Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Tasso.Tzioumis/cpsu/oncall_7jun.txt Дата изменения: Fri Jun 7 08:35:32 1996 Дата индексирования: Fri Feb 28 11:19:52 2014 Кодировка:

From pjodsec@iaccess.com.au Fri Jun 7 14:26:31 1996
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:13:28 GMT
From: Peter ODonoghue

Subject: on call/close call allowances

Dear all

A meeting was held yesterday between the CPSU, CSIRO and AMWU to discuss the
allowances further. CSIRO made their first formal response to the claim I
have described in earlier emails. What they are prepared to offer is as
follows:

A General

Maintenance of the same basic arrangements for on call and close call allowances

B Quantum

1. The original claim for 7.5%/10%/15% of the officer's hourly salary for
each hour on close call on weekdays/weekends/public holidays respectively.

OR

2. A flat rate of 8.4% of the officers hourly rate per hour on close call
(ie averaging the three amounts into one).

OR

3. A flat rate of 7% of CSOF4M (equal to 8.4% of CSOF3M), with 13% for
public holidays

OR

4. 6.4%/8.5%/12.8% of CSOF4M



In all 4 options the on call allowance would be at half those rates.

CONFUSED? You should be!

Explanatory notes:

Option 1 refers to the original AMWU claim which mirrors the Australian
Public Service (APS) arrangements. Subsequently, the unions put forward to
CSIRO that the rate should be based on the CSOF4M hourly rate (ie one rate
for all) as the disability of being restricted was the same for all. Linking
it to CSOF4M simply meant that with wage movements the rate would rise, so
that its value would be maintained without having to continually renegotiate it.

CSIRO are prepared to pay the APS equivalent (option 1).

An alternative they put forward was to average the three rates into one
(option 2). On our calculations there is significant disadvantage to people
on call on public holidays if the averaged rate is used. However, in light
of our comments CSIRO have shown signs of being prepared to vary this option
to have a separate public holiday rate.

CSIRO are sympathetic to arguments for a single rate based on linking the
allowance to one salary point, rather than to each officer's salary. They
argue that CSOF4M is the top of the tree, and that to link it to that salary
point when the majority of people receiving the allowance are below CSOF3M
is putting an unacceptably high cost on the Organisation if the percentage
amount is left the same. Therefore they have proposed options 3 and 4 which
link the percentages of 7.5/10/15 and the averaged equivalent of 8.4% to
CSOF3M. They claim that 60% of those who receive the allowance are under
CSOF3M, and so would receive more than the original proposal anyway.

Given a CSOF3M percentage, it is easy to calculate the CSOF4M equivalent,
which is what is cited in options 3 and 4. You will note that they have
taken account of our concern about the effect of averaging on the public
holiday entitlement, by offering a separate rate in option 3 - logically
they would probably be prepared to vary option 2 similarly, so might be
something like 8.3%/15% of the officer's hourly salary on offer.

COMMENT

CSIRO have indicated that their response is pretty much close to final in
terms of what they are prepared to pay. The options basically reflect
different ways of structuring the deal without an increase in overall cost
to the Organisation. In my view, especially as they are prepared to match
the APS deal, it is not inappropriate to deal within their boundaries, but
if you believe we should hold out for more, please say so!

Given the above, the following points about the options are relevant:

Relatively speaking, members below CSOF3M will do better out of options 3
and 4. Members over CSOF3M will do better out of options 1 and 2. The
differences in relative outcomes are not great, and all members no matter
which option applies will be getting a substantial increase in the
allowance. Given the majority of members affected are below CSOF3M, and are
paid the least, my view would be that one of those options would be the most
preferable. Again - let me know what you think!

TO Summarise, two questions are being asked:

1. Are you agreeable to talk within the boundaries the options proposed put
on the amount available?

2. If yes, which option do you believe is the most appropriate?