Queenslandnurses' Unionofemployeesandsundalegardenvillage,Nambour(No.D308of2004)

1

[ExtractfromQueenslandGovernmentIndustrialGazette,

dated13January,2006,Vol.181,No.2,pages69-72]

QUEENSLANDINDUSTRIALRELATIONSCOMMISSION

IndustrialRelationsAct1999- s.229 - noticeofindustrialdispute

QueenslandNurses' UnionofEmployeesANDSundaleGardenVillage,Nambour(No.D308of2004)

COMMISSIONERASBURY / 22December2005

DECISION

1.OVERVIEW

On2August2004,SundaleGardenVillage(Sundale)notifiedanindustrialdisputepursuanttos.229oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1999(theAct),withtheQueenslandNursesUnionofEmployeesQueensland(QNU)anditsmembers. ThedisputewasnumberedD308of2004. On7September2004,DeputyPresidentBloomfieldreferredthedisputetoarbitration,pursuanttos.230(3)(b)oftheAct,byamemoranduminthefollowingterms:

"...

Actingpursuanttotheprovisionsofs.230(3)(b)oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1999(theAct),andthedelegationofVicePresidentLinnanedated26August2004,IherebyrefermatternumberD308of2004toarbitrationasfollows:

Background

ToaddresscontinuingandmountinglossestheBoardofSundaleGardenVillagedecidedtoreducehoursofstaffemployedintheJamesGrimesCareCentrefromapproximately22July2004.

TheQueenslandNurses' UnionofEmployees(QNU)anditsmembersobjecttothehoursreductionarguing:

thattheeconomiccircumstancesofSundaleGardenVillagedonotwarrantthereductions;

thehours' reductionsaresuchthat:

[1]theyimposeunreasonableworkloadsonemployees;

[2]theyareimpactinguponoraffectingtheprofessionalaccountabilityoflicensednurses;

[3]theyareaffectingthestandardsofresidentcare;and

[4]theyentitleemployee(s)torefusetoperformcertaintasksinaccordancewiths.241oftheActonthebasisanyrefusalisbasedonareasonableconcernbytherespectiveemployee(s)aboutanimminentrisktohisorherhealthorsafety.

Issuetobearbitrated

'TotheextentthatQNU'sconcerns/argumentsarevalid,whatchanges(ifany)shouldbemadetotherostersattheJamesGrimesCareCentresuchthatanyvalidconcern(s)/argument(s)ofQNUis/arerectified/overcome.'

Carriageofmatter

Pursuanttos.230(5)theQNUistohavecarriageofthematter.

Memberassigned

ThearbitrationofthismatterisassignedtoCommissionerAsbury.".

TheQNUclaimswerestrenuouslydefended,andgiventheseriousnatureoftheallegationsmadeagainstSundale,thisishardlysurprising. InitiallythematterwasprogrammedtobeheardoverthreedaysinOctober2004. Asthematterproceededthehearingextendedinto2005stretchingoversome26days,includingjurisdictionalargumentsandinterlocutoryproceedingsrelatingtodiscovery. Therewere15witnessesfortheQNU;6witnessesforSundale;113exhibitsand1891pagesoftranscript. Witnessesforbothsidesprovidednumerouswitnessstatementsandwereextensivelycross-examined. Therewasalsoaconsiderableamountofexpertevidenceinrelationtoappropriatestandardsofcarebeingprovidedtoresidents.

Ihavefullyconsideredalloftheevidenceandthesubmissions,andhavereachedconclusionsinrelationtotheoutcomeofthemattersreferredforarbitration. DetailedreasonsfortheconclusionsIhavereachedareintheprocessofbeingpublishedandwillbeavailableintheNewYear. However,giventheclosenessoftheChristmasperiod;thedesirabilityofthepartiesknowingtheoutcomeofmattersreferredforarbitration;andtheuncertaintyassociatedwiththeeffectofnewFederalindustrialrelationslegislationonpartheardmatterscurrentlybeforethisCommission,Ihavedecidedtoreleaseadecisionsettingoutmyconclusionsinthismatterinadvanceofreleaseofthesupportingreasons.

