ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with a dispute under Aurizon Train Crew and Transport Operations Enterprise Agreement 2015 – employees affected by dispute are Transport Operators working for Aurizon (Transport Operators were previously known as ‘Shunters’ and are still referred to as such), at the rail depot at Pring, on the outskirts of Bowen in North Queensland – these employees do not work outside of the rail yard and are covered by the Transport Operations Stream clauses of the Agreement – applicant claimed that respondent’s use of the Agreement provisions to have additional duties undertaken, for no additional payment, was not agreed during the recent negotiations and was not permitted under the Agreement – claim that these employees are entitled to the Higher Grade Allowance (in clause 35) for time undertaking these new duties – Interim Decision was released in this matter following a hearing – respondent argued the combination of number of clauses provided basis for duties to be undertaken with no additional payment – stated the classification tasks and clauses of the Agreement allowed them to direct employees to perform those duties – applicant stated there was no clear indication from negotiations that application of new Agreement was going to be used in this way, to assign these additional duties, within the current pay range – no submissions were filed on a work value claim – applicant sought for affected employees to be paid at the higher duties rate of $6.4428 per hour – submitted that the disagreement was that Shunters should not undertake training to perform the start-up, relinking and shutting down of a locomotive because that training was not required to perform the role for which they were employed – respondent submitted that the intention in this respect, was to ensure employees were trained, as well as competent, to perform any new tasks which they might be required to perform as part of their employment – further submitted that descriptions of tasks and functions were not exclusive – lists of indicative tasks and functions were largely taken from previous agreement – Commission concluded that additional competencies did not fall within the scope of the role for which employees were employed – they should not be compensated for the period of time that they carried out these tasks as not all of the tasks commensurate with the High Grade allowance – employees should not be compensated for the period of time they performed the tasks based on the work value of the tasks as this was not pursued by the applicant – employees should not be back paid for the period of time that they had been carrying out the tasks as this was also not sought by the applicant – the claimed remuneration of the Higher Grade allowance was not applicable to the subset of duties sought to be undertaken – the extra duties do not fall within their classification and therefore the direction was not in accordance with the applicable Agreement provisions. Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Aurizon Operations Ltd
…
