    Phase 2 of the process allowed employees covered by HPEB1 to have their job descriptions, roles and responsibilities evaluated against new work level statements. According to the evidence of Mr Hamilton, the Phase 2 process involved five procedural steps intended to assess the relative work value of each application from an individual, intra-disciplinary, and an inter-disciplinary perspective.  The five steps alluded to are summarised in the following terms:

Step 1 -  Standardised data set - receipt of Work Unit Proposals (WUP) including Employee Initiated Applications (EIA).

Step 2 -  Work Level Evaluation (WLE) of individual position conducted by a HP discipline specific WLE 'Panel' (WLEP). Includes consideration of any EIA.

Step 3 -  Intra-disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review conducted by a multi-disciplinary WLE 'Team' members (WLET).

Step 4 - Inter-Disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review conducted by a multi-disciplinary WLE 'Team' members (IDR), this group consisted of members from WLEP & WLET.

Step 5 -  HPIBB Oversight, including the subsequently developed Oversight Sub Group (OSG).

  1. [4]
    Under the Phase 2 process, Mr Volp's role was initially proposed in the relevant Work Unit Proposal at HP6.  Subsequently Ms Volp's position was subject to both an intra-disciplinary and an inter-disciplinary relativity and consistency review.  According to Mr Hamilton's evidence Mr Volp's position was also identified for review by the Oversight Sub Group (OSG).  The report of the OSG was submitted to the Step 4 WLET on 8 September 2009.  The OSG report included the comments of union representatives but did not record any management representative comment.  Further the report did not make a specific HP level recommendation.  The OSG report forms part of the WLET documentation which is in the evidence as Attachment DGH5 to Exhibit 2.
  1. [5]
    Ultimately WLET moderated Mr Volp's role to the HP5 level.  The WLET meeting of 8 October 2009 reviewed Mr Volp's position and determined a level of HP5.  The notes of this meeting are in the evidence as Attachment DGH6 to Exhibit 2.
  1. [6]
    According to the evidence of Mr Hamilton, moderation of levels put forward by line managers in work unit proposals was not uncommon.  He said that while 64 radiographer/medical imaging technologist positions were proposed by line managers at the HP6 level, only 18 positions were confirmed at that level following the WLET intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary review process.
  1. [7]
    Mr Volp elected to appeal the WLET evaluation pursuant to clause 19 of the HPEB1 on 25 October 2010.  His intent to appeal documentation is in the evidence as Attachment AV2 to Exhibit 1 and his supporting material is in the evidence as Attachment AV3 to Exhibit 1.  He was advised that his appeal was unsuccessful in April 2011.  The Appeal Panel Review statement is in the evidence as Attachment AV5 to Exhibit 1.
  1. [8]
    The Appeal Panel established under HPEB1 had the power pursuant to clause 19.7 to consider whether the work level evaluation of all of Mr Volp's duties, roles and responsibilities should result in his position being reclassified.  The Appeal Panel conclusion incorporated in the Appeal Review Statement reads as follows:

"Overall, after assessing the evidence provided the panel agreed:

The duties or accountabilities could not be matched to work level statements at the nominated level. The evidence provided does not substantiate the claims for a HP6 level."

The Applicant's Case

  1. [9]
    UV criticised the conclusions of the Appeal Panel on the following grounds:
  • Inadequate reasons or insufficient justification for the decision;
  • On the reasoning disclosed in the Appeal Review Statement, the Appeal Panel did not pay sufficient regard to the material submitted by Mr Volp in support of his appeal;
  • The Appeal Panel erred in assessing Mr Volp's appeal solely by reference to management work level statements and by not assessing the appeal by reference to both management and clinical work level statements;
  • Mr Volp's role description makes it clear that Mr Volp's role includes both clinical and management skill sets;
  • The Appeal Panel erred in taking an unnecessarily narrow approach to its decision making and should have applied a more holistic assessment;
  • The Appeal Panel erred by failing to address all relevant work level statements;
  • That QH has placed an erroneous focus on the factor of "state-wide responsibilities";
  • That Mr Volp demonstrated state-wide responsibilities in that the PA Hospital MRI Department services are provided for the entire state.
  1. [10]
    In summary UV submitted that the Appeal Panel fell into error by:
  • Failing to have regard to all material considerations;
  • Failing to give appropriate regard for all evidence;
  • A systemic failure to identify work level statements that might be relevant to Mr Volp's role and/or which would demonstrate the incremental increase in work value from a HP5 to HP6;
  • A systemic failure to reach a "holistic evaluated outcome" constitutes an error in the reclassification decision;
  • A systemic failure to give appropriate regard to the relevant WLS descriptors which foreseeably should have been considered by the appeal panel.