2.CONCLUSIONSINRELATIONTOJURISDICTIONALARGUMENT

SundalesubmittedthatthemattersreferredforarbitrationbyDeputyPresidentBloomfieldwerenotvalidmattersfortheCommissiontoinquireintoandarbitrateupon,inajurisdictionalsense. Iamunabletoacceptthesesubmissions.

InrelationtotheissueofwhethertheeconomiccircumstancesofSundalewarrantedthereductions,thismatterwasnotremovedfromtheissuesindisputebySundalecontendingthattherationaleforthehoursreductionswasfinancialprudence. Byitsactionsinthisregard,SundaleleftopenthepossibilitythatitwouldarguethattheCommissionshouldnotgrantthereliefsoughtbytheQNUinlightoftheeffectitwouldhaveonSundale'sfinancialpositionoronSundale'srighttomanageitsbusinessinafinanciallyprudentmanner. TheCommissionwouldhavehadjurisdictiontoinquireintothebasisofsuchanargumenthaditbeenadvanced.

Attheconclusionoftheproceedings,whensuchanargumentwasnotadvanced,theeconomiccircumstancesofSundalebecameirrelevanttothemattersfordetermination. Untilthatpoint,economiccircumstanceswerealiveissue,andhadeconomiccircumstancesbeenraisedattheconclusionofproceedings,theywouldhavebeenarelevantconsiderationfortheCommissionindecidingwhetherornottoexerciseitsdiscretiontograntthereliefsoughtbytheQNU.

IdonotacceptthesubmissiononbehalfofSundalethatanyimpactoreffectofthereductioninhoursontheprofessionalaccountabilityofnursesisnotavalidmatterfortheCommissiontoarbitrateoninajurisdictionalsense,becausesuchamattercanonlybeadvancedonbehalfofindividualnursesandnotglobally. Inmyview,thisargumentisaboutmeritandwhetherthereissufficientevidenceuponwhichtheCommissioncouldgrantreliefsoughtbytheQNU. FurtherIdonotacceptthesubmissiononbehalfofSundalethatthequestionofwhetherthereductioninhourswasaffectingthestandardofresidentcare,wasaninvalidmatterfortheCommissiontoconsider.

Inmyviewthebroaddefinitionof "industrialmatter" ins.7oftheAct,andthedefinitionof "industrialdispute" inSchedule1,encompassestheissueoftheprofessionalaccountabilityofnurses,andtheirassociatedobligationstoprovideappropriatecaretoresidents. Further,thatthisissueiscapableofconstitutingthesubjectmatterofanindustrialdisputeisclearfromthedecisionofaFullBenchoftheCommissioninQNUvQCCI(2002)169QGIG769. WheretheissuebeforetheCommissioniswhetheractiononthepartofanemployerplacesunfairandunreasonabledemandsonemployeeswhoareresponsibletotheprovisionofcaretoanysectionofthecommunity,anoutcomewhichaddressesthatunfairnessorunreasonablenesscannotbeinvalidsimplybecauseitalsoresultsinanimprovedstandardofcare.

Iamalsooftheviewthatthedefinitionof "industrialmatter" encompassescaseswheretheactionsofanemployermayplaceemployeesinapositionwheretheyareunabletomeetstandardsorcomplywithobligationsrelatedtotheirprofessionalaccountability. Thisisparticularlysowhereanemployeeplacedinsuchapositionmaybeliabletosanctionsimposedbyaregulatorybodybecauseofinabilitytomeetstandardsorcomplywithobligations. Further,astheFullBenchpointedoutinQNUvQCCI (2002)169QGIG769personsemployedintheprovisionofnursingcareinresidentialagedcarefacilitiesorotherestablishmentsinwhichcareisprovided,haveacaringnature. Idonotdoubtthatforsuchemployeestofeelunabletoprovideappropriatecaretothoseforwhomtheyareresponsible,wouldcausesignificantconcernanddistress,andwouldbelikelytoaffecttheirrelationshipwiththeiremployer.

