Analysis of Wage Assessment Tools used by Business Services

Table of contents

• Executive Summary
• 1. The Ability Options Wage Assessment Tool
• 2. BlueLine Laundry Inc. Wage Assessment Tool
• 3. Caloola Vocational Services Inc. Wage Assessment Tool
• 4. Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool
• 5. GDP Industries Wage Determination System
• 6. Kurri Contracting Service Wage Assessment Tool
• 7. The Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool
• 8. Merriwa Industries Ltd Wage Assessment Tool
• 9. ParaQuad Wage Assessment Tool
• 10. Waverley Helpmates Wage Assessment Tool

 

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

Executive Summary

This analysis of wage assessment tools used by Business Services was undertaken for the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). The analysis is part of a process approved by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) which involves the assessment of new wage assessment tools by independent evaluation of the tools against the requirements of the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination1.

The research for this analysis has involved two main activities:

• review of documentation regarding wage assessment in Business Services that has been provided to the consultant by FaHCSIA and the Business Services participating in the project (including submissions provided to the AFPC by the Business Services); and
• interviews with Business Service representatives regarding the wage assessment tools used.

It should be noted that the methodology for the analysis does not include on-site audits of the wage assessment tools or consultation with employees whose wages are assessed using the tools. Such audits and consultations are undertaken by quality auditors under the Quality Strategy for Disability Employment Services and Rehabilitation Services. Relevant extracts from the quality auditors' reports are considered in the wage assessment tool analysis.

The wage assessment tools of the following ten Business Services have been reviewed for this report:

• Ability Options;
• BlueLine Laundry;
• Caloola Vocational Services Inc.;
• Cooma Challenge Ltd;
• GDP Industries;
• Kurri Contracting Services;
• Mai-Wel Group;
• Merriwa Industries Ltd;
• Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of WA Inc.; and
• Waverley Helpmates.

A written and diagrammatic description of each of the wage assessment tools has been prepared and the tools have been assessed against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria. These criteria are summarised in the following table.

Summary of Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Requirements
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards	Compliance with: The Disability Services Act (1986) Disability Services Standards, particularly Standard 9 which relates to Employment Conditions The Disability Discrimination Act (1992) The Workplace Relations Act (1996).
Validity	The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.
Reliability	The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater reliability). The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.
Nature of Assessment	Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace Assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.
Linking Assessment to Training	Strong links with training and skills development for employees.
Fair Wage Outcomes	Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness). Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.
Practical Application of the tool	Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees
Administration and Cost Implications	Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment
Industrial Relations	Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes

The Guide concludes that a hybrid model of wage assessment (using a combination of productivity and competency-based measures) is the most appropriate method of wage determination in Business Services. The team that produced the Guide was reluctant to recommend any existing assessment tools as the absolute best practice method of wage assessment for all services and recognised the great variability in wage assessment methods across the Business Service sector.

The Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination criteria are not all absolute or specifically defined and there is a range in the degree to which various tools analysed for this report satisfy the criteria. Where appropriate, suggestions have been made that might improve the degree to which a tool meets the criteria.

In summary, the evidence provided by tool owners indicates that all the tools reviewed in this report satisfy the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination criteria to varying degrees, provided that the tools are implemented according to their documented procedures.

An analysis of each of the reviewed wage assessment tools follows in the ten sections of this report. The history, content and structure, assessment process and key aspects of the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination criteria are described for each tool.

---

1. A Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination – Wage Assessment in Business Services, Health Outcomes International, Commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, 2001.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1. The Ability Options Wage Assessment Tool

• 1.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 1.2 Type of Tool
• 1.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 1.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 1.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 1.6 Assessment Process
• 1.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 1.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 1.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 1.10 Conclusions

1.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Ability Options Ltd

1.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Productivity and Competency)

1.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One

1.4 History and Development of the Tool

Ability Options developed its own instrument to determine productivity rates of employees. The Nursery Hand job description (which was consistent with the definition of Nursery Hand in the state award) was used as a basis for the productivity model.

The wage assessment tool was originally used only for assessment of productivity on measurable tasks (based on the Supported Wage System approach). However, staff did not think that this model gave a fair assessment because the work undertaken at Ability Options is a combination of process and specific tasks which can vary depending on seasonal and other factors. Assessment of productivity only did not recognise the other competencies of employees.

The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) conducted independent wage assessments using the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) and the results were inconsistent with the Ability Options assessment. Although the overall wage result was similar, some individual employees were rated lower on the BSWAT and it was suspected that this was mainly due to lack of communication skills and an inability to explain their work to the assessor.

Ability Options then considered some of the competency aspects of the BSWAT and combined these with the productivity assessment to produce a new wage assessment model. The job tasks in the model link back to the Nursery Hand job description.

Based on historical records, a 50% time weighting was placed on Process Tasks and 50% on Discrete Tasks. Benchmarks were developed for the Process Tasks based on the performance of a full-award employee.

For Discrete Tasks, weightings were determined on the basis of how significant the tasks were to production, for example the frequency with which a task has to be done.

Three levels of performance were set for most of the Discrete Tasks, with Level 1 being independence at the task.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

The Nursery Hand Job Description describes the responsibilities of the position. Standard Operating Procedures/ Task Analysis (SOP/TA) have been developed for each work task. The SOP/TA describe the individual tasks to be performed and the quality standard required. For example, the SOP/TA for Blocking Up includes:

• a description of the task;
• why the task is done;
• what is needed to perform the task;
• a list of the 9 steps for this task;
• nursery hygiene requirements;
• safety requirements;
• quality requirements; and
• other considerations when blocking plants.

All tasks within the nursery have been identified as being either a Process Task or a Discrete Task.

Process Tasks

Process Tasks are repetitive, able to be performed by an individual and are measured by output over a given time period. There are 8 Process Tasks:

1. Filling pots
2. Packing
3. Spacing
4. Racking up
5. Packing Collection
6. Transplanting
7. Trolleying
8. Hand Seeding.

Each of the Process Tasks has a benchmark output which has been determined based on the performance that has been demonstrated to be reliably achieved by full award employees. For example, the benchmark rate for Filling Pots is 54.67 minutes to fill two boxes of 120mm pots (810 pots) using the potting machine.

Individual employees are assessed against their 4 most frequently performed Process Tasks to determine their productivity. This is Part A of the wage assessment which is weighted at 50% of the Total Score.

Discrete Tasks

Discrete Tasks are those which are non-repetitive, may involve working in teams and are measured by an assessment against competency and quality criteria. There are 12 Discrete Tasks and each has a utilisation weighting (shown in brackets) based on the significance of the task to production:

1. Dumping Plants (10%)
2. Seconds (10%)
3. Blocking Up (20%)
4. Forklift (5%)
5. Sort Seedling Trays (10%)
6. Sticky Trap Collection (2.5%)
7. Spreading Biological Agents (2.5%)
8. Plant Cleaning (15%)
9. Clipping Back Plants (5%)
10. Spraying Chemicals (10%)
11. Machine Seeding (5%)
12. Maintenance (10%)

Each of the Discrete Tasks has performance targets (based on competency and quality standards) in three ascending levels. A specific outcome must be achieved at each level before moving on to the next level. Level 1 is the lowest level, representing basic independence at the task while Levels 2 and 3 describe more complex abilities. For example, the performance levels for the Discrete Task of Dumping Plants are as follows:

• Level 1 – Participant has been found independent at task (as specified in Task Analysis)
• Level 2 – Participant consistently observes all OHS guidelines for this task (Manual Handling, Clothing, Correct Equipment). Participant can identify obvious plants that need to be dumped.
• Level 3 – Participant has the ability to count and record/ report plant numbers and varieties.

Two of the Discrete Tasks (Sticky Trap Collection and Spreading Biological Agents) have only Level 1 (independence at the task) as performance criteria. The Discrete Task of Maintenance has seven levels which specify that the employee must consistently meet the criteria set out in the Task Analyses for Sumps, Nursery Clean Up, Ashing, Grass Trimming, Hand Mowing, Rolling Bench/ Trolley Maintenance, and Ride on Mowing. The remaining nine Discrete Tasks all have Levels 1, 2 and 3.

Employees score 1 point for every level that is achieved, i.e. employees can score up to 3 points for those tasks with 3 levels and 7 points for the Maintenance task. The total score for Discrete Tasks is weighted by 50% and forms Part B of the wage assessment

The results from Part A and Part B are added to provide a total score which determines the employee's wage grading.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1.6 Assessment Process

Annual wage assessments are conducted by trainers from Working Options who have a Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment. Working Options is a division of Ability Options Ltd which is administratively separate from the Colour Options Nursery, the employer of the workers being assessed.

Part A of the Assessment Process (Productivity in Process Tasks)

The employee's productivity is measured for their 4 most frequently performed Process Tasks (Part A).

At least 6 observations of the employee's productivity are undertaken for each of the 4 selected Process Tasks. Part A measures the employee's output against the full award employee benchmarks. The average percentage of the productivity benchmark that the employee achieves provides an efficiency measure. This is adjusted by the percentage of paid time that the employee spends on each task (utilisation) to produce the total percentage score for Part A.

Part B of the Assessment Process (Performance in Discrete Tasks)

The employee's performance is assessed against performance criteria in all 12 of the Discrete Tasks. Part B assesses the employee's performance against performance criteria in three ascending levels for nine of the tasks, against one level for 2 of the tasks and 7 levels for one task.

The employee's performance is assessed against the performance levels by referring to daily employee records maintained over the whole year. The employee's total score for each Discrete Tasks is divided by the maximum possible score and then multiplied by the task weighting to produce the percentage score for Part B. The employee's performance is considered to provide an efficiency measure and the weightings for each task provide the utilisation aspect.

Scoring and Wage Grade

The scores for Part A and Part B are added to produce a total percentage score which is then translated to a Wage Grade.

See section 1.7 for a more detailed explanation of the scoring system.

Staff Appraisal Process

The wage assessment details are used as supporting documentation in the staff appraisal process where individual training needs are identified.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The scoring formula for the Ability Options Wage Assessment Tool is summarised as follows:

Part A Score

% of Benchmark Productivity Rate (Process Task 1) X % of Paid Work Time (on Process Task 1) +
% of Benchmark Productivity Rate (Process Task 2) X % of Paid Work Time (on Process Task 2) +
% of Benchmark Productivity Rate (Process Task 3) X % of Paid Work Time (on Process Task 3) +
% of Benchmark Productivity Rate (Process Task 4) X % of Paid Work Time (on Process Task 4) =
Part A Percentage Score

Part B Score

Point Score (Discrete Task 1) X Utilisation Weighting (Discrete Task 1) +
Point Score (Discrete Task 2) X Utilisation Weighting (Discrete Task 2) +
. . . . . .
Point Score (Discrete Task 12) X Utilisation Weighting (Discrete Task 12) =
Part B Point Score Achieved by Employee

Part B Point Score Achieved by Employee / (divided by)
Maximum Possible Part B Point Score =
Part B Percentage Score

Total Score

Average of Part A Percentage Score + Part B Percentage Score = Total Percentage Score

Example of Wage Assessment Scoring

An employee's assessment results for the Productivity Assessment (Part A) are shown in the Table below.

Process Task	Employee's % of Productivity Benchmark	Average % of Work Time Spent on this Task	Productivity % X Time %
Filling Pots	99.68%	24.18%	24.10%
Packing	77.67%	24.18%	18.78%
Racking Up	69.96%	24.18%	16.91%
Transplanting	77.80%	24.18%	18.81%
Morning Tea*	100%	3.29%	3.29%
TOTAL PART A			81.89%

The example employee's wage assessment results for Part B are shown below.

Discrete Task	Score Achieved	Maximum Possible Score	% of Max Possible Score (a)	Task Weighting (b)	Weighted Score % (a X b)
Dumping	3	3	100%	10%	10.00%
Seconds	3	3	100%	10%	10.00%
Blocking Up	3	3	100%	20%	20.00%
Forklift	2	3	66.67%	5%	3.33%
Sort Seedlings	2	3	66.67%	5%	3.33%
Sticky Trap Collection	1	1	100%	2.5%	2.50%
Spreading Biological Agents	1	1	100%	2.5%	2.50%
Plant Cleaning	2	3	66.67%	15%	10.00%
Clipping Back	3	3	100%	5%	5.00%
Spraying Chemicals	2	3	66.67%	10%	6.67%
Machine Seeding	0	3	0%	5%	0.00%
Maintenance	0	10	0%	10%	0.00%
TOTAL PART B	22	39		100%	73.33%

The employee's Total Wage Assessment Score is the sum of the Part A score and the Part B score each weighted at 50%. In other words, it is the average of the two scores.

For the example employee:

Total Wage Assessment Score = Part A Score (50% weighting) + Part B Score (50% weighting)

i.e. (81.89% + 73.33%) / 2 = 155.22 / 2 = 77.61%

This score is then rounded to the nearest 5% for the translation to a wage grade.

Translation of Wage Assessment Percentage Score to a Wage Grade

The Total Percentage Score Translates to a Wage Grade as shown in the table overleaf.

Our example employee's Wage Assessment Score, having been rounded to 75%, would translate to Wage Grade 7A, i.e. $10.94 per hour.

Wage Assessment Percentage Score	Wage Grade	Hourly Rate as at 10/7/07
10%	1	$1.46
15%	1A	$2.19
20%	2	$2.92
25%	2A	$3.65
30%	3	$4.37
35%	3A	$5.10
40%	4	$5.83
45%	4A	$6.56
50%	5	$7.29
55%	5A	$8.02
60%	6	$8.75
65%	6A	$9.48
70%	7	$10.21
75%	7A	$10.94
80%	8	$11.66
85%	8A	$12.39
90%	9	$13.12
95%	9A	$13.85
100%	Award	$14.58

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

1.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The Ability Options Wage Assessment Tool has not yet been implemented for 12 months so there is no quality assurance audit data available. Ability Options personnel state that the former wage assessment system used by the organisation has been found to comply with Disability Service Standard 9 in quality audits and the new wage assessment system described in this report is considered to be more thorough and delivers higher wage outcomes.

The wage assessment system is incorporated in Special Wage Permits which are valid to March 2008.

1.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment tool is largely based on observable measures of productivity and task performance.

Ability Options personnel consider that the tool has demonstrated the ability to differentiate between employees at different levels of competency and productivity.

1.8.3 Reliability

Three assessors were used when developing the benchmarks for Process Tasks in order to ensure that these were reliable. Notes on how to take the productivity observation measures are provided to assessors.

The assessors are employed by a separate division of Ability Options which is separately funded with no incentive for assessors to record anything other than what they observe.

1.8.4 Wage Outcomes

The wage assessment tool was used for the first time in August 2006 and the results were compared with the wage grades achieved by employees using the old system. The results were reported to be not dramatically different. Overall, there was a slight increase in wage levels.

The current wage structure is based on an hourly rate of $14.58 per hour. Ability Options notes that this is higher than the award rate for a Nursery Hand which is $14.29.

1.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

The wage assessment tool has been specifically designed for the Colour Options Nursery division of Ability Options.

Staff describe the tool as relatively easy to use with an administrative load no greater than any previous wage system.

Calculations are performed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet after the raw assessment data has been input by the assessor.

1.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

The assessor's time is the main cost associated with the wage assessment process. Assessment is embedded in the day to day activities of the staff and 2 people are currently undertaking the wage assessments as part of their workload.

1.8.7 Industrial Relations

The wage assessment tool has been approved under Special Wage Permit provisions by the New South Wales Industrial Registrar and the Nursery Employees (State) Award is used.

1.8.8 Links to Training

Employees have an annual appraisal and the wage assessment information is used in identifying training needs.

Some of the competencies in the Discrete Tasks (for example, Spraying and Forklift) can involve the employee in accredited training programs.

1.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

Training about the wage assessment system and the complaints procedure are provided to employees. Employees receive a copy of their wage assessment.

If wishing to appeal the wage assessment outcome, employees can use the Complaints Procedure which involves a process commencing at the local level and if unresolved proceeding to senior management and then the board of management.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Ability Options Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992),Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Assurance audit data not yet available. The current tool is considered by Ability Options staff to be superior to previous tool which was found to comply with the Disability Service Standards. The wage assessment tool outcomes are incorporated in Special Wage Permits.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	The tool is largely based on observable measures of productivity and task performance. Ability Options staff consider that the tool appropriately differentiates between employees of different work capacity. The tool covers productivity and competency in all aspects of the work undertaken.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	Measures used are observable and objective. Instructions on how to take productivity measures are provided to assessors. Three assessors are involved in determining productivity benchmarks. No inter-rating testing has been conducted.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Six productivity observations taken for each of four tasks for each employee. Assessors are employed by a separate division of the organisation and all have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment. Competencies linked to Nursery Hand definition in State Award. Method and nature of assessment are clearly documented. Training in the wage assessment system is provided to employees.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	Wage assessment information is used to identify training needs in annual appraisal. Some competencies link to accredited training.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	A slight overall increase in wage outcomes noted when new wage assessment system was implemented. The wage structure is based on an hourly rate which is slightly higher than that specified in the Award for Nursery Hands. Wage outcomes increase as competency and productivity increase. There is no cap in the wage structure which allows for payment up to 100% of the Award.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	Described by staff as relatively easy to use. The tool is transparent and logical. The tool has been specifically designed for the work of the Ability Options nursery.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The main cost is the assessor's time. Wage assessment is built into the day-to-day workload of staff and assessors
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	Wage outcomes have been approved under Special Wage Permit provisions by the New South Wales Industrial Registrar. The Nursery Employees (State) Award is used. Employees receive a copy of their wage assessment and there is a Complaints Procedure for those wishing to appeal a wage outcome.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

1.10 Conclusions

The Ability Options Wage Assessment Tool is a comprehensive and well-structured wage tool based on appropriate and relevant productivity and competency-based measures.