The Respondent's Case

  1. [11]
    Queensland Health submitted that the submissions of UV, and the evidence adduced by UV, did not establish that the Appeal Panel erred in refusing to reclassify Mr Volp.  In more particular terms QH submitted:
  • That following the Full Bench decision in Newton[1] the only manner by which an employee can attack and displace the existing classification, after an Appeal Panel recommendation, is to demonstrate that an error has occurred in the appeal process;
  • Mr Volp does not meet the clinical work level statements applicable to the HP6 level.  The clinical work level statements have a strong state-wide emphasis which is not an accountability emphasised in Mr Volp's role.  Mr Volp's role is recognised at the district level;
  • The assessment to be made in the classification of a health practitioner is of the role, duties and responsibilities of the individual practitioner, not of the nature and extent of the services provided by the hospital within which the applicant works.  Mr Volp's evidence was deficient in that it was preoccupied with the services provided by the Princess Alexandra Hospital and did not sufficiently examine his own role, duties and responsibilities;
  • The Work Level Statements & Guidelines for Health Practitioners (Attachment AV4 to Exhibit 1) provide at page 33 that "practitioners whose prescribed service area is state-wide by default does not imply influence across discrete districts".  It was submitted that this statement is highly relevant to Mr Volp and that Mr Volp does not satisfy the state-wide requirements of the HP6 classification by reference to the services provided by the hospital.

Matters for Resolution

  1. [12]
    Mr Volp’s application is to be determined following consideration of the following matters:
  • Was the Appeal Panel required to provide reasons?
  • Did Mr Volp satisfy the state-wide requirements of the HP6 level for clinical professionals?
  • Did Mr Volp’s appeal material justify his reclassification based on the work level statements relevant to the clinical professional stream?
  • Did Mr Volp’s appeal material justify his reclassification based on the work level statements relevant to the management stream?

Appeal Panel Reasons

  1. [13]
    The applicant submitted that the Appeal Review Statement was not an adequate reflection of the decision making process and did not offer any understanding of how the decision maker sifted through and weighed the material relied on by Mr Volp, nor did it disclose the reasoning processes which led to the Appeal Panel's conclusion.
  1. [14]
    The applicant's submission is considered in a context where the entire reclassification process, including the appeal stage, was regulated by the terms of HPEBI.  Prior to the appeal stage certain checks and balances are incorporated into the reclassification scheme including both intra and inter disciplinary reviews.  In short, as prescribed by clause 9 of Schedule 5 to HPEB1, the original work unit proposals are reviewed firstly by the WLEP, then by the WLET, and finally, in particular circumstances, by the HPIBB oversight group.
  1. [15]
    Further, pursuant to clauses 19.10 and 19.12 of HPEB1 the Appeal Panel is not the final arbiter of the evaluation process.  These clauses provide that the function of the Appeal Panel is to make a recommendation to the Director-General (or an authorised delegate) who then makes the decision regarding the correct classification level of the position being evaluated.
  1. [16]
    Clause 19 of HPEB1 does not require the Appeal Panel to explain how it arrived at its recommendation or publish reasons.  In these areas the agreement is silent.  Clause 19.11 does require "summaries of outcomes of appeals" to be reported to the HPIBB Group but there is no specific obligation on the Appeal Panel to notify the appellant of its recommendation.  Pursuant to clause 19.13 of the agreement, notification of the outcome of the appeal process to the appellant is made by the Director-General or an authorised delegate.
  1. [17]
    In my view the reclassification scheme implemented by HPEB1 does not impose on the Appeal Panel any obligation to provide an appellant with reasons justifying the conclusion reached by it.  The Appeal Panel constituted the final stage of an extensive internal review mechanism which injected checks and balances following the initial work unit evaluation.  According to clause 19.6 of HPEB1, membership of the Appeal Panel was to be made up of WLET representatives who were not part of the original evaluation. Also membership was to include a representative from the employee’s discipline or profession. Hearings were not conducted and conclusions were reached "on the papers" based on consensus or by majority view.  Given the scale of the reclassification process, and having regard to all the provisions of HPEB1, I have no reason to believe that the review mechanisms included in the agreement operated in any way that was inconsistent with the intention of the parties to the agreement. 
  1. [18]
    Further, the proceedings before the Commission are initiated by way of a dispute notification in circumstances where a dispute could not be settled by conciliation and has been referred for arbitration. The proceedings before the Commission do not involve an appeal from the decision of the Director-General to decline to classify Mr Volp at the HP6 level, nor do they involve an appeal from the recommendation made by the Appeal Panel.
  2. [19]
    In my view complaints about the adequacy of reasons underpinning Appeal Panel recommendations would not, in the normal course of events, sustain the outcome that the applicant seeks to achieve via his dispute notification. This outcome is to be arrived at by the Commission’s review of the process and identification of errors of significance which might indicate that the outcome of the reclassification process should have been different to that reached by the Appeal Panel. It follows that Mr Volp’s application cannot succeed on grounds of inadequate reasons.