Thiswouldparticularlybethecaseincircumstanceswhereitwasbelievedbysuchemployeesthatinabilitytoprovideanappropriatestandardofcarewasbecauseofsomeactionbytheemployersuchasareductioninworkinghoursorsomeotherre-organisationofwork. AdisputeoversuchamatterwouldbesquarelywithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission,aswouldanyincidentalaffectonresidents,whoaresurelymembersofthecommunitywhoseinterestsaretobetakenintoaccountbytheCommissioninthepublicinterestcontextofanydisputeoveranindustrialmatterinanursinghomeorsimilarestablishment. Iwouldalsonote,thatconsistentwiththeObjectsoftheActtheCommissioncanbe,andis,afunctionarythroughwhichsociallyoreconomicallydesirableoutcomesareachieved,andIrejectSundale'scontentiontothecontrary.

Further,Idonotacceptthatanissueunders.78BoftheJudiciaryAct1903arisesinthepresentcase. ThematterofhoursofworkandworkloadsfornursesarenotdealtwithintheAgedCareAct1997,ortheQualityofCarePrinciples1997,inamannerwhichcouldgiverisetoanyinconsistencypursuanttos.109oftheConstitutionarisingfromtheconsiderationof,orthegrantofthereliefsoughtbytheQNUintheseproceedings. AnargumentinsimilartermswasconsideredbyaFullBenchoftheCommissioninQNUvQCCI(2000)164QGIG62inrelationtoanapplicationbytheQNUinB1019of1998,wherebyanawardvariationwassoughtinrelationtoskillsmixandstaffingratios. WhiletheclaiminthepresentcaseisnotidenticaltothatconsideredbytheFullBenchinB1019of1998,itisanalogous. InmyviewthereasonsoftheFullBenchinrejectingthecontentionthatanarbitratedoutcomeofthatclaimwouldbeinvalidbyvirtueofsection109oftheConstitutionareequallyapplicableinthecurrentcase. Ialsonotethatthequestionofwhetherthereductionsinhoursaffectedstandardsofresidentcarehasbeeninissuefromtheoutsetoftheseproceedingsanddidnotonlybecomeapparentatthepointwherefinalsubmissionsweremadeattheconclusionofanextremelylengthyhearing. Anyargumentinrespectofsection109oftheConstitutionshouldhavebeenraisedattheoutset.

Iamalsounabletoacceptthecontentionbytherespondentthatthematterofwhethers.241oftheActentitlednursesemployedbytherespondenttorefusetoperformcertaintasks,wasaninvalidmatterfortheCommissiontoconsider. InthisregardIacceptthesubmissionsoftheQNUthatthebackgroundtothereferenceofthismattertoarbitration,includedtheimpositionofworkbansbyemployeesoftherespondent,andthatitwasthismatterwhichleadSundaletonotifyadisputeunders.229oftheAct. Therewassomeevidenceofthesebansinproceedings. IcanseenobasisforfindingotherthanthatthisisamatterproperlywithinthejurisdictionoftheCommissionandopenforconsiderationonitsmeritsinthecurrentproceedings.

3.CONCLUSIONSINRELATIONTOSUBSTANTIVEISSUES

AsJusticeWrightnotedinReAppealFromDeterminationofPublicServiceArbitrator(ReShiftWork)(1969)128CAR319at320,theCommissionhasthroughoutitsexistenceacknowledgedtherightofanemployertomanageandregulateitsownbusiness,subjecttotheprotectionofemployeesfromunjustorunreasonabledemands. CitingthiscaseaFullBenchoftheAustralianConciliationandArbitrationCommissioninAFULEvStateRailAuthorityofNSW(1984)295CAR188dealingwith "manning" ofXPTtrains,said(at181)thatthepropertestinsuchcasesisfortheCommissiontoexamineallthefacts,andnottointerferewiththerightofanemployertomanageitsownbusiness,unlesstheemployerwasseekingfromemployeessomethingthatwasunjustorunreasonable. TheFullBenchwentontonotethatthetestofinjusticeorunreasonablenesswouldembracemattersofsafetyandhealthbecausearequirementbyanemployerwhichwasunsafe,ormightdamagethehealthoftheemployeewouldbebothunjustandunreasonable.