The tool was implemented less than 12 months ago and no Quality Audit has been conducted with the tool in place. On the basis of the documentation provided for this analysis, the tool would appear to substantially satisfy the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination criteria. This can be confirmed once an on-site Quality Audit, including review of individual employee wage assessment results and interviews with employees, is conducted.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Brian Doherty, Manager, Colour Options Nursery and Glen Stewart (Supervisor & Trainer)
• Submission to Australian Fair Pay Commission, including Nursery Hand Job Description, Benchmark Calculations for Process Tasks and Sample Wage Assessment Parts A and B
• Wage Assessment Training package for employees
• Annual Report (2007) for Colour Options Nursery
• Nursery Hand Wage Grading System chart
• Standard Operating Procedures for Blocking Up and Seed Propagation
• Extract from Notional Agreement Preserving Nursery Employees (State) Award

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2. BlueLine Laundry Inc. Wage Assessment Tool

• 2.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 2.2 Type of Tool
• 2.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 2.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 2.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 2.6 Assessment Process
• 2.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 2.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 2.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 2.10 Conclusions

2.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

BlueLine Laundry Inc.

2.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Productivity and Competency- based)

2.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (BlueLine Laundry)

2.4 History and Development of the Tool

BlueLine Laundry developed their wage assessment tool in 1994/95 when a search for a suitable tool found nothing that was specific enough for the organisation's business operations.

A number of other agencies were involved in the development of the tool, including Speakout (an advocacy service for people with a disability), the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMWU) and the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

At the time that the wage assessment tool was developed, Blueline Laundry was also involved with an Industry Training Advisory Board in developing Certificates I, II and III in Laundry Operations. Competencies incorporated in these training programs were therefore used in the wage assessment tool.

BlueLine Laundry was assisted by a consultant, Peter Godfrey, who now oversights the annual wage assessment process and conducts the scoring and wage calculations by computer. Peter Godfrey described the following processes that were undertaken in developing the wage assessment tool:

• Work studies were conducted to develop benchmark standards for a worker who was fully trained and able.
• Benchmarking was undertaken against other commercial laundries.
• Relaxation times and weights were built into these process times.
• Senior production personnel at BlueLine Laundry and the training officer were trained in respect of the benchmark rates for each task.

The Tasmanian Laundry Workers Award was used as the basis for wages.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

The key content of the BlueLine Laundry Wage Assessment Tool are the Assessment sheets for each work area. These work areas are:

• Sorting & Receiving
• Wash
• Press
• Tumble Dry
• Folding
• Theatre Pre-pack

The Assessment sheets are divided into two sections:

• Productivity-based assessment of each work task; and
• Competency-based assessment of general work competencies.

Productivity-Based Assessment

The productivity-based section of the assessment lists each of the work tasks. For example, in the Folding work area, these tasks are:

• Fold
• Count, record and pack
• Mend- put on heat machines
• Weigh

For each of the work tasks that the employee can do, their performance against the benchmark productivity standard is assessed using a linear scoring scale of 0 to 10 points. On this scale, 10 points equates to a trained worker performing the task correctly and achieving the industry standard of productivity.

The standards of productivity for the task of Folding are shown in the table below:

Category	Standard Units per Operating Hour	Standard Weight (kg) per Operating Hour
Towels – hand fold	360	108
Towels – machine fold	360+	108+
Kylies	180	144
Blankets	120+	138
Flannelette sheets	120	60
Nursery items		60

A worker achieving an average of 70 per cent of the standards, for example, would receive 7 points for the task of Folding.

This assessment score is then multiplied by the proportion of time that the worker spends on the task each day to produce a productivity score.

If our example worker spends 40 per cent of their working day performing the Folding task, their score of 7 points would be multiplied by 0.4 which results in a productivity score for this task of 2.8.

The scores for each task are added to calculate the workers total productivity score for their work area. The Productivity Score is weighted to provide 50% of the Total Score.

Competency-Based Assessment

Workers are also assessed against five core competencies and each of these has a weighting applied (shown in brackets in the list below):

1. OH&S and Work Area Safety: Understanding the Safety Rules for your Work Area (8.333% weighting)
2. Ability to Multi-Task in the given Work Area: Do more than One Task (8.333% weighting)
3. Apply Quality Standards: Do Work Correctly/ Make Mistakes (8.333%)
4. Ability to Work with Minimal Direction, Ability to Communicate and Work with Others: Work with Supervision (8.333%)
5. Flexibility to Work Across the Laundry: Do more than one task in another Work Area (16.666%)

Note that the weights produce a 50% total contribution of the Competency Score to the Total Wage Assessment Score.

There are criteria and suggested assessment questions for each of the five core competencies. For example, the criteria in respect of competency 3 (Apply Quality Standards) are:

• Work instructions are followed and tasks performed in accordance with quality requirements.
• Non compliant materials or products are identified and isolated.

The suggested assessment questions are:

• How do you know if an item of linen does not meet the required standard?
• When does an item need to be re-washed?
• When does an item need to be refolded? Why?
• Why is it important to not make too many mistakes?
• What do you do when you notice an item is not right?

Each core competency is scored on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the standard of competency expected from a fully trained, able and motivated employee. The score for each core competency is multiplied by the allocated weight (as listed above) and the total of these scores forms the 50 per cent Competency contribution to the Total Score for the employee in that work area.

Individual Summary Sheet

The Individual Summary Sheet records:

• the Work Areas that the employee works in;
• the proportion of work time spent in each of these work area;
• the total score achieved for each work area (50% productivity and 50% competency);
• the Total Wage Assessment Score which equates to the percentage of the Award that the employee will be paid.

The scores achieved by the employee in each area that they work in are multiplied by the proportion of working time spent in each work area. These results are then added to produce a Total Wage Assessment Score from 0 to 100. This is the percentage of the Award that the employee will be paid.

Information for Employees

BlueLine Laundry has produced picture books for each work area which illustrate what work the employee would have to do to achieve various percentage levels of the Award.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2.6 Assessment Process

Wage assessments are conducted annually in October/ November. Employees are notified by letter of the wage assessment and are invited to have an advocate present (e.g. an advocate from Speakout or a representative from the union).

Employees are assessed by a team including the Production Manager, Production Supervisor and the Training Officer and coordinated by the External Consultant / Facilitator (Peter Godfrey). Each assessor in the team separately scores the employee and these individual scores are discussed by the team, including any discrepancies in scores, before a team consensus score is agreed. The team discussion also provides an opportunity for Individual Employee Training Plans to be updated. The Service Coordinator attends the assessment session for the purposes of providing this link to training.

One-off wage assessments can be conducted for new employees who commence at other times of the year.

The Assessment sheets are completed for each work area that the employee works in and the Individual Summary Sheet is compiled. The external consultant enters the scores on computer and completes the wage calculation.

A feedback session is then held with the employee, their advocate, and the service coordinator to discuss the wage assessment results. During the following two weeks, the employee can request a review of the wage assessment and if this occurs the employee will be reassessed.

At the end of the two-week period, the pay adjustment is initiated and backdated if required. A Centrelink advice sheet is also completed.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The scoring system for the wage assessment tool is computer-based and is maintained and administered by the consultant who facilitates the annual wage assessments for BlueLine Laundry.

The scoring method has been described in detail in section 2.5. In summary, the scoring formula is as follows:

Step 1 - Productivity Score for each Work Task

Productivity Assessment Score (score range 0-10) for Work Task X Proportion of Working Day (value of 0-1) spent on the task = Productivity Score for the Work Task

Step 2 - Productivity Score Contribution to Total Score for Work Area

Sum of Productivity Scores for all Work Tasks undertaken by the employee in this Work Area X Weighting = 50% Contribution of Productivity Score to Total Score for this Work Area

Step 3 - Competency Score Contribution to Total Score for Work Area

Sum of Scores for Core Competencies multiplied by weightings (0.8333 for Competencies 1 to 4 and 1.667 for Competency 5) = 50% Contribution of Competency Score to Total Score for this Work Area.

Step 4 - Total Score for Work Area

Productivity Score for Work Area (weighted to 50%) + Competency Score for Work Area = Total Score for Work Area

Step 5 - Total Wage Assessment Score

Sum of (Total Scores for each Work Area X Proportions of Time Spent Working in each Work Area) = Total Wage Assessment Score = % of Award to be Paid

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

2.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

Quality Assurance audits by Benchmark and SAI Global have determined that the wage assessment system used by BlueLine Laundry complies with Disability Service Standards. Comments from Quality Audit Reports have included:

"The wages process is very well defined and has been developed and implemented for some time. The tool was found to be reliable and transparent. While the tool does rely partly upon the skills of the assessment team, competency levels measures are well documented and could be applied equally by other qualified workplace assessors.

Over time, the tool has been measured against productivity and assessed levels have been found to be very similar to productivity.

Pay rates are not capped, and Supported Employees have the capacity to achieve full wages (or beyond, but they would need to become staff).

Employees are notified of wage rate changes in writing and copies of notification were sighted on file. Employees also have the opportunity to discuss and input to their wages during the wage EAP reviews that are conducted annually." (SAI Global Limited, Audit Report, 2006)

The wage assessment tool has been incorporated in an industrial agreement (The Bayview Laundry Inc Agreement 1995) endorsed by the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Transport Workers Union.

2.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment tool incorporates industry benchmark standards against which employees' productivity is assessed. Core competency criteria are also clearly documented.

2.8.3 Reliability

The competency scoring scale allows for some degree of personal judgement, however, the use of a team-based approach to assessment and a consensus score minimises the effect of any inter-assessor variation.

All members of the assessment team, including advocacy and union representatives, have received training in the wage assessment tool.

Involvement of external parties (advocacy service, union and consultant) add independence to the assessment process.

2.8.4 Wage Outcomes

Wage data provided by BlueLine Laundry shows an overall 20% increase in wages paid since November 2004.

Comments from a Quality Audit relating to KPI 9.1 (Fair wages) included:

"Review of outcomes of the tool made by the audit team suggested the process was fair, and evidence produced indicated that employees were being paid wages consistent with their work value to the organisation. A wide spread of wages was observed." (SAI Global Audit Report, April 2005)

At present, BlueLine Laundry has a 'no regression' policy, i.e. no employee's wages are reduced even if their wage assessment score decreases.

Employees can earn up to 100 per cent of the Award rate of pay.

2.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

The external consultant provides assistance in implementation and management of the wage assessment tool.

The tool is very specific to a laundry service.

The assessment process is time-consuming but this workload occurs mainly once per year when the annual assessments are done.

The wage assessment tool provides relevant information that is understood by the laundry industry when placing an employee in open employment.

2.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

There is a cost associated with the use of an external consultant (approximately $6,000 per year). There is also a time requirement of approximately 2 days for each of the three BlueLine Laundry staff involved in the wage assessments.

2.8.7 Industrial Relations

The wage assessment tool was incorporated in a certified industrial agreement in 1995. The agreement is linked to the Tasmanian Laundry and Dry Cleaners Award (2000).

The LHMWU continues to be involved in the annual wage assessment process.

2.8.8 Links to Training

The Service Coordinator is involved in the wage assessment process in order to identify training needs. The wage assessment outcome, training on current jobs, training to learn new jobs and external training are all topics for discussion in developing the Employee Assistance Plans.

New employees are offered training programs in Certificate I or II in Laundry Operations. The core units of these courses are very similar to the tasks included in the wage assessment tool. BlueLine Laundry Inc is a Registered Training Organisation and can deliver these training programs internally.

2.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

Speakout advocacy service and the Workers Advisory Committee discuss the wage assessment process.

In the event that an employee does not agree with their wage assessment result, there is a 2-week window after the feedback session held with the service coordinator and advocate in which the employee can request a re-assessment.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of BlueLine Laundry Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Assurance audits have confirmed that BlueLine Laundry complies with Disability Service Standard 9. The wage assessment tool is incorporated in a certified industrial agreement.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	Industry competencies and productivity benchmarks are used in the wage assessment tool. The tool differentiates between employees of different work capacity. The tool covers all of the work areas and key tasks undertaken at BlueLine Laundry.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	All assessors are trained in the use of the wage assessment tool. A team of assessors is used with a consensus decision for scoring. Involvement of external parties (consultant, union, advocacy agency) adds independence to the wage assessment process.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Productivity monitoring occurs during the annual assessment period and is not continual. An external consultant oversights the wage assessment process. A disability advocacy agency is involved in training and discussion of the wage assessment process with employees. Competencies in the wage assessment tool are linked to accredited industry training. The assessment process and criteria for each competency and productivity benchmark are clearly documented.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	Competencies from Certificates I, II and III in Laundry Operations are used in the wage assessment tool. New employees are offered training in Certificate I or II Laundry Operations. The Service Coordinator attends the wage assessments to provide a link to Employee Training Plans.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	The Tasmanian Laundry Workers' Award is used as the basis for wages. Wages reflect the productivity and competency of employees. Employees can earn up to 100% of the Award rate. There has been an overall increase of 20% in employees' wages during the past 3 years. There is a no regression policy, i.e. wages are not reduced even if an employee's work capacity declines.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	An external consultant assists with implementation and management of the wage assessment tool. The tool is transparent. The tool's content is specific to the laundry industry.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	There is a cost associated with the use of an external consultant. Two days are required for each of the 3 staff involved for the annual wage assessments.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	The ALHMWU was involved in the development of the tool and continues to be involved in the wage assessments. A disability advocacy agency is also involved for the benefit of employees. There is a 2 week period following the wage assessment where employees can request a re-assessment.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

2.10 Conclusions

The BlueLine Laundry Wage Assessment Tool is a comprehensive and well-structured wage tool based on appropriate industry productivity and competency-based measures. A team-based, consensus approach is used in determining wage assessment ratings and the involvement of external parties adds to the independence of the process.

Wage outcomes have increased substantially with the use of this wage assessment tool.

Quality Audits have found that BlueLine Laundry complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Robert Fraser, General Manager, BlueLine Laundry
• Interview with Peter Godfrey, Consultant
• Samples of Assessment sheets
• Sample of Individual Summary Sheet
• Competency Assessments: BlueLine Laundry - document supplied by Peter Godfrey
• Handfolding Standards
• Picture Book Illustrating Work Required to Achieve Assessed Rate of 30-35%
• Picture Book Illustrating Employee Assessed Rate Award Benchmarks
• Printouts of spreadsheets showing wage data since November 2004
• Laundry Units of Competency and Qualifications I – III
• Employment Assistance Plan, Employment Assistance Plan Checklist, and Employment Assistance Plan Pre-Plan Questionnaire
• General Skills and Laundry Skills Competency Chart

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3. Caloola Vocational Services Inc. Wage Assessment Tool

• 3.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 3.2 Type of Tool
• 3.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 3.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 3.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 3.6 Assessment Process
• 3.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 3.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 3.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 3.10 Conclusions

3.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Caloola Vocational Services Inc.

3.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Competency and Productivity-based)

3.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

Two:

• Caloola Vocational Services Inc; and
• Delando Corporation.

3.4 History and Development of the Tool

The Caloola Vocational Services Inc. Wage Assessment Tool (the tool) was initially developed five years ago. The tool was designed to effectively remunerate employees for their work performance and skills development in Caloola's niche work environments of Grounds Maintenance and Kmart Shop Assistant.

The tool was revised and updated in 2004 in order to comply with Quality Assurance requirements.

The tool was linked to the Miscellaneous Gardeners (State) Award and the Shop Assistants (State) Award and the job requirements of these awards were broken down into specific work tasks for assessment of employees' competencies and performance.

The Caloola tool was also designed to provide the basis for employees' Individual Employment Plans which in turn are used to develop specific job training programmes based on individual skills training needs.

Caloola set the following requirements for the wage assessment tool:

1. Any wage assessment is made in full consultation with the employee (and/or their advocate);
2. Employees (and/or their advocate) are provided with clearly defined documentation that sets out assessment details including details on how the assessment was based; and
3. Employees have their assessment reviewed 6 monthly. (Caloola Vocational Services, Policy and Procedures Manual, Standard 9 – Employment Conditions)

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

There are two key elements of the Caloola Vocational Services Inc Wage Assessment Tool:

1. Skills Analysis (Competency Assessment) Sheets for each Job Task
2. Employee Wage Assessment/ Task Analysis Sheet

1. Skills Analysis (Competency Assessment) Sheets for each Job Task

The elements of each job task have been identified and listed on Competency Assessment Sheets. There are separate assessment sheets for:

• Ride on Mower;
• Brush Cutter;
• Push Mower;
• Basic Gardening Skills;
• Blower;
• Hand Tools;
• Litter and Rubbish Removal; and
• Shop Employees.

For example, the Competency Assessment Sheet for the Brush Cutter job task lists the following skills to be assessed:

Safety

Appropriate protective clothing and equipment used

Collects equipment from the designated work or storage area and loads vehicle as directed.

Visual check of the work area for obvious hazards

Pre start Check

Collect necessary equipment – brush-cutter, petrol, cord and Personal Protective Equipment

Checks for obvious signs of damage or wear – reports if any

At the Job

Unloads necessary equipment

Checks fuel – fills if necessary following safety rules

Checks cord – replaces if necessary and collects additional cord

Puts on Personal Protective Equipment

Connect and adjust harness

Start brush-cutter following standard operating procedures

Ensures bystanders are at least 10m away

Cutting

Checks work site for obstacles and removes i.e. hoses, glass, bricks and other rubbish

Cuts grass away from the edge of fence or building using correct side of trimmer head (Right side)

When completed checks quality of work

Completes one section before starting next area

Storage of Equipment

Loads brush-cutter in rack and secures

Cleans and stores equipment in appropriate places at depot

Each of the skills identified for a job task are assessed using a standard rating scale which is shown in the table below.