 State-Wide Focus

  1. [20]
    A review of the Work Level Statements & Guidelines document (Attachment AV4 to Exhibit 1) includes the following information to assist in differentiating between HP5 and HP6 levels for clinical professionals:
  • At page 10 of the document in dealing with statements applicable to clinical professionals, under the heading of "What are the roles that would be at HP6 level?", the following is stated:

"Experts with statewide influence, Clinical Educators with state-wide responsibilities, designated Researchers with significant influence."

  • At page 33 of the document, when referring to clinical professionals at the HP6 level, the following relevant introductory comments are made:
  • -"A high-level specialist recognised as a state-wide in their given discipline, and utilised on an internal consultancy basis across the whole of Queensland Health
  • -Practitioners whose prescribed service area is state-wide by default does not imply influence across discrete districts
  • At page 33 of the document the following differentiators are listed for the purpose of differentiating between HP5 clinical professionals and HP6 clinical professionals:
  • -Formal/Established recognition as a state-wide reference point in a discipline, rather than district level;
  • -Role is focussed in a consulting capacity to provide clinical expertise to other health practitioners with the discipline across the state, including HP5-level specialist practitioners;
  • -Contributes significantly to the development of professional advancement on a state-wide basis through presentations at conferences, publications of peer reviewed articles, etc."
  1. [21]
    All of the statements cited in the previous paragraph incorporate a reference to state-wide dimensions.  Additionally the majority of the significant work level statements set out in the guidelines document (pages 36 and 37) which are relevant to Mr Volp circumstances include a state wide dimension.
  2. [22]
    It is very clear that any determination about whether a clinical professional should be classified at the HP5 or HP6 level must include a close consideration of state-wide responsibilities.  Indeed, it is open to conclude that HP6 cannot be achieved unless the state-wide criteria are satisfied.
  1. [23]
    In terms of the material submitted by Mr Volp in support of his appeal, the starting point is a consideration of the role description developed for his role at the review date of 30 May 2008, and which is in the evidence as Attachment AV1 to Exhibit 1.  None of the key accountabilities include mention of state wide responsibilities. Further the role description in articulating "Your Opportunity" on page 1 states that the position sits within a "specialist medical imaging service at District level'.  While the assessment criteria included in the role description does include a criterion to the effect of "demonstrated ability to contribute to the development of professional standards on a District and State-wide basis", there is no other indication in the role description to suggest that the role incorporates state-wide accountabilities.
  1. [24]
    In his appeal material (Attachment AV3 to Exhibit 1), when addressing the four stated criteria, Mr Volp did not introduce any claim of state wide accountability.  He did say in addressing Criteria 2 that the "MRI service provides state-wide clinical advice and consultation".  However, as I understood Mr Volp's submission, the reference here was to the state-wide nature of the service provided by the PA Hospital.  In this regard the preceding statement was that "the MRI service is only provided to consultant referrers.  Many patients come from throughout Queensland to be investigated by specialists at PAH".  However, as QH pointed out in their submission, the extent of the services provided by the PA Hospital is not a measure of state-wide accountability for the purposes of the reclassification process.
  1. [25]
    In addressing Criteria 1, Mr Volp submitted that he provided "expert consultation to clients (state-wide) in regards to imaging patients with medical implants and devices". He said that this activity usually involved a telephone consultation with referrers to check if certain medical devices were MRI compatible.  It might also require research and liaison with manufacturers to confirm or exclude MRI compatibility.  I do not think that this activity would satisfy the state-wide accountability described in the relevant work level statements.