Thistestisapplicableinthecurrentcase,andhasbeenappliedbytheQueenslandIndustrialCourtandCommissioninanumberofcasesrelatingtowhathavebeentermed "manning" or "staffing" levels: (seeFCUNorthQueenslandBranchvCairnsBaseHospital(1995)150QGIG1401perMcKenzieP;BowenCokePtyLtdvAWU(1994)145QGIG125at126;AWUvSouthJohnstone SugarMillLtd(1998)158QGIG162;QCCIvQNU(2002)169QGIG769).

Applyingthetestinthecurrentcase,IhavereachedtheviewthattheQNUhasnotestablishedthatthereductioninhoursinstitutedbySundaleisunjustorunreasonableandthattheCommissionshouldinterveneintheexercisebymanagementofSundaleoftherighttomanageitsbusiness. ItisnotnecessarytodrawaconclusioninrelationtothefinancialcircumstancesofSundale,giventhatSundalehasconcededthatifthehoursreductionsimposedunjustorunreasonableworkloadsonstaffsuchthattheinterventionoftheCommissionwaswarranted,thattheCommissionwouldnotdeclinetointervenebecausethereductionsinhourswerefinanciallyprudent.

Onbalance,Iamunabletobesatisfiedthatthehoursreductionshaveimposedunjustorunreasonableworkloadsonemployees;areimpactingontheprofessionalaccountabilityoflicensednurses;oradverselyaffectingthestandardofresidentcare. InreachingtheseconclusionsIhaveconsideredthefollowingmattersestablishedbytheevidenceintheseproceedings. Manyofthecomplaintswereaboutlossofincomeonthepartofindividualemployees. Iacceptthatreductionsinincomewouldhaveanextremelyadverseaffectonindividualemployees. However,therightsofSundaletoreducethehoursofindividualemployees,andasaconsequencetoreducetheirincome,werenotinissueintheproceedings. Forexample,itwasnotcontendedthatthereductionswereprohibitedbytheAwardorwerenoteffectedasrequiredbytheAward. Rather,thefocusoftheseproceedingswastheeffectofthehoursreductionsinrelationtothemattersallegedbytheQNUandsetoutinthememorandumreferringthedisputetoarbitration. Further,IamsatisfiedthatSundalehasmadereasonableattemptsonanongoingbasistomitigateadverseimpactsonindividualemployeesbymakingrosteringadjustments.

ItisthecasethatthemethodbywhichthereductionswereimplementedonthepartofSundaleleftsomethingtobedesired. Errorswithrosteringandshortnoticeofnewrosterswouldundoubtedlyhavecompoundedanynegativeviewsofthechangesthatstaffmayhaveheld. However,Iamalsosatisfiedthattheseissueswereunderstandablegiventhescopeofthechange;thatSundalesoughttoimplementitonaconsultativebasis;andthatanewcomputerisedrosteringsystemwasbeingorhadrecentlybeeninstalledatthetimethechangeswereimplemented. ItwasalsothecasethatoneofthechangeswhichappearedtohavecauseddifficultywasimplementedasaresultofarecommendationofanothermemberoftheCommission,whowasattemptingtoassistthepartiesinconciliation. Inhindsight,itmayhavebeenappropriateforthepotentialimpactofthehoursreductionstobediscussedbytheWorkplaceHealthandSafetyCommittee. However,Idonotacceptthatthehoursreductionswereeffectedwithoutconsiderationofworkplacehealthandsafetyissues. Onbalance,theshortcomingsinthemannerofimplementingthehoursreductionsarenotofsufficientweightfortheCommissiontointerveneonthebasisthatunjustandunreasonabledemandsarebeingplacedonemployees.