Alpha Code	Rating	Points	Criteria
E	Excellent	6	Employee can set up job or task with basically no supervision and can complete task to an extremely high standard with high productivity.
VG	Very Good	5	Employee can set up job or task with minimum supervision and can complete task to a very high standard with high productivity.
G	Good	4	Employee can use required machinery or perform required task under minimum supervision with high productivity level. Support worker would set up machinery.
F	Fair	3	Employee can use required machinery with supervision achieving high productivity level.
P	Poor	2	Employee can use required machinery with supervision but achieves moderate productivity level.
VP	Very Poor	1	Employee can use required machinery or perform required task with high level of supervision and achieves low-level productivity.
X		0	Could not or should not use under any circumstances for OH & S reasons, or has not been trained to use as yet.

The Competency Assessment sheets provide columns for the assessor to rate the employee's performance on each job skill (using the scale above) and there is space for assessors to comment. The Competency Assessment is signed by the assessor and the employee.

2. Employee Wage Assessment/ Task Analysis Sheet

This wage assessment sheet shows the points achieved by the employee for each of the job tasks in their work area (i.e. for Gardening service employees: brush cutter, push mower, blower, hand tools, ride on mower, rubbish removal and basic gardening). These points are totalled on the sheet and the percentage of maximum possible score is calculated. From this percentage, the employee's new hourly rate is determined and recorded on the sheet and the new base weekly wage is also shown.

The wage assessment sheet provides for multiple entries over successive assessments and can be used to track employees' progress from year to year.

3. Other Documents Associated with the Wage Assessment

Other documents associated with the wage assessment process include:

• Competency Assessment Overview Sheet & Identified Skills Training Areas (this sheet lists the employee's scores over multiple years and provides space for assessor comments and listing of Skills Training needs identified and is signed by the assessor and general manager).
• Individual Employment Plan (provides for documentation of the employee's goals and what Caloola will do to assist in meeting those goals)

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3.6 Assessment Process

Prospective employees are provided with information about the wage assessment process and a copy of the wage assessment tool before commencing employment with Caloola Vocational Services Inc.

New employees commence at 20 per cent of the applicable Award rate of pay. A skills/ competency assessment is conducted by a qualified assessor within 3 months of commencing employment. This assessment is reviewed by the General Manager to ensure that the assessment is complete and the correct observation processes have been followed.

Following ratification of the wage assessment by the General Manager, the employee (and if appropriate, their advocate) are informed of their wage assessment outcome and asked to sign off on the new wage rate. The employee's training plan is then revised and discussed with the employee with the aim of increasing competency and productivity levels so that progression to a higher wage level can occur.

The wage review process is repeated as part of a 6-monthly review of skills, competency and productivity levels that is undertaken by the employee's respective assessor. The Skills Analysis (Competency Assessment) sheets and Employee Wage Assessment/ Task Analysis Sheet are used for these assessments.

The total score achieved by the employee across all of the job tasks in their work area is divided by the maximum possible total score (i.e. 6 points for every skill/competency listed on the relevant Competency Assessment sheets). The resulting percentage is the percentage of the award that the employee will be paid. This calculation is recorded on the Employee Wage Assessment/ Task Analysis Sheet.

Immediately following an employee's 6-monthly review, a meeting is conducted with the employee, their supervisor and the General Manager to update the employee's Individual Employment Plan and revise any training and skills development programs. The IEP is signed off by all parties present.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The scoring system for this wage assessment tool is very simple. Each skill/ competency element of each job task is rated using a scoring scale from 0-6 points. The employee's total score across all job tasks is divided by the maximum possible score. The resultant percentage is the percentage of the relevant Award rate that will be paid to the employee.

In summary:

Employee's Total Score / Maximum Possible Score = Percentage of Award Rate

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

3.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

Quality auditors have determined that the Caloola wage assessment process complies with Disability Services Standard 9. Auditor's comments from the latest Quality Audit Report include:

"All employees have current special wage permits and are covered under the relevant awards. The assessment process was sighted with assessments carried out by an appropriate assessor."

"Employee Feedback was that they are all aware (and comfortable with) the assessment process and what is required to increase the rate of pay." (Quality Audit Report, Focus Certification, May 2007)

3.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment process is transparent and simple. The job tasks are broken down into practical competency elements that are easily understood and demonstrable.

3.8.3 Reliability

All supervisors involved in undertaking wage assessments have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Assessment and Training. The General Manager is involved in every assessment.

Changes in employees' wage assessment scores are monitored from year to year and the record sheets show the history of scores for each job task. Six month reviews also provide for any changes in performance to be identified and confirmed.

There has been no formal testing of the reliability of the scoring scale (e.g. how reliably and consistently the scale is interpreted by different assessors) however, a similar scoring scale is used in the wage assessment tools of some other business services.

3.8.4 Wage Outcomes

The General Manager of Caloola has found that the wage outcomes produced by the Caloola tool are higher than those paid by other business services in the area. Caloola pays a minimum of 20 per cent of the Award rates. On average, employees earn 30 to 40 per cent of the Award. Nearly 50 per cent of Caloola employees have had an increase in wages since the tool was implemented.

There is no ceiling in the wage levels and employees can earn up to 100 per cent of the Award rate if they achieve the highest performance ratings.

Employees' wages are not reduced unless there is a persistent decline in competencies for more than one year. Two employees have had a wage decrease since the wage assessment tool was introduced. In these two cases, competencies deteriorated due to ageing and an inability to do manual work.

3.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

The wage assessment tool is designed specifically for the job roles at Caloola Vocational Services.

Caloola staff describe the wage assessment tool as "easy to understand" although completion of the assessments does require staff time and effort. The annual assessments are done in June and July when workload is lower. It takes the General Manager one month to complete all of the assessments.

3.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

Set up of the wage assessment tool is straightforward, requiring task analysis of the job roles to identify the skills/ competencies for assessment.

Staff time is required to complete the wage assessments but this is considered to be part of their role. The wage assessment links in to the Individual Employment Plan process and informs the development of individual training programs.

3.8.7 Industrial Relations

The wage assessment tool has been incorporated in Special Wage Permits approved by the Industrial Registrar of New South Wales.

The wage assessment process is linked to the state awards for Gardeners and Shop Assistants.

3.8.8 Links to Training

The wage assessment process provides the basis for Individual Employment Plans which are used to construct specific job training programs for employees. There is a cyclical process of wage assessment, training and re-assessment.

3.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

Caloola has a Grievance Policy. Appeals of wage assessment outcomes can be directed to the employee's supervisor, in the first instance, then the General Manager and ultimately the Board of Management.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Caloola Vocational Services Inc Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Audits have confirmed that the wage assessment process at Caloola complies with Disability Service Standard 9. Special wage permits and the relevant awards are used as the basis for payment.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	The tool assesses competencies in a range of work tasks and the rating scale includes a productivity aspect. The tool does not contain specific productivity benchmarks but uses categories such as 'very high productivity', 'moderate productivity', etc.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	No formal inter-rater reliability testing has been conducted. A similar rating scale is used by some other Business Service wage assessment tools.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Wage assessments are reviewed 6-monthly. Internal assessors, all qualified in Certificate IV Workplace Training and Assessment conduct the wage assessments. The Policy & Procedures Manual requires that employees are provided with clearly defined documentation about the wage assessment. Quality Audits have found that employees are all aware of the wage assessment process.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	The tool provides the basis of information for Individual Employment Plans which are used to develop specific job training programmes.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	The wage assessment tool is linked to the Miscellaneous Gardeners (State) Award and the Shop Assistants (State) Award. New employees commence at 20% of the Award prior to wage assessment. On average, employees earn 30% to 40% of the Award. Nearly 50% of employees have had an increase in wages since the tool was implemented. There is no ceiling and employees can earn up to 100% of the Award.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	Staff find the tool easy to understand. The wage assessment tool and process appear to be transparent. The tool has been designed specifically for the work tasks undertaken at Caloola.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The main cost is the staff time required to complete the wage assessments.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	The wage assessment tool is incorporated in special wage permits approved by the Industrial Registrar of New South Wales. There is a Grievance Policy that employees can use if they wish to dispute a wage assessment outcome.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

3.10 Conclusions

The Caloola Vocational Services Inc. Wage Assessment Tool is a largely competency-based wage assessment tool, although some degree of productivity is incorporated in the rating scale used for scoring the wage assessment. The tasks and competencies documented in the tool's content are relevant and appropriate for the employee's work.

Quality Audits have found that Caloola Vocational Services Inc. complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with John Haysom, General Manager, Caloola Vocational Services Inc.
• Submission by Caloola Vocational Services Inc to the Australian Fair Pay Commission
• Samples of Wage Assessment Tool forms including Competency Assessment Sheets and Employee Wage Assessment/ Task Analysis Sheet
• Excerpt from Caloola Vocations Services Policy and Procedures Manual, February 2004, relating to Disability Services Standard 9
• Excerpts from Quality Audit Reports, 2004 and 2007.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4. Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool

• 4.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 4.2 Type of Tool
• 4.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 4.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 4.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 4.6 Assessment Process
• 4.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 4.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 4.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 4.10 Conclusions

4.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Cooma Challenge Ltd is the owner of the tool.

The tool was developed in conjunction with Yumaro Inc. and the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFU) of New South Wales.

4.2 Type of Tool

Competency-based

4.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (Cooma Challenge Ltd)

4.4 History and Development of the Tool

The Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool is based on the Yumaro Wage Assessment Tool.

Cooma Challenge had previously tried the Skillsmaster wage assessment model but this did not gain industrial approval.

Cooma Challenge then sought assistance from Yumaro Inc. whose wage assessment tool had been approved. :Liaison also occurred with a representative of the TCFU. Subsequently, all Cooma Challenge employees joined the union and work was commenced on development of an Award. The development of a wage assessment tool was part of this process.

Yumaro Inc. provided advice on the wage assessment tool. The aim was to keep the tool as simple as possible so that employees could understand how the wage assessment process worked.

In November 2004, an Award incorporating the wage assessment tool was approved by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. The award covered Cooma Challenge employees with a disability and also employees without a disability.

An Enterprise Agreement was negotiated and approved in 2006 and wage rates have been adjusted as required.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

Under the terms of the organisation's Enterprise Agreement, all employees are required to have a basic knowledge and/or undertake training in the following areas:

• Information about Cooma Challenge;
• Conditions of employment;
• Introduction to support staff and co-workers;
• Cooma Challenge policies and procedures; and
• Occupational Health and Safety policy and practices.

Cooma Challenge has 4 work areas:

• Packing and Assembly Section;
• Gardening Maintenance Section;
• Woodwork Section; and
• Rag Cutting/ Sorting Section (a very minor part of the overall work).

There are 6 Levels of Competency and associated tasks documented for each work area (except Rag Cutting). The Level 1 Competencies and Level 6 Competencies are shown below.

Level 1

An employee at this level exercises minimal judgement and performs a small range of basic tasks that are relevant to their job description, using well established techniques and practices either individually or in a team environment. An employee's work at this level will be supervised.

The duties of an employee at Level 1 may include:

Packing and Assembly Section

Good housekeeping/ General cleaning (e.g. sweeping)

Collating two items

Basic counting one to ten

Putting briquettes in box

Folding in one fold

Gardening Maintenance Section

Weeding planted area (supervised)

Watering garden

Good housekeeping and general cleaning

Woodwork Section

Putting kindling in bag

Good housekeeping / General cleaning

Sanding timber using wire brush

Any other activities for which the employee has been trained and the Union and Cooma Challenge consider appropriate to classify at this level.

Level 6 (more complex tasks)

An employee at this level performs a range of varied tasks (including intermediate tasks but also more complex tasks) above those of Level 5 that are relevant to their job description, using well established practices and techniques either individually or in a team environment.

The duties of an employee at Level 6 may include all those of a Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4 and Level 5. Additional duties at this level may include, but are not limited to the following:

Packing and Assembly Section

Operate pedestrian forklift

Writing customer docket or invoice

Handling petty cash

Carrying out quality control

Gardening Maintenance Section

Carrying out quality control

Handling Petty Cash

Writing customer docket or invoice

Operating machine independently

Woodwork Section

Carrying out quality control

Handling petty cash

Operating machine independently

Writing customer dockets or invoices

Any other activities for which the employee has been trained and the Union or Cooma Challenge consider appropriate to classify at this level.

The Enterprise Agreement defines competency for the purposes of wage assessment as the ability to perform the task. Competency in performing the task is the prime indicator for progression and re-classification to a higher level. Although productivity is taken into account in assessing an employee with a disability, it is a secondary consideration only.

Once an employee is can perform all the duties specified for Level 1, they can progress to Level 2 and so on.

It is a requirement that employees be offered training to enable them to progress to the next level.

The wage assessment form comprises the competency criteria for Levels 1 through 6 (as per the examples shown above) and a summary section which provides a space for:

• the Competency Result (i.e. the highest level at which the employee was competent in all tasks);
• Assessor's comments;
• Employee's comments; and
• Signatures of Assessor and Employee.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4.6 Assessment Process

Employees are notified of their annual wage assessment by letter which describes the assessment in positive terms (e.g. "This is your chance to show us what work skills you have achieved this year."). The employee is informed of who will conduct the assessment and invited to talk with their supervisor if they would like to have someone else present during the assessment.

External assessors are used and the assessors are staff of Yumaro Inc. and sometimes representatives of the TCFU. Interim assessments may be done by an internal assessor.

An assessment interview is conducted with the employee and their work abilities and preferences are discussed. The employee's supervisor is usually involved in the interview and the employee's work records may also be referred to. The employee may be asked to demonstrate a work skill if necessary.

The assessment of competencies starts at Level 1 and if the employee can complete the majority of Level 1 tasks, the assessment proceeds to Level 2 and so on.

The competencies at each level are ticked as present i.e. there is no numerical scoring system as such.

The highest competency level achieved is documented along with the assessor's comments.

The employee and the assessor sign off the wage assessment form. The assessor then writes a letter to the employee, confirming the assessment result. A copy of the assessment form is provided to the employee and the union and to parents/ carers/ guardians on request.

The wage assessment information is considered in the development of Individual Employment Plans and training programs.

Reviews of employees' wage assessments are conducted annually or earlier if the employee demonstrates a capacity or willingness to try new skills.

New employees are employed on a trial period and assessed within 12 weeks of commencement.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

There is no numerical calculation in the scoring system for this wage assessment tool. The employee is assessed at Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 based on the highest level at which they have demonstrated most of the competencies.

Levels 1 to 6 then translate to percentages of Year 1, Grade 1 of the Cooma Challenge Limited Business Service (State) Award. This Award is also used for employees who do not have a disability.

The rates of pay to which each of the levels translate (as at 7 October 2007) are shown in the table below.

Classification	% of Yr 1, Grade 1	Hourly Rate of Pay
Level 1	19.5%	$3.49
Level 2	22.5%	$3.95
Level 3	27.0%	$4.63
Level 4	32.0%	$5.39
Level 5	36.0%	$6.00
Level 6	37.5%	$6.23

New employees are paid a minimum of Level 1 until they are assessed. They are entitled to a back dated payment of any difference between Level 1 and the level at which they are assessed.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

4.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool is incorporated in a certified industrial agreement (Cooma Challenge Ltd Business Services Certified Enterprise Agreement 2006).

Quality Audits conducted by International Standards Certification Pty Ltd in April 2005 and 2006 found that Cooma Challenge complied with Disability Services Standard 9 (relating to employment conditions and fair pay). In 2005 the auditor commented that: "information in Employee Handbook provides good mechanism for explaining how wages and conditions are determined." The audit report also suggested consideration should be given to including productivity in the wage assessment to ensure business viability.

4.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment has a simple format. The skills/ competencies are observable/ demonstrable with a yes/no rating method.

The Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool is very similar to the already approved Yumaro Wage Assessment Tool, however the associated pay structures are different.

4.8.3 Reliability

External assessors conduct the wage assessments and other parties, e.g. union representative, sign off assessments.

The employee has direct input to the assessment through discussion and demonstration of skills if requested.

4.8.4 Wage Outcomes

No employee to date has had their wage reduced, even if their assessed competency level has decreased.

Wages are capped at 37.5% of Year 1, Grade 1 of the Award. There are no employees currently assessed at Level 6 which translates to this 37.5% rate of pay. The Cooma Challenge representative interviewed for this analysis suggested that if an employee did achieve all of the competencies for Level 6, they should be considered for payment of the full Award rate (100%) for Grade 1.

4.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

Cooma Challenge staff describe the wage assessment tool as very simple and quick to use. The wage assessment interviews take between 30 minutes and 1 hour to complete for each employee.

The tasks/ competencies are specific to the work areas at Cooma Challenge.

4.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

The initial set-up of this wage assessment tool was quite straightforward and involved identifying the relevant competencies for each work area and Level. Ongoing administration of the system is simple and requires little staff time.

External assessors are paid for their travel and accommodation costs. At present the assessors' time is provided pro bono by Yumaro Inc.

4.8.7 Industrial Relations

A representative of the TCFU visits Cooma Challenge three or four times a year and signs off wage assessment results. There was union involvement in the development of the wage assessment tool and there is also involvement from time to time in actual wage assessments.

4.8.8 Links to Training

There is a link to training via the Individual Employment Plan process.