Clinical Stream

  1. [26]
    It was not in dispute that the Appeal Review Statement included comment only on particular management stream work level statements, and that it did not include any comment on statements drawn from the professional clinical stream.  The content of the Appeal Review Statement led Mr Volp to conclude that the Appeal Panel had disregarded any consideration of his clinical duties, roles and responsibilities.  His submission, as set out in paragraph 13 of his affidavit (Exhibit 1), was that the Appeal Panel erred in not considering and assessing the clinical stream work level statements. The consequence of this error was that the Panel failed to holistically evaluate his role.
  1. [27]
    Mr Volp's position as at 30 May 2008 was Clinical Services Manager Modality (CT, MRI, Cardiac, Catheter Laboratory, Vascular & Interventional Procedures, Ultrasound, Nuclear Medicine).  His role description states that the position is "both clinical and managerial and requires an expert level of knowledge, clinical skills, problem solving skills and experience of complex contemporary clinical practice standards within a specialist medical imaging service at District level." There was no dispute in the proceedings that Mr Volp's role embraced both clinical and management responsibilities.
  1. [28]
    The respondent took the view that the focus in the Appeal Review Statement was understandable, if it is accepted or can be established, that Mr Volp's appeal could not be sustained by reference to the clinical work level statements.  In such circumstances it followed that Mr Volp's prospects hinged on the evaluation of the relevant management work level statements.  The respondent's submission is based on a consideration of the key work level statements which differentiate between a clinical professional at the HP5 level and a clinical professional at the HP6 level.  Mr Hamilton explained the respondent's position when giving his evidence in the proceedings (T1-18 and T1-19):

"And having reviewed Mr Volp's affidavit, are you aware that it's his position that the appeal panel has erred by not considering the clinical element and only the managerial element of his role description?‑‑‑I’ve made a comment on my statement, page 7 – I’m just double-checking myself – holistic evaluation – I actually made a comment about this.  Yeah, sorry, page 6, bottom comment on para 26.  And I can explain my reasons for that comment."

 …

"Before I – you were beginning to tell the commission the context in which you've made that statement in paragraph 26.  Can I give you the opportunity just to address that?‑‑‑Yes.  My opinion would have been as though this room was the panel, the applicant looking at the role description and looking at the work level statements of DGH1, the clinical work level statements for HP6 have a strong emphasis on state-wide – pages 36 – if you peruse page 36 and 37, whereas the managerial on pages 59 and 60, have a more open district level focus.  A person looking at the clinical work level statements on pages 36 and 37 – not all of them, but the vast majority of them have a state-wide focus and if you’re a panel – this group was a panel looking at those, it would have been we’re looking at a very large tertiary hospital.  The hospital does provide – it’s one of the two biggest ones in the state.  They provide a service as a hospital but looking at the role descriptions, I don't see a state-wide level of scope, knowledge or accountability.  So a panel would be ill-advised to purely focus in on clinical work level statements.  They would have done the applicant a better service by looking at management work level statements."