Iamalsooftheviewthatthelapseintimebetweentheimplementationofthehoursreductionsandthehearingofthismatteriscritical. Whileitisregrettablethattheproceedingscouldnotbeheardinthetimeoriginallyallocated,thetimingandthescopeoftheproceedingswasamatterprincipallyimpactedbytheparties. TheQNUleftnostoneunturnedinpursuitofmaterialtosupportitscase,andthisisunderstandablegiventhatitwasrepresentingmemberswhowereclearlyangry,dissatisfiedandseekingtoventilateseriousallegationsaboutthecarebeingprovidedtoaparticularlyvulnerablesectionofthecommunity. Sundaleforitspart,vigorouslydefendedthecase,andthisisalsounderstandablegiventheseriousnessoftheallegationsmadebytheQNUanditsmembersandthepotentialrepercussionsforSundaleofanyadversefindingsinrelationtothoseallegations. However,thefactremainsthatbythetimetheseproceedingswereheard,aconsiderableperiodhadelapsedsincethehoursreductionswereimplemented. Asaresult,manyoftheissuesraisedinwitnessstatementsprovidedbyQNUmembershadbeenaddressedorwereintheprocessofbeingaddressedbySundalewhentheseproceedingswereheard.

IamsatisfiedthatSundalehasinplaceappropriatemechanismsbywhichissuessuchasthoseraisedintheseproceedingshavebeenandwillcontinuetobeaddressed. Inthisregard,SundalehasaWorkplaceHealthandSafetyCommitteecomprisingelectedrepresentativesofemployeesatwhichissuesrelatingtoworkloadscanberaisedanddealtwith. Sundalealsohasanelectroniccomplaintssystem,bywhichemployeescangeneratecomplaintsaboutworkloadsandrelatedissues. Therewasconsiderableevidenceaboutdiscussionsbetweensupervisorsandstaffatwhichissueswithworkloadsandrosteringaredealtwithandthatthisprocesshadbeensuccessfulinrelationtoanumberofissuesarisingfromthehoursreductionswhichwerethesubjectoftheseproceedings. ItwasalsoapparentfromtheevidencethatSundalehasinplacea "nolift" policywhichisappropriatelypromulgatedintheworkplaceandthatstaffareinvolvedintheongoingimplementationofthispolicy. Further,individualstaffmemberscanexercisediscretionanddeterminethattheywillnotliftaparticularresidentwithoutassistance,regardlessofthedesignationofthatresidentunderthe "nolift" policy. Inmyviewthesemechanismshaveoperatedtomitigatetheeffectofthehoursreductionsandthatmitigationisongoing. IacceptthatnursesatSundalearededicatedandthattheirworkisdifficultandintense. However,Iamunabletoacceptthatthereductionsinhourshaveresultedinworkloadsbecomingunreasonableorunjust.

ThereisinsufficientevidenceuponwhichIcouldbesatisfiedthatthehoursreductionsareimpactingoraffectingtheprofessionalaccountabilityoflicensednurses. Theevidenceinrelationtothisissuewashypothetical. Further,intheconsiderableperiodoftimewhichelapsedbetweenthehoursreductionsandthehearingofthismatter,noneoftheeventshypothesisedaboutintheevidence,eventuated. OneRNandoneEN - MsRobinsonandMsHanna - gaveevidencefortheQNU. OtherQNUwitnesseswereAINswhoarenotprofessionallyaccountableinthesamewayasregisteredorenrollednurses. AlthoughMsRobinsonpurportedtogiveevidencetotheeffectthattheincreasedworkloadsonRNsplacedtheminjeopardyofbeingprofessionallycompromised,MsRobinsonworkedonlypartofoneshiftaftertheimplementationofthehoursreductionsandthenceasedemploymentatSundale. MsHannagavenodirectevidenceonthispoint. Further,therewasnothingintheevidenceofanyoftheAINswhogaveevidencefortheQNUtosuggestanyadverseimpactontheprofessionalaccountabilityoflicensednursesasaresultofthehoursreductions. TheevidenceofMsGarrahyandMsRichardsinrelationtothispointwashypothetical. IalsoaccepttheevidenceofMsReadman - whoisprofessionallyaccountableasanRN - thatinhertimeatSundale,noregulatednursehasbeenrequiredtorespondtotheQueenslandNursingCouncilconcerningworkatSundale.