4.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

Cooma Challenge has a Grievance Procedure and a Dispute Resolution process is documented in the organisation's Enterprise Agreement.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Audits confirm compliance with Disability Services Standard 9. The wage assessment tool is incorporated in an approved Enterprise Agreement.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	The tool is based on the already approved Yumaro wage assessment tool although the pay scale is different. This is a competency-based tool and productivity is a secondary consideration only. The tool has a simple format and covers relevant competencies.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	External assessors from Yumaro conduct the wage assessments and the union signs off the assessment outcomes. The tool's rating system is based on a yes/no response which reduces the potential for inter-rater variability. There has been no specific inter-rater testing of the tool.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Productivity is not specifically measured. The external assessors are qualified and experienced in this model of wage assessment. The Employee Handbook provides clear information for employees.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	The link to training occurs via the Individual Employment Plan process.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	Wages are linked to Year 1, Grade 1 of the Cooma Challenge Limited Business Service (State) Award. New employees are paid a minimum of 19.5% of the Award rate. The current wage structure is capped at 37.5% of the Award rate.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The wage assessment tool is described by staff as very simple and quick to use. The tasks and competencies included in the tool are specific to the work undertaken at Cooma Challenge.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	External assessors are reimbursed for travel and accommodation costs. The assessors' time is currently provided pro-bono by Yumaro. The wage assessment interviews take between 30 minutes and 1 hour to complete for each employee.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	Liaison with the union occurred during development of the wage assessment tool. The union is involved in some wage assessments and receives a copy of all assessments. There is a Grievance Procedure and there is also a Dispute Resolution Process in the Enterprise Agreement.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

4.10 Conclusions

The Cooma Challenge Wage Assessment Tool is a simple competency-based assessment tool that assesses work-based competencies at six levels. The tool is based on the already approved Yumaro wage assessment tool.

The associated wage structure currently caps employees at 37.5 per cent of the Award rate. Provision for employees to earn up to 100 per cent of the Award would make this tool more favourable to employees, in comparison with other wage assessment tools.

Quality Audits have found that Cooma Challenge complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Caroline Peschek, Chief Executive Officer, Cooma Challenge Ltd
• Extract from Cooma Challenge Limited Business Services (State) Award
• Extract from Cooma Challenge Limited Business Services Certified Enterprise Agreement 2006
• Wage Assessment Form
• Proforma of Letter notifying employee of annual wage assessment
• Proforma of Wage Assessment Statement letter provided to employee after assessment
• Extract from Quality Audit report by International Standards Certification Pty Ltd, 21/4/05
• Extract from Quality Audit report by International Standards Certification Pty Ltd, 27/4/06

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

• 5.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 5.2 Type of Tool
• 5.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 5.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 5.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 5.6 Assessment Process
• 5.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 5.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 5.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 5.10 Conclusions

5.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

GDP Industries

5.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Productivity and Competency-based)

5.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (GDP Industries) although the system has also been provided to some other business services for consideration.

5.4 History and Development of the Tool

The GDP wage determination system started as a training matrix which was used for the organisation's prior wage process. When a wage assessment tool was required, the wage structure was modified to meet the requirements of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).

The wage determination system has been developed to comply with legislative and government requirements and to provide a fair, equitable and transparent wage assessment process. Other objectives in developing the system were to provide a valid and reliable tool and to link training and development for workers to the conditions and assessments used in the general workforce.

The wage assessment was based on 3 elements:

• Competency;
• Tasks; and
• Productivity.

Trialling of initial drafts of the wage assessment system was undertaken to ensure that all of the tasks were appropriate and the benchmarks were achievable. Rating observations on supervisors were used to obtain able-bodied rates for the productivity measures.

The wage rates were aligned with the ALHMWU Supported Employment (Business Enterprises) Award 1993.

An external qualified Supported Wage System Assessor then assessed all of the employees using the new system to confirm starting scores and wage levels.

A meeting was held with members of the GDP Industries Board of Management, the Personnel Committee, employees, employees' case managers, and parents to discuss the proposed wage structure and assessment system prior to submission to the AIRC. An independent ballot was held and there was unanimous support for the new wage system.

The wage assessment system and certified agreement were presented to the AIRC in 2002 and approved. A solicitor specialising in industrial relations assisted with development and presentation of the tool. Two parents of employees as well as case managers and advocates testified to the AIRC that the wage assessment system was fair.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

5.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

The work areas in GDP Industries are:

• Recycling Centre (Shop and Top Deck);
• Packaging Section;
• Woodwork Section; and
• Steel Section.

The tasks in each of these work areas are identified in a task analysis model. Work Performance Standards are documented for each job task. National Competency Standards have been drawn upon in compiling a list of competencies required for each job task. The Work Elements of Production Tasks are listed and used for the Task and Productivity components of the wage assessment.

For example, in the Woodwork Section, one of the job tasks is Pine Furniture Children's Robe. The Work Performance Standards and Work Elements of Production Tasks are shown in the table overleaf. The proportion of the Work Elements of Production Tasks in which the employee is competent provides the Task component of the Wage Assessment score.

The time taken by the employee to complete all of the work elements for Pine Furniture Children's Robe (less meals and toilet breaks) is divided by the benchmark time of 7 hours for this item to provide the Productivity component of the Wage Assessment score.

Work Performance Standards and Task Elements used for Task and Productivity Assessment of the Pine Furniture Children's Robe Job

Work Performance Standards	Work Elements of Production Tasks
Customer communication requirements	Liaise with customers on their required needs
Look and calculate sketches	Draw and set out patterns for children's robe
Co-ordinates own work	Plan and undertake routine tasks of job
Apply OH&S principles in the workplace	Safety in keeping plant area tidy of rubbish
Apply OH&S principles in using plant	Select and use appropriate safety attire (glasses)
Undertake workplace communications	Communicate to workers about work tasks
Undertake workplace communications	Report faults/ problems of accidents or incidents
Undertake workplace communications	Tag and record faults on plant & hand held tools
Operational maintenance	Undertake daily housekeeping on machines
Setout basic design	Setout child's robe from supervisor's patterns
Read tape accurately	Measure timber for cutting
Use buzzer, thicknesser & radial arm saw	Machine & cut boards to correct thickness & size
Use router, hand sander and linisher	Sand all materials for furniture before making
Use nail gun and use hammer	Assemble child's robe without supervisor's help
Apply quality procedures	Quality check of own work on completion of job
Apply stain and use varnishing gun	Quality check of staining of job once completed
Use basic numeracy	Cost and estimate timbers used
Use basic literacy	Write up docket for sale of furniture
Drive forklift	Use forklift for loading and unloading trucks
Drive vehicles	Drive vehicle and read street signs for delivery

For the Competency component of the Wage Assessment score, the proportion of competencies and tasks completed without the supervisor's help is calculated. The competencies and tasks for the job of Pine Furniture Children's Robe are shown in the table overleaf.

Work Performance of Standard Competencies and Work Elements of Production Competencies used for Competency Assessment of the Pine Furniture Children's Robe Job

Work Performance of Standard Competencies*	Work Elements of Production Competencies
Look and calculate sketches	Draw and set out patterns for children's robe
Undertake workplace communications	Communicate to other workers about tasks
Co-ordinates own work	Plan and undertake routine tasks of job
Read tape accurately	Measure timber for cutting
Estimate material needed for job	Apply basic rules of calculation
Work out safety requirements before starting job	Follow safe OH&S work practices
Use workshop machines for basic operations	Cut & machine boards to correct sizes
Manual production assembly	Sand materials and correctly assemble job
Maintenance of machines and equipment	Change saw & buzzer blades when required
Applies quality procedures	Quality check on completion of own work
Work safely with industrial chemicals & stains	Remove spilled materials following MSDS
Apply stain and use varnishing gun	Quality check of staining before delivery
Use basic numeracy	Cost and estimate timbers used in furniture
Use basic literacy	Cost and write up docket of furniture for sale
Production packaging	Phone customer for pickup or delivery
Licence to drive forklift	Use forklift loading/unloading of deliveries

The content and format used for wage assessment in the Recycling section is different from that of the other sections. An example of some of the job tasks and associated Work Performance Standards, Competencies Required and Controlled Measures for the Recycling Centre Shop is shown in the table below.

Job Task	Work Performance Standards	Competency Required	Controlled Measures
Bric a Brac sales	The collection of items from waste stream can be assessed and priced for general sales	Have basic knowledge of antique items that can be priced from antique books	The price placed on these items must be realistic when sold to give GDP Ind the opportunity of making a profit
Presentation	Dusting Stacking of shelves	Being careful with feather duster	Having a good knowledge of dusting and rearranging shelves to provide the opportunity of the best sale of the items
Shop display	Organise the floor space to display items for sale	Being able to organise the employees to keep aisles tidy and clear for customer inspection	The employee having the knowledge of rearranging stock to keep aisles clear so that accidents will not occur
Safety	Guide customers safely around site	Being able to guide customers in a safe and orderly manner around the site	Being able to understand the OH&S policies and procedures of the site and that all precautions are taken of the customers' safety

There are a number of forms which guide the process of assessing each employee's competencies, tasks and productivity. These forms and their content are outlined below.

1. Task and Productivity Assessment Sheets

These sheets are provided for each Work Section (e.g. Woodwork). The sheets list the Work Performance Standards and Task Elements for each job. There is a column for indicating whether the employee is competent in each task element. The proportion of task elements in which the employee is competent provides the Task component of the Wage Assessment Score.

There is also a column for recording the time taken to complete the job and the benchmark time (allotted time) for each job is shown on the form. The employee's production time against the benchmark time, provides the Productivity component of the Wage Assessment Score.

2. Competency Assessment Sheets

These sheets list Work Performance Standards of Competency and Work Elements of Production Competencies for each job. There are columns for indicating whether the employee is competent in each Standard of Competency and each Element of Production Competency. The proportion of standards and elements in which the employee is competent provides the Competency component of the Wage Assessment Score.

3. Wage Assessment Job Tool Process Sheet

This form records time and productivity rate for a single job. There is also space for the supervisor's comments.

Three of these forms would be completed for three different jobs for each employee each year.

4. Individual Personal Employment Assessment Form

This is the Disability Maintenance Instrument normally used for service funding purposes. In respect of GDP Industries wage determination system, the information from the DMI assessment is used to inform the level of supervisor assistance required by the employee. An adjustment of between 0% and 5% is subtracted from the employee's productivity rate for a job depending on the level of supervision required.

5. Job Assessment for Wage Structure Form

This form shows all of the data that is used to calculate the employee's wage rate. The form draws data from all of the forms described above. The calculations shown on this form are as follows:

• Productivity Rate minus any adjustment (0-5%) for Supervisor Assistance – The average Productivity Rates for 3 jobs assessed during the year is calculated.
• Task Rate calculated for the same three jobs by dividing the number of task elements in which the employee is competent by the total number of elements for the job – The average of the Task Rates for the 3 jobs assessed during the year is calculated.
• Competency Rate is calculated for each of the three jobs by dividing the number of production elements of competency in which the employee is competent by the total number of elements for the job – The average of the Competency Rates for the 3 jobs assessed during the year is calculated.
• Wage Calculation which involves adding the Productivity Rate, the Task Rate and the Competency Rate and dividing by three, i.e. calculating the average of these rates. The resultant percentage is rounded up to the nearest 2.5% increment. This is the percentage of the Award rate that will be paid to the employee.
  The form goes on to calculate the employee's hourly rate, superannuation contribution, etc.

6. Annually Reviewed Wage Structure Sheet

This sheet summarises wage assessment results and wage outcomes for an individual employee for two financial years.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

5.6 Assessment Process

Employees agree to three jobs on which they will be assessed. The employee must be fully trained in these jobs.

Three staff of GDP Industries have input to the wage assessments. All of these staff are qualified tradespeople who also have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment.

On the basis of the work model for each job and using the assessment content described in 1.5 above, the assessors conduct the assessment of the employee's Competency, Tasks and Productivity. The assessed rates for the three selected jobs are averaged. The sum of the average Competency Rate, average Task Rate and average Productivity Rate is divided by three to produce the percentage of the Award that will be paid to the employee.

Assessment with the Personal Employment Assessment Form (the DMI) occurs concurrently. As previously noted, a deduction between 0 and 5% may be made to the Productivity Rate depending on the level of supervisor assistance that the employee requires.

If the employee's wage assessment produces an increase in wage rate that is greater than the 4% CPI wage increase that all employees receive annually, the additional amount over the 4% will also be paid (i.e. the wage increase is not added to the 4% CPI increase). If the employee's wage increase is less than 4%, the 4% CPI increase will still be paid.

The Personnel Committee reviews all completed wage assessments. This Committee comprises:

• the Chair and Secretary of the Works Committee;
• the General Manager;
• the Chair and Secretary of the Board of Management; and
• an Administrative Officer.

The Personnel Committee discusses wage assessment results with every employee.

The wage outcome is then submitted to the Board of Management for approval.

Wage assessment information is used in the development of the employee's Individual Personal Employment Plan which includes training and education. Parents and advocates may be involved in this planning process if required.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

5.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The scoring formula for the GDP Industries Wage Determination System can be summarised as follows:

Rounded up to nearest 2.5% increment = Percentage of Award Rate to be Paid

where:

• Standard of Task % is the percentage of job tasks in which the employee is competent averaged over 3 selected jobs; and
• Productivity Rate of Work is the percentage of the able-bodied productivity benchmark that the employee achieves, less 0 to 5% for level of supervisor assistance required and averaged over the 3 selected jobs; and
• Elements of Competency % is the percentage of competencies which the employee achieves averaged over the 3 selected jobs.

In simplified terms, the Percentage of the Award to be paid is the average of Task, Productivity and Competency percentages.

The Award rate used is Grade 2 of the ALHMWU Supported Employment (Business Enterprises) Award 1993. This is adjusted to reflect the standard working week at GDP Industries of 33.75 hours.

There is no cap and employees can earn up to 100% of the Award rate (adjusted to the 33.75 hours worked per week).

All employees receive an annual wage increase of 4 per cent, known as the CPI increase. Where their wage assessment results in an increase greater than 4 per cent, the 4 per cent is deducted from the employee's total wage increase. If the wage assessment results in an increase less than 4 per cent, the 4 per cent increase is still paid.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

5.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

5.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The wage assessment system is incorporated in the GDP Industries Supported Employees Certified Agreement 2002, deemed by the AIRC to comply with the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Quality Audits over the past four years have consistently found that GDP Industries complies with Disability Services Standard 9 (relating to fair pay and employment conditions). Comments from the most recent Quality Audit report included:

"This consistent rating identifies the focus and intent of the organisation to respond to the overall aim of this standard which is to have the clients paid 'real wages for real work'. . . TEs (Technical Expert) comments indicated that clients interviewed had an understanding of the Wage slip and could ask for help if needed." (Extract from Quality Audit Report comments for Standard 9: Employment Conditions, International Standards Certifications Pty Ltd, February 2007)

5.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment content links directly to National Competency Standards.

There is some overlap between the content for Standard of Task assessment and Elements of Competency assessment but this is more an issue of clarity than validity.

The Productivity benchmarks are objective. A simple scale to indicate which value from 0 to 5% should be deducted for level of supervisor assistance required would further improve the validity and inter-rater reliability of this measure.

5.8.3 Reliability

Multiple assessors are involved in the wage assessments and all have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment.

All wage assessments are reviewed by the Personnel Committee providing a further check in the assessment process.

5.8.4 Wage Outcomes

Employees' wages are never decreased. All employees receive an annual increase of 4 per cent in wages, even if their wage assessment indicates a decline in work performance.

In addition to standard wages, GDP Industries has paid each employee a bonus of $1,500 for the past 18 years, increasing to $2,000 for each of the past three years. These bonuses will continue as a profit share incentive until such time as they are no longer viable.

5.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

GDP Industries staff report that the wage determination system is now well established and is consistent with the organisation's philosophy of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

The assessment structure is acknowledged to be fairly involved and the system is in constant use.

5.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

Initial implementation of the wage determination system required the identification of competencies, tasks and benchmarks linked to National Competency Standards but specific to the work areas of GDP Industries.

Internal assessors are now used for this system. In terms of administrative workload, this is estimated to be equivalent to approximately 0.5 FTE of staff time.

5.8.7 Industrial Relations

As previously noted, the wage determination system is incorporated in a certified industrial agreement and linked to an Award rate of pay.

5.8.8 Links to Training

The content of the wage assessment system links directly to National Competency Standards and Australian Qualifications Framework.

Wage assessment information feeds in to employees' Individual Personal Employment Plans where training goals are set.

All employees at GDP Industries have the opportunity for 2 hours of paid training time per week. An external adult training provider is used and several employees are currently undertaking computer training with this provider. There are also on-site training facilities.

5.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

There is a Complaints & Grievances process which can be used for appealing wage outcomes. This process involves initial discussion with the employee's supervisor, followed by the manager and Board of Management and if still not resolved, referral to an external agency such as the Complaints Resolution and Referral Service (CRRS).

