Two views of the WRA

The proposed Arrangement lacks substance, according to Graham Howitt of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia

THE ADF roadshows that were conducted to present the proposed Workplace Remuneration Arrangement (WRA) 2004-2006 to members are over.

While we understand (and witnessed) that attendances were generally poor, the mandatory consultation phase gets a tick in the box and the matter has been listed for hearing by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) on March 30. This is about six weeks before the prevailing Arrangement expires and the ADF is to be congratulated on its efforts to present the matter in such timely fashion.

Presenting the replacement Arrangement to the DFRT early is the first of four positives the Federation sees in the replacement WRA. Second is the increase of 10 per cent over a 30-month period (or 4 per cent a year). Third is ADF personnel have not been required to offer any condition of service trade-off to justify the amount on offer. And fourth is that salary structures and salary-related allowances may continue to be reviewed during the life of the Arrangement. That’s about it.

The WRA remains very thin. It has no substance. It continues to focus purely on salary and ignores any reference to the vast range of remuneration entitlements that would normally be presented for employees to consider and for certifying authorities to endorse. Take a look at the Defence Employees Certified Agreement and you’ll see what we mean.

While it may be true that additional remuneration matters such as the long-awaited Maternity Leave at Half Pay and the additional week of paid Parental Leave enjoyed by civilians working in the Australian Defence Organisation are outside the jurisdiction of the DFRT, the Tribunal needs to be presented with a complete bag of ADF goodies in order to be satisfied comparable remuneration outcomes are being applied to military personnel.

As it stands, they won’t be.

In our view, the narrowly focused approach taken by ADF management continues to deny military personnel a fair and complete hearing in regard to their Workplace Remuneration Arrangement. No imagination and no personnel initiatives advised. Why? It can’t be all that hard to include them.

Not only would that provide a full picture to the DFRT, it would guarantee periodical reviews and ensure all financial entitlements available to military members remain current and relevant.

The way it is, the ADF just seem to be going through the motions.

ADF members will benefit from the deal, writes CAPT Marcus Peake (RAN) , Director of Military Salaries and Allowances Policy, DPE

UNDER the ADF’s industrial relations framework, pay and pay-related allowances fall under the jurisdiction of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT).

The Tribunal considers these matters and makes determination on them under Section 58 of the Defence Act, which then provides the legal basis for payment of salary increases. The DFRT does not have any authority or jurisdiction over non-salary related matters and cannot make determination on them. Their inclusion in the draft WRA would therefore provide absolutely no legislative basis for their existence or their progression, which begs the question as to what value their inclusion in the Arrangement would provide. The Tribunal itself acknowledged this in the 1999-2002 Enterprise Productivity Arrangement when it queried the point of putting matters into the Arrangement over which it had no jurisdiction.

This industrial process is quite different for Defence civilians, who are subject to the Workplace Relations Act. Their certified Agreement (the DECA) becomes, in effect, an “award” that specifies all pay and other conditions (including conditions of employment) for the period of the Agreement. Once the DECA is certified, those matters are locked in. By comparison, the WRA locks in salary increases, but provides flexibility to review other aspects – this suits our more complex service conditions framework, which is ultimately driven by the need to deliver flexible capability.

I reject the assertion that the WRA is “thin”. It provides the legal basis for a 10 per cent increase to members’ salary over its 30-month duration, at a cost to Defence of more than $380m. Importantly, it also provides the basis for the commitments and offsets expected of ADF members in return. The fact that other, non-salary conditions are not included is not such an issue as the Federation might suppose: there is a plethora of information available to ADF members on their entitlements, including the ADF members guide that has a circulation to date of some 130,000 copies for its two versions. I also reject the assertion that by omitting non-salary related items from the WRA, comparable conditions of service will not be achieved. That implies that absolute equity can and should be achieved, that the DFRT has the mandate to drive that equity, and that our other mechanisms for progressing non-salary items are deficient. These assertions are incorrect, aside from which the package of conditions provided to civilians and ADF personnel are, in many cases, quite different for good and valid reasons.

Finally, you can be assured the WRA will get a fair and complete hearing. While the proposed Arrangement is generally an “agreed matter” between Defence and the Commonwealth, the DFRT can and does question any aspect of it that it wishes, and will hear views from other parties present, including ArFFA. The inclusion of non-salary related items has no bearing on the integrity of the process.

.