Iamunabletoacceptthatthehoursreductionshaveaffectedstandardsofresidentcare. InthisregardIaccepttheevidenceofMsReadmanandMrBruggemannoverthatofthewitnessesfortheQNU. Further,IacceptthattherehavebeenthreesiteauditsconductedbytheAgedCareStandardsandAccreditationAgencywhichischargedwithmonitoringthedeliveryofresidentcaretotherequiredstandards. Thoseauditstookplaceaftertheimplementationofthehoursreductions. OnesuchauditwasconductedattherequestoftheQNU. ThattheQNUwouldinstigateanauditindicatesacceptanceonthepartoftheQNUthattheAgencyistheappropriatebodytoinvestigateallegationsaboutfailuretoprovideacceptablelevelsofcare. FortheCommissiontodecide - contrarytothreereportsbytheAgency - thattherewasnotanappropriatestandardofcarebeingprovidedtoSundaleresidents,wouldbeaseriousmatterwithpotentiallygraveconsequences. IamunabletobesatisfiedthattheQNUhasmadeoutthisallegation.

Inthepresentcase,inrelationtotheissueofwhetherthehoursreductionsentitleemployeestorefusetoperformcertaintasksinaccordancewiththeAct,thereisinsufficientevidenceuponwhichIcanmakeafindingatall. Therewasnoevidenceatthetimethismatterwasheardthattherewerebansinplaceandtherewasalackofclarityaboutbanswhichhadbeeninplaceatoraroundthetimethehoursreductionswereimplemented. Anyevidenceaboutbanswastotheeffectthattheywereminor. Further,giventhewayinwhichtheseproceedingsdeveloped,thismatterwasnotinissue. ItwasnotcontendedbySundaleintheproceedingsthattherehadbeenindustrialactioninbreachofs.241,andinthosecircumstancesIseelittleutilityinmakingafindingonthisissue. EmployeesofSundalecontinuetohaverightsunders.241oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1999torefusetoperformworkiftherefusalisbasedonareasonableconcernaboutanimminentrisktotheirhealthorsafety,andtheemployeehasnotunreasonablycontravenedadirectiontoperformotheravailableworkthatissafeandappropriate. Employershavecorrespondingrightstochallengethereasonablenessofanyrefusaltoperformworkonthepartofemployees. Whetherornotthoserightshavebeenappropriatelyexerciseddoesnotinmyviewariseinthecurrentproceedings.

Accordingly,IfindthattheQNU'sconcerns/argumentsinrelationtothereductionsinhourshavenotbeenestablishedtotheextentthattheCommissionshouldinterveneandorderchangestotherostersatSundale.

I.C.ASBURY,Commissioner
HearingDetails:
20048,19,25,26and27October
19,24,25,26,29,and30November
1,2,3,13,16December
200531January
1,2,3,4,17,18February
30and31March
1April / Appearances:
MrJ.AllenandwithhimMsC.KleaseofcounselinstructedbyMrG.RebetzkeofRobertsandKanefortheapplicant.
MrJ.MurdochSCwithhimMrA.A.Horneman-WrenofcounselinstructedbyMrT.LongwillofMcCulloughRobertsonfortherespondent.
Released: 22December2005

GovernmentPrinter,Queensland

TheStateofQueensland2006.