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

5.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of GDP Industries Wage Determination System Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Audits over the past 4 years have consistently found that GDP Industries complies with Disability Service Standard 9. The wage determination system was incorporated in a 2002 certified agreement approved by the AIRC.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	The content of the wage system is based on National Competency Standards and able-bodied productivity benchmarks. The content is comprehensive and detailed. This wage system is able to differentiate between people of different work capacity. Employees are assessed on their performance in 3 agreed jobs in which they have been trained.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	Three staff have input to the wage assessments. All are qualified tradespeople with Certificate IV in Workplace Training and Assessment. A 4-member Personnel Committee reviews all of the wage assessments. There has been no specific inter-rater reliability testing.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Productivity and competency assessment occurs throughout the year. An external qualified Supported Wage System assessor conducted the initial wage assessments. Employees and their parents were involved in the decision to implement the wage system. Although the system is not simple, Quality Audits have found the employees have an understanding of how their wages are determined. Some of the assessment documentation could be simplified.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	The content of the wage assessment system links directly to National Competency Standards and the Australian Qualifications Framework. A link to training occurs through the Individual Personal Employment Plan which considers the wage assessment information and plans training and education programs. All employees have the opportunity for 2 hours of paid training time per week.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	Wage rates are aligned to Grade 2 of the ALHMWU Supported Employment (Business Enterprises) Award 1993 – adjusted to reflect the 33.75 hours worked per week. All employees receive a 4% annual wage increase regardless of wage assessment result. Any assessed increase in excess of 4% is also paid. There is no cap and employees can earn up to 100% of the Award. Employees' wages are never deceased. For the past 18 years, all employees have received a profit share bonus of $1,500 and more recently, $2,000.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The wage system is very detailed and comprehensive. The content is relevant to the work undertaken at GDP Industries.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The main cost of the system is in terms of staff time. Wage assessment activities are occurring continually. This is estimated to require approximately 0.5 FTE of staff time.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	The wage determination system is incorporated in a certified agreement approved by the AIRC. There is a Complaints and Grievances process that employees can use if they wish to dispute a wage assessment outcome.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

5.10 Conclusions

The GDP Industries Wage Determination System is a very detailed and comprehensive tool which assesses competencies and productivity against National Competency Standards and able-bodied production benchmarks. An adjustment is made for the level of supervisory assistance required.

Quality audits over 4 years have consistently confirmed that GDP Industries complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Eric Smith, General Manager, GDP Industries
• AIRC Determination of designated award, 2002
• AIRC Certification of Agreement – GDP Industries Supported Employees Certified Agreement 2002
• Letter from Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry, dated February 2006, confirming currency of Enterprise Agreement
• GDP Industries Wage Assessment Tool – Background Paper
• Annually Reviewed Wage Structure form
• Job Assessment Wage Structure form
• Flow Chart of Productivity Based Wage Assessment Tool
• Productivity Wage Structure Assessment Chart
• Table of Award Wage Rates, 2/10/2006
• Individual Personal Employment Assessment Form
• Individual Employment Plan form
• Wage Assessment Job Tool Process form
• Recycling Competency Assessment Framework, including Work Performance Standards, Tasks of Competency, Controlled Measures, Productivity Assessment of Job, National Competency Standards, Work Performance Standards of Competency, and Work Elements Production of Competencies, for Recycling Shop and Top Deck
• Packaging Competency Assessment Framework, including Work Performance Standards of Tasks, Work Elements of Production Tasks, National Competency Standards, Work Performance of Standard Competencies, and Work Elements of Production Competencies
• Woodwork Competency Assessment Framework
• Steel Competency Assessment Framework
• Wage Determination Individual Personal Assessment Form
• A set of completed wage assessment forms for an example employee
• Extracts from Quality Audit reports 2003 – 2007
• Extract from Final Report, WalterTurnbull Business Review

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6. Kurri Contracting Service Wage Assessment Tool

• 6.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 6.2 Type of Tool
• 6.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 6.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 6.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 6.6 Assessment Process
• 6.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 6.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 6.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 6.10 Conclusions

6.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Kurri Kurri Community Centre Inc.

6.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Competency and Productivity-based)

6.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (Kurri Contracting Service)

6.4 History and Development of the Tool

Kurri Contracting Service was one of the first business services to move to a Workplace Agreement and the wage assessment tool grew out of this process.

Initially, the Skillsmaster wage assessment system was reviewed but this was considered too unwieldy for the nature of work undertaken at Kurri.

Yumaro Inc., a business service with an approved wage assessment tool, subsequently assisted Kurri Contracting Service to develop its own tool.

Skills components were developed for both of the work areas at Kurri Contracting Service and a rating scale, similar to that used in some other wage assessment tools was implemented. The skills components included competencies from relevant vocational qualifications.

Initially, a more expansive version of the tool was developed with approximately 70 skill components for each job. This was then refined down to the 30 skill components per job that are used in the tool today.

An organiser from the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (ALHMWU) was involved in refining the wage assessment tool. The tool was implemented with the organisation's Workplace Agreement in 2004.

External assessors from Yumaro Inc. conducted the first round of wage assessments and supervisors from Kurri Contracting Service were involved as observers in this process.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

There are two work areas at Kurri Contracting Service:

• Cleaning Crew; and
• Grounds Maintenance Crew.

Thirty skills components are identified for each of the above work areas. For example, skill components for the Cleaning Crew include:

• General dusting;
• Clean toilets, urinals and hand basins;
• Mop floor using hand control bucket;
• Use industrial floor polisher;
• Change light bulbs, tubes, etc.; and
• Liaise with customers.

Skills components for the Grounds Maintenance Crew include:

• Bagging grass;
• Use of push mower;
• Routine maintenance of push mowers and brush cutters;
• Assist support worker with OH&S requirements;
• Tree lopping; and
• Navigating for vehicle driver.

A rating scale (shown below) is used to score each skill component. The scale incorporates aspects of competency, productivity and level of supervision required.

Explanation	Ratings	Score
Employee can set up job or task with minimum supervision and can complete task to a very high standard with high productivity. Generally an employee achieving this level would be able to work from a simple specification and calibrate the machines and use all machines necessary to complete the task.	E = Excellent	6
Employee can set up job or task with minimum supervision and can complete task to a very high standard with high productivity.	VG = Very Good	5
Employee can use required machinery or perform required tasks under minimum supervision with high productivity level. Machinery would be set up by a support worker.	G = Good	4
Employee can use required machinery with supervision achieving high productivity level.	F = Fair	3
Employee can use required machinery with supervision but achieves moderate productivity level.	P = Poor	2
Employee can use required machinery or perform required task with high level of supervision and achieves low level of productivity.	VP = Very Poor	1
Could not or should not use under any circumstances for OH&S reasons, or has not been trained to use yet.	X = Not Competent	0

The wage assessment tool has a simple 2-page form for each of the two work areas. The form contains:

• Employee's name;
• Assessor's name;
• Date of assessment;
• Rating scale (marking guide) as shown above;
• Table listing each of the skills components with columns for ratings and corresponding scores and a row for total score out of the maximum possible score of 180 points;
• Table showing Workplace Agreement wage levels, the corresponding score ranges and hourly rates of pay (see section 6.7);
• Wage level achieved;
• New Hourly Rate of pay;
• Assessor comments;
• Employee's signature and date; and
• Assessor's signature and date.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6.6 Assessment Process

Wage assessments are conducted at least annually. Employees are notified by letter that a wage assessment will be conducted. Employees are invited to have an advocate present at their wage assessment interview. They are also informed of who will conduct the assessment.

The supervisors who conduct the wage assessments all have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment. At least two supervisors undertake each wage assessment.

The wage assessment is conducted using information from:

• An assessment interview with the employee, where the supervisors discuss each of the skills components with the employee; and
• Notes and observations documented by the supervisors on a day to day basis at the worksites.

Each of the individual skill components (job tasks) are rated using the scale shown in section 6.5 above. The scores are added to produce a total score and the new wage rate is determined. (See section 6.7 for further details.)

At the end of the wage assessment interview, the employee is advised of the results and is given the opportunity to take the assessment home to consider. A written Wage Assessment Results Statement is also prepared and signed by both assessors. This statement documents the purpose and outcomes of the assessment interview, including whether the employee was happy with the outcome or wishes to appeal the decision and have it reviewed.

Once the wage assessment is signed off by the employee, the new wage level is implemented.

A Wage Assessment Survey is completed (this can be completed anonymously). The employee is asked for feedback about the assessment process, including whether they thought the process was fair and whether the assessor explained the Appeal Process.

Information from the wage assessment is used in the employee's Individual Program Plan in respect of training needs and programs.

Re-assessment occurs in 12 months or earlier on request, or if significant change is noticed.

The assessment process is summarised in the diagram overleaf.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The scoring formula for the Kurri Contracting Service Wage Assessment Tool is a simple addition of the points achieved using the 0-6 point rating scale for the 30 competencies of the job.

The maximum possible score is 180 points. The wage level guide that is included on the wage assessment form and shown below, provides the translations from both total score and percentage of maximum possible score to the pay levels of the Enterprise Agreement.

Enterprise Agreement Levels and % of Award	Wage Assessment Score Range	Hourly Rate of Pay
Level 1 – 10%	18-26	$1.51
Level 2 – 15%	27-35	$2.27
Level 3 – 20%	36-44	$3.02
Level 4 – 25%	45-53	$3.78
Level 5 – 30%	53-62	$4.54
Level 6 – 35%	63-71	$5.29
Level 7 – 40%	72-89	$6.05
Level 7.1 – 50%	90-107	$7.56
Level 7.2 – 60%	108-125	$9.07
Level 7.3 – 70%	126-143	$10.58
Level 7.4 – 80%	144-161	$12.10
Level 7.5 – 90%	162 – 179	$13.61
Level 7.6 – 100%	180	$15.12

New employees commence at Level 5 (30% of the Award, i.e. $4.54/hour) for the first three months until they have been trained and assessed.

If employees move between the Cleaning Crew and the Grounds Maintenance Crew, they are paid at their highest assessed level in either area.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

6.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The Kurri Contracting Service Wage Assessment Tool is incorporated in a certified Enterprise Agreement.

6.8.2 Validity

The tool is straightforward and transparent. The competencies assessed reflect the range of work tasks required in the two work areas.

Employees can see from the assessment sheet how they are progressing.

Wage assessment results have shown improvement in employees' performance over time.

6.8.3 Reliability

Two qualified assessors are involved in each employee's wage assessment so this minimises the possibility of any inter-assessor variation.

Assessments undertaken by different assessors over time have shown consistency.

The assessors work with the employees they assess in a supervisory capacity and have a good knowledge of the employees' work skills.

6.8.4 Wage Outcomes

The average wage of employees of Kurri Contracting Service is around 60% of the Award (i.e. $9 per hour).

A recent Quality Audit report (Focus Certification, 3 & 4 October, 2007) confirmed that "employees were happy with their wage."

Kurri Contracting Service has never reduced any employee's wage as a result of wage assessment.

6.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

The content of the wage assessment tool has been designed specifically for Kurri Contracting Service.

The work undertaken by the service is highly mobile with crews moving from worksite to worksite all day, every day. The 2-page assessment form is easy for supervisors to carry with them. It is a transportable tool without too much writing required.

The tool and the scoring scale are easy for employees to understand.

Comments from a recent Quality Audit report confirmed that employees are informed about the wage assessment process:

"KKC informs the employee (and advocate if appropriate) how wages are determined during the induction process. Basic wage information was sighted in the Employee Handbook. Employees are also informed during the annual wage assessment of the process and outcome." (Focus Certification Quality Audit Report, 3 & 4 October 2007)

6.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

The wage assessment tool is easy to administer and record. It is also inexpensive.

Assessors conduct ongoing assessment of the employees and carry notebooks with them to record information and provide a chain of evidence. The only additional time required by the wage assessment process is for the assessment interview.

6.8.7 Industrial Relations

The wage assessment tool is incorporated in a certified agreement. The ALHMWU was involved in the development of the tool.

6.8.8 Links to Training

The wage assessment process links to training for employees through the Individual Program Plan process.

The majority of employees are provided with training in Certificate II or III in Asset Maintenance and Cleaning or Certificate II Horticulture (Parks and Gardens).

The wage assessment skills are aligned to Certificate II and III and many of the competencies from these qualifications are included in the wage assessment tool.

6.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

There is a Grievance Procedure in the organisation's certified agreement. There is also a specific appeals process for wage assessments and this is explained in the notification letter provided to employees. There have been two appeals to date and both have resulted in wages being adjusted upwards.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Kurri Contracting Service Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	A Quality Audit report confirmed compliance with KPIs 9.1 (fair pay) and 9.3 (employees informed about wages) of Disability Service Standard 9. The wage assessment tool is incorporated in an approved 2004 Workplace Agreement.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	The tool assesses competency, productivity and level of supervision required. The tool is simple and transparent. The competencies assessed reflect the range of work tasks undertaken at Kurri Contracting Service.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	Internal assessors observed the external assessors conducting the first round of wage assessments. At least 2 assessors undertake each wage assessment. Wage assessments undertaken by different assessors over time have shown consistency.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Assessment observations are made on an ongoing basis. External qualified assessors conducted the first round of assessments. All assessors have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment. The assessment documentation is easy to understand. The wage system is explained to employees at induction and basic wage information is provided in the Employee Handbook. Employees are invited to provide feedback on the wage assessment process through a post-assessment survey form.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	There is a link to training through the employee's Individual Program Plan. The majority of employees are provided with training in Certificate II or III of the relevant industry qualification.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	New employees commence at 30% of the Award rate. The average wage is around 60% of the Award rate (approx $9/hour). A recent Quality Audit confirmed that employees were happy with their wages. Kurri Contracting Service has never reduced an employee's pay.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The tool is easy to use. The wage assessment form is a 2-page, portable instrument that supervisors can carry with them. The tool and associated scoring system are easy for employees to understand.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The tool is inexpensive and easy to administer.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	An ALHMWU organiser was involved in refining the wage assessment tool. There is a specific appeals process for the wage assessments in addition to a Grievance Procedure.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

6.10 Conclusions

The Kurri Contracting Service Wage Assessment Tool is a simple and concise competency and productivity-based tool. It is portable, easy to understand and administer and suits the mobile nature of the work undertaken.

A Quality Audit has found that Kurri Contracting Service complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Robert Manson, Project Manager, Kurri Contracting Service
• Wage Assessment Form – Cleaning Crew
• Wage Assessment Form – Grounds Maintenance Crew
• Wage Assessment Notification Letter
• Wage Assessment Results Statement proforma
• Wage Assessment Survey Form

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

7. The Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool

• 7.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 7.2 Type of Tool
• 7.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 7.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 7.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 7.6 Assessment Process
• 7.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 7.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 7.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 7.10 Conclusions

7.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

The Mai-Wel Group (Mai-Wel Limited).

7.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid tool with the emphasis on competency assessment.

7.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

Mai-Wel Group reports that several business services have used the tool since its inception.

7.4 History and Development of the Tool

Anne Hodgson at the Mai-Wel Group first developed the organisation's wage assessment tool in 1989/1990. An underlying principle of the tool is that funding is received by a business service to provide support to employees who have a disability. The wages paid to these employees are based on the work output they produce as a proportion of the output required for full Award payment, i.e. the employees' support requirements are not taken into account in wage calculation.

In 2000, Mai-Wel was approached by the (then) Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) to be involved in trialling a quality assurance system. This resulted in positive feedback about the Mai-Wel wage assessment tool and the tool was recommended to other business services.

Mai-Wel reports that a request was received to incorporate the tool into the Skillsmaster wage assessment system and consent was given for this to occur.

Mai-Wel has continued to use the Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool to the present time.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

7.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

The key components of the Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool are:

1. Skills Matrix for each Job Role
2. Competency and Productivity Assessment
3. Computer-based Wage Calculation

7.5.1 Skills Matrix for each Job Role

Skills/ competencies have been identified for each Job Role, i.e.

• Hunter PACE Setters (Timber Division);
• Hunter PACE Setters (Light Engineering Division);
• Hunter Business Timesavers; and
• Mai-Wel Enterprise Group.

These skills are a mix of National Industry Standards and Mai-Wel specific skills. There is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for each individual skill and these KPIs are required to be completed according to Safe Working Procedures.

For example, the Skills Matrix for the Timber Division lists 47 skills/ competencies. A sample of these skills and the corresponding KPIs are shown in the table below. One competency item (Competency 37) covers general productivity.

Sample of Skills Matrix items for the Timber Division

Competency	KPI
1. Sweeping workshop	Work floor area maintained in clan and neat standard
10. Pedestal drill	Pedestal drill used as directed
15. Hand Painting finished articles	Articles painted to specification and standard
27. Forklift	WorkCover approved Forklift Licence
31. Make up cutting list according to specifications	Accurate calibrated cutting list developed
35. Assist Support Worker with OH&S requirements	OH&S issues identified as required
37. General Productivity	Productivity level maintained.
47. Customer Liaison and phone enquiries	Liaise with customers according to procedures

7.5.2 Competency and Productivity Assessment

A scale from 0 to 6 points is used to rate the employee's competency and productivity for each skill in their job role. This scale is shown in the table below.

Rating	Score	Assessment Criteria
E=Excellent	6	Employee can set up a job or perform the task with minimum supervision to a very high standard with output at the same or above the average level of a non-disabled employee. Generally an employee achieving this level would be performing at the same level as a non-disabled employee and able to work from simple specifications, calibrate machinery and use all equipment necessary to complete the task.
VG=Very Good	5	Employee can set up a job or perform the task with minimum supervision to a very high standard following training and high productivity.
G-Good	4	Employee can use required machinery or perform required task under minimum supervision with high productivity. Task and machinery would be set up by supervisor.
F=Fair	3	Employee can use required plant and equipment and hand tools with supervision or can perform the required task consistently with supervision and irregular frequency of training. The employee is achieving average levels of output and minor behavioural problems. Task and machinery would be set up by supervisor.
P=Poor	2	Employee can use required machinery and equipment with high levels of supervision or perform required task with high level of supervision and regular frequency of training. The employee has a very low level of productivity.
VP=Very Poor	1	Employee can use required machinery and equipment with high levels of supervision or perform required task with high level of supervision and regular frequency of training. The employee has a very low level of productivity.
X=Not Competent	0	Employee has not been trained or is not competent to carry out the required task or use equipment without very high levels of supervision and regular training. No output levels can be measured for this task.

The productivity that is incorporated in the above rating assessment scale is measured against pre-determined benchmarks that have been set for most skill elements. These benchmarks are generated by peers undertaking similar tasks. In some cases the productivity benchmark is keep up with operator. For other skills, an output rate is numerically specified (e.g. 2 holes/ minute for the Drill Press). Some tasks (e.g. Use of hand tools) have no productivity benchmark.