  1. [29]
    The effect of Mr Hamilton's evidence was that it was evident to the Appeal Panel that Mr Volp could not qualify for the HP6 level on an evaluation of his clinical duties, roles and responsibilities because he could not satisfy the state-wide dimensions of the work level statements.  It was in these circumstances that the Appeal Panel considered that the determination of the appeal rested on an evaluation of the relevant management work level statements.  It followed from the respondent's perspective that no error arose from the Appeal Panel's approach to the matter.
  1. [30]
    I accept this line of reasoning.  I think that it is clear from a consideration of Mr Volp's role description and his appeal material, that he does not satisfy the state-wide requirements of the HP6 clinical work level statements.  In these circumstances it is understandable that the Appeal Panel would turn its mind to an evaluation of the management components of Mr Volp's role and consider whether his appeal could succeed by reference to an evaluation of his duties, roles and responsibilities against the HP6 management stream statements.

Management Stream

  1. [31]
    In the consideration of whether the appeal material relied on by Mr Volp's can satisfy some or all of the management stream work level statements at the HP6 level, Mr Volp's cause is not hindered by the absence of state-wide accountabilities.
  1. [32]
    The work level statements and guidelines document states at page 47 that work level statements for the management stream apply to "health practitioners who have responsibility for controllable resources for specific projects, programs, divisions or business units to achieve defined business, service or operational objectives".  Further "management positions directly manage, lead or supervise a team of Health Practitioners, assistants and other staff to achieve service or operational objectives. Typically, Managers allocate work, train staff and monitor quality and are accountable for individual performance management".
  1. [33]
    The introductory comments to HP Level 6 statements (page 58) are set out below:
  • Demonstrated well-developed clinical expertise in their given area with significant management responsibility for large or diverse multidisciplinary teams with a large facility or speciality health service.
  • Differentiators from Management Stream – HP5 include:
  • -Increased operational and resource management responsibilities across a diverse multidisciplinary team with a large facility or district
  • -Strategic focus on district-wide issues, which may involve alignment across multiple disciplines
  1. [34]
    The key differentiators in terms of the work level statements are set out on pages 59 and 60 of the guidelines document.  Three statements are listed under the heading of
    "Scope & Nature of Level"; seven statements under "Knowledge, Skills & Expertise"; and five statements under "Accountability".
  1. [35]
    The Appeal Review Statement included comment on four HP5 statements and five HP6 statements. The comments on the "Scope & Nature of Level" statements indicated that the Appeal Panel concluded that Mr Volp's operational responsibility was limited to a "medium size team" as opposed to a "large professional team or a diverse multi-disciplinary team within a large facility".  In addressing the "Knowledge, Skills & Expertise" statements the Panel similarly found that that Mr Volp was responsible for the management of a "medium-sized professional team, rather than a "large professional team".
  1. [36]
    Taking a broader overview, the Panel clearly found that Mr Volp did not qualify for reclassification based on an assessment of the key "Scope & Nature of Level" statements.  In respect to the "Knowledge, Skills & Expertise" statements, the Panel's assessment was more equivocal in that while it accepted that Mr Volp met the HP6-12 statement it found that he did not demonstrate high level management skills across a large professional team (HP6-13).  In terms of "Accountability", the Panel concluded that Mr Volp met the two statements commented on.
  1. [37]
    Based on this overview, and having reviewed Mr Volp's appeal material directed at the management stream work level statements, I am unable to find that the Appeal Panel conclusion in respect to the management stream was not reasonably open to it. While it may have been helpful for the Appeal Panel to have included comment on more work level statements in its Appeal Review Statement, this factor alone does not warrant a finding that in reaching the conclusion that it did, the Appeal Panel has erred.

 Conclusion

  1. [38]
    For the reasons outlined in this decision, I decline to resolve the dispute in the manner proposed by the applicant. Consequently Mr Volp's classification level is confirmed at HP5.     
  1. [39]
    Order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1] Newton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP/2013/35) [2014] QIRC121 http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QIRC

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    United Voice (Volp) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    United Voice (Volp) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2015] QIRC 42

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Industrial Commissioner Black

  • Date:

    05 Mar 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Newton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2014] QIRC 121
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 121
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 121

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.