In addition to competency in the task and productivity, the assessment scale includes aspects of supervision and training required and for one level in the scale, behavioural problems.

7.5.3 Computer-Based Wage Calculation

A computer-based calculation is used to convert the alpha scores (E, VG, G, etc) that are input by the assessors into a numerical score. This numerical score is then translated to a percentage by dividing the employee's total score for the competencies in their job role by the maximum possible score for that job role.

There are six wage levels from Entry Level 1 (5% of the AFPC Minimum Adult Wage) to Level 6 at 40% of the AFPC Minimum Adult Wage. Level 7 ranges from 50% to 100% of the Minimum Adult Wage. Details of the current pay scale and examples of the wage calculation appear in section 7.7.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

7.6 Assessment Process

Wage assessment occurs over a 4-6 week period twice a year. Employees are informed that they are being assessed over this time.

The assessments are conducted by Mai-Wel personnel: the Client Services Officer and managers who have a Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment and skills in the industry area.

Employees' competencies are assessed using the skills matrix for their job role. The assessors score each competency using the alpha scale shown in the table in section 7.5.2 above. The assessors input these alpha scores into the computer and the computer translates these to numeric scores (0-6 points) and performs the wage level calculation. (Refer section 7.7 below for further details of the scoring and wage calculation method.)

The wage assessments are checked by the Client Services & Training Manager.

The Client Services Officer then meets with employees whose wages will vary as a result of the assessment. General meetings are held with employees whose wages stay the same.

Employees receive a Statement of Competency certifying the competencies in which they have been assessed as competent along with the alpha rating that was determined for each of these competencies (e.g. VG, G, etc.). Employees also receive a letter confirming any wage adjustment.

Wage assessment information is used to identify any skill deficiencies, training needs and career pathways and these issues are discussed at the employee's annual Individual Service Plan meeting.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

7.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The percentage score which translates to a pay level for the employee is calculated as follows:

Sum of the scores for each competency in the employee's job role

divided by

Maximum possible score for all the competencies in the employee's job role

For example, an employee in the Hunter PACE Setters Timber Division (where there are 47 competencies specified) achieves:

• Nil Excellent ratings;
• Very Good ratings for 6 competencies;
• Good ratings for 10 competencies;
• Fair ratings for 2 competencies;
• A Poor rating for 1 competency;
• No Very Poor ratings; and
• 28 Not Competent ratings.

Using the scores of 0-6 assigned to the rating scale, this employee's total score would be:

(0 X 6 points) + (6 X 5 points) + (10 X 4 points) + (2 X 3 points) + (1 X 2 points) + (28 X 0 points) = 78 points

As a percentage of the maximum possible score for the Timber Division work role (i.e. 47 competencies X maximum score of 6 points = 282) the employee's percentage would be: 78/282 i.e. 27.7%

The table on page 84 shows the current pay scale from the Mai-Wel Limited Workplace Agreement. The example employee's percentage score of 27.7% would translate to Level 4, i.e. a pay rate of $2.75 per hour (based on the current AFPC Minimum Adult Wage).

Two sample views of the computer-based scoring and wage calculation system are shown overleaf. These screens show the skills required in the Timber Division, the associated productivity benchmarks and the assessment ratings for four employees (names have been changed). The second screen shows the Total Score achieved by each of these employees, the percentage rating of Maximum Possible Score and the corresponding Wage Level.

Wage levels were previously determined as a percentage of the Allied Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and Supported Employment (Business Enterprises) Award 1993. Under the new agreement, the Minimum Wage determined by the Australian Fair Pay Commission will be used.

The current Wage Levels, percentage score range which translates to each wage level and the resultant Hourly Rates of Pay are shown in the table below.

Wage Level	% Score	Hourly Rate of Pay (based on AFPC Hourly Minimum Rate of $13.74)
Level 1	5% to 9%	$0.69
Level 2	10% to 14%	$1.37
Level 3	15% to 19%	$2.06
Level 4	20% to 29%	$2.75
Level 5	30% to 39%	$4.12
Level 6	40% to 49%	$5.50
Level 7	50% to 59%	$6.87
" "	60% to 69%	$8.24
" "	70% to 79%	$9.62
" "	80% to 89%	$10.99
" "	90% to 99%	$12.37
" "	100%	$13.74

The Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool is updated with new wage levels as they occur.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

7.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

7.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool has been incorporated in the organisation's certified industrial agreements since 1999.

The wage assessment system used by Mai-Wel has been certified as complying with Disability Service Standard 9 (relating to working conditions and wages). An extract from the latest Quality Audit report reads as follows:

"Supported Employees have increased wages in all divisions. Clients employed at various industries, on different awards, the evidence was verified by comparing the clients' payslips with their respective Award classification and it was seen that the employed clients were being paid correctly, in some cases higher than the respective award." (International Standards Certifications Pty Ltd, Quality Audit Report, July 2007, KPI 9.1)

Note that this Quality Audit report referred to the use of the Skills Master Wage Tool.

7.8.2 Validity

For validation purposes, Mai-Wel has examined the work output of two employees who were assessed at the 50% level. The combined output of these two employees was equivalent to that of a worker without a disability.

7.8.3 Reliability

No formal assessment of the wage tools reliability has been conducted, however, Mai-Wel reported that although assessors often change for individual employees, the assessment results show consistency.

The Client Services Officer participates in all assessments and the Client Services & Training Manager checks the assessments.

Mai-Wel also suggests that the use of assessors who know the employees provides an advantage over the use of external assessors.

7.8.4 Wage Outcomes

Quality audit has supported the fairness and appropriateness of wage outcomes. Comments from the most recent report included:

"Each of the Supported Employees and Clients interviewed indicated they were paid a fair wage in comparison to the market rate of pay as well as received the Disability Support Pension based on the sliding scale of income earned, and this was important to their needs and were satisfied with the outcome." (sic) (International Standards Certifications Pty Ltd, Quality Audit Report, July 2007, KPI 9.1)

7.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

Mai-Wel staff report that the wage assessment tool is extremely practical and can be adjusted to any workplace. New jobs can be added to the tool easily. They reported that the time required to undertake the wage assessments was good in comparison to that required for completing a BSWAT assessment.

7.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

Setting up the wage assessment tool requires the definition of job roles and identification of skill tasks. Once established, the assessments are conducted internally and there is no additional cost, other than assessor's time. Mai-Wel estimated that it takes approximately 1 hour per employee to input the assessment data into the computer for scoring.

The scoring and wage calculation component of the tool is currently in Microsoft Excel format but Mai-Wel is looking to incorporate the tool into their Client Information Management System which is SQL format.

7.8.7 Industrial Relations

The wage assessment tool has been incorporated in certified industrial agreements since 1999. There has been no specific union involvement.

7.8.8 Links to Training

Links to training occur via the employee's Individual Service Plan and day to day training. Some of the work tasks specified in the wage assessment tool are aligned with National Competencies.

7.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

An appeals process is provided for employees who wish to dispute the wage assessment result. This process provides three options:

1. Follow normal grievance procedures and in the first instance, tell staff of concerns.
2. Request a new assessment with a different assessor.
3. Request an assessment by an external assessor (Mai-Wel has a reciprocal arrangement with another agency)

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

p7t1

7.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Audits verify compliance with Disability Service Standard 9. Audits have also found that employees are paid correctly and in some cases higher than the Award rate. The wage assessment tool has been incorporated in certified industrial agreements since 1999.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	This is a hybrid tool with the emphasis on competency assessment. Aspects of supervision and training required are also included. The tool is based on a skills matrix model similar to the Skillsmaster tool. The rating scale used for scoring is similar to that used in other tools. There are predetermined benchmarks for productivity, in most cases generated by peers. The work output of 2 employees assessed at 50% of the Award rate was found to be equivalent to the output of a worker without a disability.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	There has been no formal inter-rater reliability testing but assessment results have shown consistency when assessors change. The Client Services Officer participates in all wage assessments. Assessments are also checked by a manager.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Wage assessment occurs over a 4-6 week period, twice per year. Assessors have Certificate IV qualification in Workplace Training and Assessment. The competencies used in the tool are a mix of National Industry Standards and Mai-Wel specific skills.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	The Individual Service Plan process provides a link to training.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	Wages are based on the Minimum Adult Wage determined by the Australian Fair Pay Commission. There is no cap and employees can earn up to 100% of the Minimum Adult Wage. Quality Audits have found that employees are satisfied with their wage outcomes. The tool includes assessment of supplementary skills such as OH&S. Employees receive a Statement of Competency after each wage assessment.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The tool is described as practical and adaptable to any workplace. The tool includes a computerised scoring system.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The time required for assessment is considered good in comparison to some other tools. It takes approximately 1 hour to enter the assessment data on computer.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	There has been no specific union involvement. There Is an appeals process for wage assessment results.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

7.10 Conclusions

The Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool is a hybrid tool based on a skills matrix model also seen in the Skillsmaster tool. The rating scale used to score the tool is also similar to that used in other wage assessment tools. The scoring system is straightforward and computerised.

Quality Audits have found that the Mai-Wel Group complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Telephone interview with Anne Hodgson (Manager, Client Services, QA and Training) and Paul Waters, the Mai-Wel Group;
• The Mai-Wel Group Wage Assessment Tool – submission provided to the Australian Fair Pay Commission;
• Wage level table extract from Mai-Wel Workplace Agreement 2007
• Extract from Quality Audit Report, International Standards Certifications Pty Ltd, July 2007
• Example of Notification letter provided to employees when wages are adjusted
• Example of Statement of Competency provided to employees

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8. Merriwa Industries Ltd Wage Assessment Tool

• 8.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 8.2 Type of Tool
• 8.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 8.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 8.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 8.6 Assessment Process
• 8.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 8.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 8.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 8.10 Conclusions

8.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Merriwa Industries Ltd

8.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Productivity and Competency-based)

8.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (Merriwa Industries Ltd)

Some other business services have adapted this model

8.4 History and Development of the Tool

The Merriwa Industries Ltd Wage Assessment Tool was first developed in 1995/96 using a Workplace Bargaining Grant from the Department of Industrial Relations and assistance from the Department of Human Services and Health. A range of wage assessment tools were reviewed and advice was received from a number of service organisations and commercial enterprises. Core components of the Supported Wages System were also used.

Merriwa Industries already had a basic productivity tool and the new tool incorporated competency-based assessment. The productivity component of the tool is similar to that used for Supported Wage System assessment in open employment. Given the manufacturing focus of Merriwa Industries, the productivity component of the assessment tool was weighted at 70%, with competency representing 30% of the total score.

Productivity measures for each production task were developed using work trials of non-supported employees.

Core competencies were developed up to and including the Award Classification Level 2. These core competencies were applicable across all work areas at Merriwa Industries (i.e. they were not industry or task-specific).

The new wage assessment tool was accepted by the union and employees who were assisted by an independent advocate. The tool was implemented in 1996.

For the first 12 months of implementation, the tool was sample tested and refined to ensure equity. Further refinement occurred in 2004, when adjustment provisions were removed from the wage assessment process.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

There are four main work areas at Merriwa Industries:

• Timber Division (this is a large scale operation);
• Defence Services (refurbishment of ammunition boxes);
• Cake boards (bases for wedding cakes, etc); and
• Packaging.

The wage assessment tool has the following content:

Level 1 Pre-Assessment Induction Sheet

This sheet contains a list of 17 basic workplace competencies (such as work attendance, ability to perform basic tasks, appropriate workplace behaviour, etc.). It does not form part of the final wage assessment but does record the competencies required prior to completion of the pre-assessment period.

Productivity Benchmarks for each Production Task

These benchmarks are specified on the basis of the average of three trials by two non-supported employees performing the work task for time periods of 15 minutes, one hour and four hours to establish average hourly outputs. The benchmark work trials are conducted three times.

For example, the benchmark for the task 5400mm X 200mm X 50 mm timber ripped to 5400mm X 16 X 200 X 3 is 455 linear metres/ hour

The productivity benchmarks are reviewed annually.

Productivity Measurement Form

The Productivity Measurement Form records the production output of an employee over three trials. It provides productivity data for use in Productivity Worksheet 2.

Productivity Worksheet 2 – Standard Indicators and Employee Performance

This sheet is used to record the employee's productivity performance on each task and duty of their job and the benchmark standard for each task and duty. The percentage of time that the employee spends on each duty per week is also documented.

Productivity Summary Assessment Sheet

The Productivity Summary Assessment Sheet records the data for calculation of the employee's Productivity Percentage. There are columns on this sheet for:

• A - the duties assessed (including quality standard description);
• B - the Basic Award Performance Standard;
• C – the employee's performance for each duty (from Worksheet 2);
• D – the employee's performance against the standard (B/C X 100/1 to produce a percentage of the benchmark);
• E – the percentage of the employee's time per week spent on each duty (from Worksheet 2);
• F – the Productivity Percentage (D X E/100)

The total Productivity Percentage is calculated on this sheet by adding the Productivity Percentages for all of the employee's duties.

Competency Assessment Workbook

Competencies have been developed for six key areas:

1. Work Habits
2. Work Skills
3. Occupational Health and Safety
4. Quality Assurance
5. Organisational Culture
6. Material Handling

For example, the competencies in respect of Work Habits are:

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the importance of punctuality in the workplace in all aspects of attendance.
2. Recognises the need to start work when expected and to stop for appropriate breaks.
3. Independently records time at work.
4. Records time spent at work with non verbal cue.
5. Records time at work with Verbal/Non Verbal cue.
6. Performs tasks of a basic manual nature for a specific work period.
7. Performs tasks for a minimum 60 minutes individually or in a team setting.
8. Performs tasks for a minimum 30 minutes without being distracted.
9. Demonstrates the ability to work independently or in a team structure respecting the rights of others.
10. Can work individually or in a team setting.
11. Can work with minimal disruption to others.

Guides to evidence, including questions that can be asked of the employee and sources of evidence, are documented for the competencies.

For each competency, there is a specified criteria to be met in order for the employee to have achieved the competency, e.g. satisfying at least 3 out of 4 evidence examples, or requiring a prompt less than once a day.

Competency Assessment Sheets

There are Competency Assessment Sheets for each of the Core Competency areas (Work Habits, Work Skills, etc.). These sheets provide a summary of whether the employee has achieved each of the competencies. The sheets provide columns for repeated assessments over 4 dates.

Competency Summary Assessment Sheet

This sheet summarises the employee's scores for each of the Core Competency areas (Work Habits, Work Skills, etc.), lists the weighting factor for each area, and records the calculation of the employee's Competency Percentage score (which is the employee's score divided by the maximum possible score).

The weightings for each Competency and maximum weighted scores are shown in the table below.

Competency	No. of Skills for this Competency	Weighting for this Competency	Max Weighted Score
Work Habits	11	1.5	16.5
Work Skills	16	1.5	24
OH&S	15	1.25	18.75
Quality Assurance	3	1.25	3.75
Organisational Culture	3	1	3
Material Handling	6	1	6
Totals	51		72

Competency X Productivity Matrix

The employee's Productivity score is weighted by 70 per cent and their Competency score is weighted by 30 per cent to achieve a Total Percentage Score which is the Percentage of the Award rate to be paid.

The Competency X Productivity Matrix provides a quick reference to the final score. Competency values from 0 to 100% form the vertical axis and Productivity values from 0 to 100% are on the horizontal axis. The results of the total score calculation for the various combinations of competency and productivity scores have been plotted on a grid between the two axes. The total score for each combination appears at the intersection point between the competency value and the productivity value.

This matrix can also be used to plot progress from year to year, providing a graphic picture for the employee.

Wage Assessment Agreement Form

The Wage Assessment Agreement Form summarises the wage assessment score results, the percentage of Award to be paid, the monetary value of this pay rate, the date from which the new pay rate will become effective, and a review date for the assessment. The form is signed by the employee and/or their advocate and the Chief Executive Officer of Merriwa Industries Ltd.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8.6 Assessment Process

Wage assessment is undertaken at least annually and within 13 weeks of any re-classification.

A pre-assessment period (usually three months) including job training occurs for new employees.

An advocate for the employee may be involved at any stage of the pre-assessment period or the actual wage assessment.

The assessor must be accredited in competency and productivity assessment. At present, the Manager, Disability Services at Merriwa who is an accredited Supported Wage System assessor, completes all of the wage assessments.

Prior to the wage assessment the assessor checks that the employee has received their orientation, a personal development plan, a clearly written job description, core competencies and induction training for the position to be assessed.

Disability Support Workers work with the employee to complete the Competency Assessment Workbook and collect productivity data during the months prior to the wage assessment. A minimum of three trials are conducted for each of the measures. This competency and productivity data is provided to the assessor.

Productivity (rate and quality) is measured against the benchmark standards for each duty. The proportion of work time that the employee spends on each duty is also factored in to the calculation. Productivity Worksheet 2 and the Productivity Summary Assessment Sheet are completed and the employee's Total Productivity Percentage is calculated.

The Competency Assessment Summary Sheet is completed to calculate the employee's Competency Percentage. This is the proportion of competencies in each of the six key areas that the employer achieves multiplied by the weighting factors for each area.

The accredited internal wage assessor cross-checks all of the data and ensures that the correct benchmarks have been used.

The percentage of the Award to be paid is calculated with Competency weighted at 30% and Productivity weighted at 70%.

The Competency X Productivity Matrix and the Wage Assessment Agreement form are completed and a meeting is held between the assessor and the employee and his/her advocate or parent if requested. The wage assessment outcomes are discussed and the wage agreement is signed off by the employee and the CEO of Merriwa Industries.

The wage assessment information is used in the employee's Personal Performance and Development Plan (PP&DP). The development of the PP&DP includes discussion of wage assessment results, identification of training needs and the planning of training objectives.

Review of the wage assessment takes place on an annual basis, unless 6-monthly review of the employee's PP&DP indicates that an earlier re-assessment is warranted.

In the event that the wage assessment shows a decrease in pay rate, a minimum of two re-assessments are conducted over a period of not less than 6 months to provide the employee with the opportunity to regain the competencies and/or productivity required to at least maintain their current pay level.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The formula for calculating the percentage of Award to be paid can be summarised as:

(Competency Percentage X 30%) + (Productivity Percentage X 70%) = % of Award to be Paid

In more detail, the wage calculation is as follows:

PLUS

Employee's Total Productivity Percentage X 70% = Percentage of Award Rate to be Paid

(Where:

• the number of skills the employee achieves in each Competency Area is multiplied by the Weighting for that Competency Area to produce the Employee's Weighted Score; and
• the Employee's Weighted Scores for all Competency Areas are added to produce the Employee's Total Weighted Score)

And

(Employee's Productivity / Benchmark Standard for each duty) x % of Time Spent on each Duty = Employee's Productivity Percentage for each Duty

And

The sum of Productivity Percentages for each Duty undertaken by the employee = Employee's Total Productivity Percentage)

For example, an employee may achieve the following competency measures:

Competency Area	Max Weighted Score for this Competency (A)	No. of Competencies Achieved by Employee (B)	Weighting (C)	Employee's Weighted Score (D) = B X C	Competency Percentage (D/A X 100)
Work Habits	16.5	8	1.5	12	72.7%%
Work Skills	24	12	1.5	18	75.0%
OH&S	18.75	8	1.25	10	53.3%
Quality Assurance	3.75	1	1.25	1.25	33.3%
Organisational Culture	3	1	1	1	33.3%
Material Handling	6	3	1	3	50.0%
Total Competency Percentage	72			45.25	62.8%

The employee's Total Competency Percentage is their Total Weighted Score divided by the Maximum Weighted Score for all Competency areas, i.e.

Total Competency Percentage = A/D X 100 = 45.25/72 X 100 = 62.8%

The example employee's productivity measures are as follows:

Duty	Employee Performance against Standard	Percentage of Employee's Time per duty per week	Productivity Percentage
Duty 1	40%	20%	8%
Duty 2	30%	10%	3%
Duty 3	60%	40%	24%
Duty 4	35%	30%	10.5%
Total Productivity Percentage			45.5%

The Total Productivity Percentage is the sum of the Productivity Percentages for each duty that the employee undertakes. These are already weighted (as shown in the table) according to the amount of time spent on each duty per week.

Applying the scoring formula to our example employee's wage assessment data results in the following calculation:

(Competency Percentage X 30%) + (Productivity Percentage X 70%) = % of Award to be Paid

(62.8% X 30%) + (45.5% X 70%) = 18.8% + 31.8% = 50.6% of Award to be paid.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

8.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The Merriwa Industries Wage Assessment Tool is incorporated in a certified agreement (Merriwa Industries Ltd Certified Agreement, 1996). The wage assessment is linked to the ALHMWU Supported Employment (Business Enterprises) Award 1993 and rates of pay are now increased as required according to the Australian Fair Pay Commission Minimum Adult Wage.

Quality Audits conducted by SAI Global in May 2006 and July 2007 have found that Merriwa Industries complies with Disability Standard 9 (relating to employment conditions and fair pay). Auditors' comments have included:

"It was verified that compliance remains consistent to that previously observed, and the company's wage assessment tool remains consistent and consistently implemented.

It should be highlighted that interviewed employees were consistently pleased with their wages packages and the process of assessment." (Audit Report, Standard 9: Employment Conditions, SAI Global, 30 May 2006)

8.8.2 Validity

The tool uses valid methods to determine and assess productivity measures and the content and method of assessing employees' competencies is also of a high standard.

The measures are objective and observable and assessment criteria are documented for each measure.

8.8.3 Reliability

A qualified wage assessor reviews productivity and competency data recorded by supervisors for each employee and completes the wage assessment calculations. The same assessor reviews and completes the wage assessments for all employees.

Although no formal inter-rater reliability testing has been done, the objective nature of the productivity measures and the assessment criteria documented for the competency measures should minimise any inter-rater variation.

8.8.4 Wage Outcomes

Quality Audit reports indicate that employees are satisfied with the wage outcomes. For example:

"Note that employees interviewed stated they were uniformly happy with their wage levels." (Audit Report, Standard 9 – Employment Conditions, SAI Global, 30 May 2006).

"The company pays superannuation for all employees on a pro-rata basis. Employee interviews confirmed that employees were aware of the wage assessment process and were happy, as their wages have increased since the baseline values for the tool were re-measured." (Audit Report, Standard 9 – Employment Conditions, SAI Global, 4 July 2007.

The wage assessment score translates directly to the corresponding percentage of Grade 2 of the Award. There is no cap and employee's can earn up to 100% of the Award.

A minimum rate of 17per cent of Grade 2 of the Award ($2.50 per hour) is paid during the pre-assessment period for new employees.

To date, no employee has had their wage reduced as a result of wage assessment.

8.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

The wage assessment tool has a long history in Merriwa Industries and is considered 'second nature' by staff and employees.

The measures used in the tool are designed and suitable for the work undertaken by Merriwa Industries employees.

8.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

The wage assessment system is well-established and other than periodic review of productivity benchmarks, requires minimal maintenance.

The wage assessment process is integrated into the Disability Support Workers' role and forms a small part of the Manager, Disability Services role (the accredited wage assessor).

There is no external cost associated with the system.

8.8.7 Industrial Relations

The wage assessment tool is incorporated in a certified industrial agreement and the union was involved in the initial negotiation of this agreement, including the wage assessment process.

8.8.8 Links to Training

Links to training occur through the Personal Performance and Development Plan which considers the wage assessment results and develops any training plans that are required.

8.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

An employee can request a re-assessment, either by the Manager, Disability Services or by an external assessor. There is a Grievance Procedure and a list of contacts for employees who have grievances appears in the Employee Handbook.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Merriwa Industries Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	Quality Audits have found that Merriwa Industries complies with Disability Service Standard 9. The Merriwa Industries Wage Assessment Tool is incorporated in the Merriwa Industries Ltd Certified Agreement 1996.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	Valid wage assessment methods are used. Productivity measures are developed using repeated trials of employees who do not have disabilities and reviewed annually. The tool covers generic work competencies, applicable across all work areas. The tool was sample tested and refined in the first 12 months of implementation and further revised in 2004.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	Guides to evidence are documented and there are specified criteria for all competencies. Productivity benchmarks are objective and measurable. A qualified assessor reviews the productivity and competency data recorded by supervisors and completes the wage calculation. There has been no formal inter-rater reliability testing.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	A minimum of 3 trials are conducted for each competency and productivity measure in the three months prior to the wage assessment. An accredited Supported Wage System assessor completes all of the wage assessments (using data collected by supervisors). The Employee Handbook explains the wage assessment process and associated procedures. Competencies are linked to the Award Classifications up to Level 2.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	Wage assessment results are discussed and training needs identified in the employee's Personal Performance and Development Plan meeting.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	Wages are linked to Grade 2 of the ALHMWU Supported Employment (Business Enterprises) Award 1993. Wage assessment results reflect the work capacity of employees. Supplementary skills are covered by the competency component of the assessment. Quality Audits have reported that employees are consistently pleased with their wage outcomes and the assessment process. There is no cap and employees can earn up to 100% of the Award rate. A minimum of 17% of Grade 2 ($2.50/hour) is paid during the pre-assessment period. A minimum of 2 re-assessments are conducted if wage assessment indicates a decrease in pay. To date, no employee's pay has been reduced.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The wage assessment tool has a long history in the organisation and is considered second nature. The tool has been designed for the work undertaken at Merriwa Industries.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The wage system is well-established and requires minimal maintenance. Wage assessment activities are built into the day-to-day roles of staff. There are no external costs
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	The wage assessment tool was accepted by the union and employees who were assisted by an independent advocate. Employees can request reassessment and there is a Grievance Procedure which can be used for appeals.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

8.10 Conclusions

The Merriwa Industries Wage Assessment Tool is a hybrid tool based on valid wage assessment methodology. The productivity component is similar to that used in the Supported Wages System assessment and is based on able-bodied benchmarks for the work tasks. The competency component covers generic workplace skills. Assessment criteria and benchmarks are objective and clearly documented. The tool is well established and supported by employees.

Quality Audits have found that Merriwa Industries complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Peter Gibson, Manager, Disability Services, Merriwa Industries Ltd
• Productivity Wage System Handbook, May 1996, including amendments of June 2004
• Level 1 – Pre-Assessment Induction Sheet
• Competency Assessment Sheets for 6 Competency Areas
• Competency Assessment Workbook
• Competency Assessment Summary Sheet
• Competency X Productivity Matrix
• Wage Assessment Agreement Form
• Explanatory Notes – Competency Assessment
• Sample Benchmark Record Sheets
• Productivity Measurement Sheet
• Personal Performance & Development Plan – Supported Employees Guidelines
• Extracts from SAI Global Quality Audit Reports 2006 and 2007

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

9. ParaQuad Wage Assessment Tool

• 9.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 9.2 Type of Tool
• 9.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 9.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 9.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 9.6 Assessment Process
• 9.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 9.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 9.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 9.10 Conclusions

9.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of Western Australia Inc. (ParaQuad)

9.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid (Productivity and Competency-based)

9.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of Western Australia)

9.4 History and Development of the Tool

Previously, ParaQuad used discussions with unions to negotiate employee wages.

ParaQuad has now used the current wage assessment tool for 3 years. The methodology for the tool was based on the requirements of the Commonwealth funder (the former Department of Family and Community Services, now FaCSIA). The BSWAT was also reviewed.

The job tasks for the wage assessment tool were sourced from the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training Job Guide website (jobguide.com) and were linked to relevant industry awards. The time that should be allocated to each task was considered and the advice of industry specialists was sought.

A quality factor and a supervisor/training factor were incorporated into the productivity measure in order to recognise employees who produced work of a higher quality and required less supervision.

The new wage assessment tool was trialled and tested over approximately 9 months. This testing included trial runs with fictional workers and subsequently with known employees. The inter-rater reliability of the tool was also tested.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

9.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

There are six areas of work at ParaQuad's business service:

• Grounds
• Cloth Cutters
• Cleaners
• Canteen
• Packaging
• Administration.

Work tasks are identified for each work area. For example, work tasks in the Grounds area include:

• Prepare New Gardens and Plots

• Use hand tools

• Use shovel

• Measure and mark new beds

• Landscape planning

• Load, unload, move gardening equipment

• Load, unload mower, edger

• Load, unload cylinder mower

• Drive ute

• Load and move wheelbarrow

• Lift plants and gardening equipment

• Planting and Transplanting

• Assist in planting and transplanting

• Planting & transplanting

• Correct handling of plants

• Dig holes

There are also four general competencies:

• Follows Health & Safety Practices
• Communicates in the Workplace
• Works well with Others
• Applies Quality Standards.

A Time Factor has been determined for each task. This is the time taken by an experienced non-business service employee to complete the task multiplied by the number of times per month that the task is undertaken. The sum of all the Time Factors for the job tasks equals 9000 minutes (i.e. equivalent to 20 working days/month X 7.5 hours/day X 60 minutes/hour.)

Each employee therefore starts the wage calculation process with a total working time which comprises the sum of the allocated times for each of the tasks that they perform.

These task times are then adjusted by:

• A Productivity Percentage which is determined to be 100% for all employees for all tasks.
• A Quality Factor of between 1 and 4 which is applied on the assessed quality of the employee's work compared to that of an able bodied worker, with 1 indicating the lowest quality and 4 being the best. The usual Quality Factor applied is 2.
• A Supervision/Training Factor from 1 to 10. This factor indicates the amount of supervision or training the employee requires compared to an able bodied worker.

• A score of 1 indicates that full time supervision and/or re-training is required

• A score of 5 indicates slightly more than usual supervision and/or re-training is required

• A score of 6 indicates slightly less than usual supervision and/or re-training is required

• A score of 10 indicates that no supervision or re-training is required.

A computer-based calculation sheet multiplies each of the employee's task times by the Productivity Percentage, Quality Factor and Supervision/Training Factor for the task to produce an Effectively Productive Time for the month. The total Effectively Productive Time is divided by the total Able Bodied Time for the month (i.e. 9000 minutes) to give the proportion of the Award rate that the employee will be paid. Please refer to section 9.7 for a more detailed explanation and example of the wage calculation method.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

9.6 Assessment Process

New employees are offered a 4 week Work Trial during which a fixed rate of pay is applied ($1.50 per hour as at June 2007). At the end of this trial period, the employee's work performance is assessed and initial pay rate calculated using the adjustment factors and formula described in section 9.5 above.

Thereafter, wage assessments are conducted annually towards the end of the financial year (using the same adjustment factors and calculation formula) with any resultant pay rise applying during the following financial year.

Wage assessment reviews are also conducted 4 weeks after an employee is transferred to a different work area where the tasks are significantly different.

As a first step in the wage assessment procedure, the assessor checks that any recent changes to the relevant Award rate have been entered in the computer wage calculation sheet.

An appropriate wage assessment sheet is issued for the employee and the leading hand and/or manager lists the tasks that the employee performs and assesses the employee's performance for each task. At least two assessors are involved in each wage assessment – usually the employee's supervisor and a Support Officer.

The completed wage assessment sheet is collected and checked by Personnel & Training. The data is entered into the computer wage calculation sheet for the employee's work area and the percentage of Award to be paid is calculated.

The employee is notified of the wage outcome and is asked to sign the calculation sheet to indicate their understanding of the process.

In the event that the wage assessment indicates a lower rate of pay, the employee's rate of pay remains the same.

Parents of employees are involved in the wage assessment process where appropriate and they can receive copies of the completed wage assessment.

The assessment process is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

9.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

There are a number of steps in calculating an employee's rate of pay:

1. Each task undertaken by the employee has an Allocated Time per month. This is the specified time required by an able bodied worker to complete the task multiplied by the number of times per month that the task is undertaken.
2. The Allocated Time (AT) for each task is multiplied by 3 factors:

• A Productivity Percentage (P) which is determined to be 100% for all employees for all tasks (i.e. the Allocated Time is multiplied by 1);

• A Quality Factor(Q) based on a score of 1 to 4 (the Allocated Time is multiplied by the employee's Quality score divided by the maximum Quality score, in effect a multiplier between 0 and 1); and

• A Supervision/Training Factor (S) based on a score from 1 to 10 (the Allocated Time is multiplied by the employee's Supervision/Training score divided by the maximum Supervision/Training score, in effect a multiplier between 0 and 1).

3. The calculations in 2 above produce the employee's Effectively Productive Time per month (ET) for each task, i.e.

AT X P X Q X S = ET

4. The Effectively Productive Times for all of the tasks undertaken by the employee are added to produce the Total Effectively Productive Time (TET) for the month.
5. The Total Effectively Productive Time is divided by the Total Able Bodied Time (ABT) for the month (i.e. 9,000 minutes) to produce the proportion of the Award rate to be paid to the employee.

TET / ABT = Proportion of Award Rate

An example is shown below for an employee who can do 12 of the 58 competencies/ tasks in the Gardening work area.

Task	Allocated Time/ Month (AT)	Productivity Percentage (P)	Quality Factor (Q) (Score 1-4)	Supervision/ Training Factor (S) (Score 1-10)	Calculation: AT X P X Q X S = ET	Effectively Productive Time (ET)
Use hand tools	700	100% (X 1)	3 (X 3/4 ie 0.75)	7 (X 7/10 ie 0.7)	700 X 1 X 0.75 X 0.7	367.5
Use shovel	400	100%	2	7	400 X 1 X 0.5 X 0.7	140
Load and move wheelbarrow	300	100%	2	5	300 X 0.5 X 0.5	75
Dig holes	140	100%	2	6	140 X 0.5 X 0.6	42
Rake	600	100%	3	5	600 X 0.75 X 0.5	225
Sweep	600	100%	3	7	600 X 0.75 X 0.7	315
Rotary Mower	400	100%	2	5	400 X 0.5 X 0.5	100
Leaf blower	160	100%	3	7	160 X 0.75 X 0.7	84
Follows Health & Safety Practices	100	100%	2	0.5	100 X 0.5 X 0.05	2.5
Communicates in the workplace	100	100%	2	0.5	100 X 0.5 X 0.05	2.5
Works well with others	100	100%	2	0.5	100 X 0.5 X 0.05	2.5
Applies Quality Standards	100	100%	2	0.5	100 X 0.5 X 0.05	2.5
TOTAL	3700					1358.5

The example employee's TET = 1358.5 minutes

=> TET / ABT = 1358.5 / 9000 = 0.15 i.e. 15% of the Award Rate

Several Awards are used as the basis for pay rates. As at July 2007, these Awards were:

• Salaried Officers (Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association) Award;
• Transport Workers General Award;
• Marine Stores Award;
• Landscape Gardening Industry Award;
• Western Australia Minimum Wage Rates; and
• Metal Trades (General) Award.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

9.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

9.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

A Quality Audit conducted by SAI Global in September 2007 found that Paraquad complied with Disability Service Standard 9 (relating to employment conditions and fair pay).

The wage assessment tool is incorporated in a Supported Employees' Wage Agreement approved by the Industrial Relations Commission of Western Australia.

9.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment tool uses measures of monthly time allocations to each work task as the basis for assessment. The employees' time allocations, which are based on the tasks they perform, are then adjusted by productivity, quality and supervision/ training factors. There is no adjustment for the proportion of working time that the individual employee spends on each task.

At present the practice in respect of the productivity percentage is to apply a universal score of 100% to all employees for all tasks, the reason being that it is considered that all employees are doing the best that they can while at work.

This particular wage calculation methodology is somewhat unique and has not been seen in any of the other wage assessment tools analysed to date.

9.8.3 Reliability

At least two people are involved in conducting each wage assessment: the employee's supervisor and a support officer.

Training in the wage assessment process is provided to all new supervisory staff as part of the induction process. All supervisory staff involved in wage assessment are given retraining prior to the wage assessment period.

The wage assessment tool was subjected to inter-rater reliability testing during development, however, the results of this testing are not available.

9.8.4 Wage Outcomes

It is the policy of ParaQuad that employees' pay is not reduced even if their abilities deteriorate.

The 2007 Quality Audit report noted that most of the employees interviewed expressed satisfaction with rates of pay.

9.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

In designing the wage assessment tool, ParaQuad personnel considered what would be fair for employees and what would be reasonable to ask of supervisors (in terms of assessment workload).

The work tasks and allocated times are specific to the requirements of ParaQuad.

9.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

Initial design and set up of the wage assessment system was described as "interesting but quite lengthy". Now that the system is implemented it is considered manageable.

The ParaQuad personnel interviewed for this analysis commented: "It works for us and we are comfortable with it. The parents are happy with it."

9.8.7 Industrial Relations

The union was consulted during development of the wage assessment tool.

ParaQuad pays union membership fees for its employees.

9.8.8 Links to Training

A link to training exists through the Individual Forward Planning (IFP) process. The employee's wage assessment is discussed at their IFP meeting. Training needs are identified and a Training Plan is developed.

9.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

An appeals process is documented for the wage assessment system. The appeals process involves the employee first registering their concern with the Support Officer using the Incident Reporting System. If still unresolved, the matter progresses through management levels to consulting the Disabled Workers Union for assistance as a last resort.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

p9t1

9.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of ParaQuad Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	A Quality Audit conducted in 2007 found that ParaQuad complies with Disability Services Standard 9. The wage assessment tool is incorporated in a Supported Employees' Wage Agreement approved by the Industrial Relations Commission of Western Australia.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	All employees are considered to have a productivity rate of 100%. This is then adjusted by a Quality factor and a Supervision/ Training factor. Time allocations are based on pre-determined standards for each task, not the time spent by the employee on each task. Employee's productivity output on each task does not influence their wage outcome.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	At least 2 assessors are involved in each wage assessment. Each wage assessment sheet is checked by Personnel & Training. Wage calculation is computer-based. Trialling of the tool included inter-rater reliability testing but the results are not available.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	Individual productivity per se is not assessed because a universal rate of 100% is assigned to all employees. Training in the wage assessment process is provided to all staff involved. The scoring formula is relatively complex compared to many other wage assessment tools. A Quality Audit reports the use of a brochure describing the wage assessment process that is widely distributed to employees. Job tasks were sourced from a government Job Guide website and linked to relevant industry awards. The wage assessment process and scoring formula is quite clearly documented in a Wage Setting & Review Procedure.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	The link to training is through the Individual Forward Planning process where training needs are identified.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	Several relevant Awards are used as the basis for pay rates. A Quality Audit reported that most employees interviewed were satisfied with their pay. New employees are offered a 4-week work trial during which they are paid a fixed rate (currently $1.50/hour). Supplementary skills are included in the wage assessment content in addition to specific job tasks. Employees' wages are not reduced, even if a decrease is indicated by the wage assessment.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The wage calculation formula is quite complex compared with other wage assessment tools but this calculation is computerised. The workload for assessors is considered reasonable. The work tasks and allocated times are specific to ParaQuad requirements.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	Initial implementation of the tool was time-consuming. Now that the tool is established, it is considered by staff to be manageable.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	Consultation with the union occurred during development of the tool. ParaQuad pays union membership fees for its employees. An appeals process is documented.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

9.10 Conclusions

The ParaQuad Wage Assessment Tool is a hybrid tool that has been in use for three years.

The methodology of this wage assessment tool differs from the approaches seen in other tools. The employee's starting point for wage calculation is a standard time allocation for each of the tasks that they undertake which is then adjusted by a Quality factor and a Supervision/ Training factor. The time that the employee spends on each work task is not considered in the wage calculation.

All employees are given a Productivity rating of 100% and so the employee's output on each work task does not affect their wage outcome. The formula used to calculate the employee's wage is quite complex.

A Quality Audit has found that ParaQuad complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that prorata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Lorraine Scholten, Executive Officer (Services), ParaQuad
• Wage Setting & Review Procedures (PT/BS – Folder 3/04
• Training Notes
• Sample Wage Assessment Sheet for Gardening
• Sample Wage Calculation Sheet for Gardening Employee
• SAI Global, Surveillance Audit, 17-18 September 2007

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

• 10.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool
• 10.2 Type of Tool
• 10.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool
• 10.4 History and Development of the Tool
• 10.5 Content and Structure of the Tool
• 10.6 Assessment Process
• 10.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation
• 10.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria
• 10.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria
• 10.10 Conclusions

10.1 Owner/Developer of the Tool

Waverley Helpmates Inc.

10.2 Type of Tool

Hybrid. (Pay is based on productivity at a set price per job completed but competency assessment is used in matching employees to jobs.)

10.3 Number of Business Services Using This Tool

One (Waverley Helpmates)

10.4 History and Development of the Tool

Waverley Helpmates employs approximately 30 people who have an intellectual disability and provides gardening services to the local community. There is also a small cleaning service team who undertake contract cleaning work.

Waverley Helpmates has been using a task-based approach to wage assessment for over 20 years. This approach does not use any comparison of productivity or time against benchmarks. Instead, a monetary value is assigned to the actual tasks undertaken. This is consistent with the payment method commonly used in the garden maintenance industry.

Employees are assessed in terms of their competencies and the jobs are also assessed. This information is used to match employees to appropriate jobs and customers.

An employee's pay is calculated on the basis of the predetermined remuneration rate for each job they complete. The job prices are calculated on the basis of the output that a staff member without a disability can achieve working a 38 hour week at the minimum adult wage rate of pay.

There is an element of choice for employees in the amount of work that they do and hence, the amount of pay that they receive.

Waverley Helpmates' customer base is described as very loyal and the work is consistent throughout the year. Gardening service customers pay a competitive rate for approximately twenty visits per year.

Employees are referred to as 'Helpmates' and are encouraged to feel a sense of ownership and pride in their portfolio of jobs. Social interaction with customers is encouraged.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

10.5 Content and Structure of the Tool

The Waverley Helpmates Wage Assessment process remunerates employees on the basis of the number of jobs completed rather than by hourly rate.

Remuneration for each job is calculated on the basis of the output of a person without a disability working a 38 hour week at the Minimum Adult Wage. This job remuneration process is described in more detail in section 10.7.

Employees are matched to the various jobs available in the gardening and cleaning services through a process of individual assessment described in 10.6 below.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

10.6 Assessment Process

The assessments undertaken at Waverley Helpmates focus on matching employees to suitable jobs. The employees' wages are calculated using the standard remuneration rates for each of the jobs that they complete.

A three-step process is used to match a job to a compatible employee (Helpmate). The content of the assessment varies slightly between gardening and cleaning services, as summarised below.

Gardening Services

1. Job Assessment – assessment of lawn mowing jobs by a staff member to identify possible dangers, obstacles and the skills required to complete the job successfully. A check-list of possible observations/ questions is provided.
2. Customer Details – customer requirements, level of involvement and interaction desired, time restrictions, etc.
3. Helpmate Assessment.

The Helpmate (employee) Assessment incorporates the following:

• Gardener Job Condition Assessment – assesses the level of difficulty or any problems experienced by the employee with a number of Job Characteristics (e.g. ground level, ground surface, stairs, steps or split levels, animals on the property) and job tasks (e.g. whippering, weeding) and customer characteristics.
• Work Skills Assessment – assesses Levels of Support required for each component of gardening job tasks.
• Performance Assessment – rates the support required in areas such as social and behavioural skills, cognition, general vocational skills, physical abilities and work environment (based on the DMI assessment model).

Cleaning Services

1. Job Assessment – contains a table of duties for the cleaning contract, the time calculated for completion of each duty and the corresponding value (employee remuneration) for each duty.
2. Helpmate Assessment.

The Helpmate Assessment for Cleaning Services uses the Job Assessment of the Cleaning Contract to identify the specific tasks that need to be done and the skills required. Employees are assessed using two annual assessment forms:

• Cleaning Work Skills Assessment – assesses Level of Support required for each component of the cleaning job tasks; and
• Performance Assessment - rates the support required in areas such as social and behavioural skills, cognition, general vocational skills, physical abilities and work environment (this is the same Performance Assessment form as used for Gardening Services).

These assessments help to determine which employees have the skills required to complete each task within the work time frames and with the available support, while allowing for the development of employees' work potential. The assessment process is used to allocate the cleaning contract duties amongst the five employees in the Cleaning Services Team.

The assessment process for both Cleaning and Gardening services is summarised in the following diagram:

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

10.7 Scoring and Wage Calculation

The remuneration for each job task uses approximately 60% of the income obtained from the gardening or cleaning work. The remaining income is used to cover equipment, tools, fuel and transport costs.

Gardening Services

The price for gardening work has been calculated on the basis of the current minimum adult wage divided by the average output that supervising staff can complete. For gardening, this average output is 11 standard lawns per day which translates to $9.30 per completed lawn. (This amount is rounded up to $10.00 for ease of calculation by employees.)

This average output has been compared with that of other commercial gardening contractors and falls in the mid-range of these benchmarks.

Each Waverley Helpmates employee working for the gardening services is required to complete a minimum of 7 lawns per week (i.e. a minimum pay of $70/week). The current average output achieved by employees is 10 lawns per week.

When the Job Assessment and Customer Details checklists have been completed, a remuneration rate is assigned to the job from the Waverley Helpmates Pay Scale (Gardening Services). This pay scale assigns the amount paid to the employee for completion of the requirements of the job/customer. The pay scale is shown in the table below.

Job Description	Assigned Pay Amount
Whippering an average job	$1.00
Whippering a large or complex job	$1.50
Nature strip	$2.50
Half job/ unit	$4.50
Average job – front yard, back yard, nature strip	$9.00
Average lawn with whippering	$10.00
Large job – corner block with front yard, back yard and 2 nature strips. Average job with complex requirements.	$11.00
Large job with whippering	$12.50
Contracts, e.g. schools, churches	Number of average jobs X $10.00

Employees record the jobs they complete each day and their weekly pay is calculated accordingly.

In addition to productivity-based pay, employees also receive a number of other entitlements in accordance with the industrial agreement, including paid sick leave, family leave, recreation leave and superannuation.

Cleaning Service

For employees in the cleaning service, each cleaning duty is assigned a remuneration based on the time taken by a staff member without a disability working a 38 hour week at the minimum adult wage rate. The current schedule of cleaning duties and remuneration lists 53 duties. Examples are shown in the table below.

Daily Duties	Area	Time (Minutes)	Value ($)
Clean Sinks	Art Room Senior Building	10.00	2.25
Clean Toilets	Office Building – Girls, Boys & Staff	14.00	3.14
Machine Buff Vinyl Floor	Office Building Hall	35.00	7.86
Wash Floors	Classrooms 1,2,3,4 Junior Building	6.00	1.35

While training in the cleaning service, employees are paid a training rate of $13 per day and this is the minimum work requirement for this position.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

10.8 Good Practice Guide to Wage Determination Criteria

10.8.1 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards

The Waverley Helpmates Wage Assessment Tool is incorporated in the organisation's Enterprise Agreement.

A Quality Assurance Audit in June 2007 found that Waverley Helpmates complied with Disability Services Standard 9 (relating to employment conditions and pay). Comments from the quality audit report included:

"Helpmates (employees) continue to be very aware of their wages and know that they are able to earn more money by increasing the number of jobs. Records demonstrate that wages have increased over time with the percentage increased in line with general increases. There is no limit to the amount of wages that can be earned by a Helpmate but the minimum is equivalent to 7 jobs per week for gardening with the vast majority of Helpmates exceeding this." (p.14, Quality Surveillance Audit, SAI Global, June 2007)

10.8.2 Validity

The wage assessment process used at Waverley Helpmates appears to be clear and transparent and very easily understood by employees. Employees record their own work output and they know the pay that they will receive for each of the jobs that they complete.

The method used to calculate the remuneration for each job appears logical and uses two basic principles that are common to a number of wage assessment systems, i.e. a link to an able-bodied rate of work output and the current Minimum Adult Wage. There is evidence of care being taken to ensure that the productivity measures and price for each job are consistent with those of external contractors working in the gardening industry.

10.8.3 Reliability

All six staff of Waverley Helpmates are involved in job assessments. At least 2 staff review each job and then discuss their findings with other staff. Employees are also involved in job assessment to some degree as they often accompany staff when new jobs are assessed.

Assessments of employees do not directly affect employee's pay as this information is used for job matching, not wage calculation.

Employees record in a diary, the jobs that they complete and the amount of wage that they will receive for those jobs. This record is confirmed with a supervisor and forms the basis for wage calculation. The employee also takes a pay envelope to the job for each customer and the customer payment is placed in the envelope and taken back to the Waverley Helpmates office. This provides a further check for job completion data.

10.8.4 Wage Outcomes

Waverley Helpmates staff consider that the wages paid to their employees are considerably higher than those of many other business services and this would appear to be the case.

A recent Quality Audit noted that:

"The Helpmates (employees) view of the wages is that they are very fair because they can do as many jobs as they want to earn more money. Cleaning Helpmates also said they could earn more by helping others and completing more tasks which was seen as a very fair system for everyone." (p.14, Quality Surveillance Audit, SAI Global, June 2007)

A letter from a Quality Auditor was provided by Waverley Helpmates as evidence for this analysis. Based on her experience in auditing over 50 business services and DEN agencies per year for the past six years, this auditor made the following comments:

"The wage tool currently used at Waverley Helpmates supplies the workers with a fair and just wage providing them with a wage that is on par or higher than disability wages I have audited in my six years of working in the area.

The tool has many features that meet the Disability Standards. These include:

• A wage calculated in the same way as those in the Gardening and Cleaning work force who do not have a disability i.e. by number of jobs completed rather than by hourly rate. . .

• The majority of workers have an excellent understanding of how the system works (something that is rarely seen in the Disability area) as they are recording their achievements and this is what is used to calculate their wages. . . .

• The workers at Waverley Helpmates are eager to improve their ability and quality of work achieved each day and they are able to do as many jobs as their working hours allow and choose to do." (Sue Adam, Technical Expert, SAI Global, undated letter)

10.8.5 Practical Application of the Tool

Waverley Helpmates staff report that they find the wage assessment process "really easy" and consider that the system is so simple that it could be applied in other business services.

The wage assessment system is consistent with the philosophy of the organisation. It provides immediate feedback and motivation for employees and it is very practical for them. Staff consider that the wage system has helped employees with their literacy and numeracy skills.

10.8.6 Administrative and Cost Implications

Waverley Helpmates staff find the wage assessment system easy to administer.

The only cost incurred for the wage assessment system is staff time spent in job assessment and determining remuneration for each job and the calculation of individual wages. Much of the job assessment would be required in any case in order to price the job for the customer.

10.8.7 Industrial Relations

The Waverley Helpmates Wage Assessment Tool is incorporated in the organisation's Enterprise Agreement. An updated 2007 version of this agreement is currently before the Australian Fair Pay Commission.

10.8.8 Links to Training

The working week schedule for Waverley Helpmates requires only 19 hours of direct work activity with 6 to 8 hours set aside each week for training and recreational activities. Employees receive ongoing training in basic work skills, and associated social and life skills.

10.8.9 Process for Disputing/Appealing the Outcome

Waverley Helpmates has a Complaints and Problems Policy which is described in plain English in the Helpmate Policy and Procedure Manual provided to employees. The wage system and pay rates are also explained in this manual.

Any employee feedback or problems are acted on immediately. An advocate of the employee's choice can attend the biannual review meetings.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

10.9 Summary of Analysis of the Wage Assessment Tool Against the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination Criteria

Criteria	Summary of Waverley Helpmates Wage Assessment Tool Compliance with Criteria
Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Standards Compliance with Disability Services Act (1986), Disability Services Standards, Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Workplace Relations Act (1996)	The 2007 Quality Audit found that Waverley Helpmates complies with Disability Service Standard 9. The wage assessment tool is incorporated in the organisation's enterprise agreement.
Validity The extent to which the tool is assessing what it claims to be assessing (i.e. competence and/or productivity). The tool's ability to differentiate between people of different work capacity (the combination of productivity and competency). The tool's coverage, i.e. whether the tool covers all relevant components of productivity or competency.	Pay is based on productivity at a set price per job completed. Competency is assessed for the purposes of matching employees to compatible jobs and customers. The price per job is based on an able-bodied output and the Minimum Adult Wage. The pay model is consistent with the payment method commonly used in the garden maintenance industry. The system is very transparent. All of the work tasks are covered and there is flexibility to tailor the payment for jobs that are larger or more complex.
Reliability The extent to which different assessors would achieve the same result when assessing the same person (inter-rater reliability). The extent to which the same assessor would achieve the same result for similar situations for the same person at different times (intra-rater reliabilitiy) The consistency of the assessment process when utilised by different assessors or when assessing the same worker a number of times.	Competency assessment does not directly affect employees' pay as this information is used for job matching not wage calculation. The job completion data used for calculating an employee's pay is recorded by the employee and checked by a supervisor. All supervisors, and often the employees, are involved in pricing jobs.
Nature of Assessment Ongoing productivity monitoring rather than one-off or short term productivity assessment. Competency assessment by an independent assessor with appropriate qualifications (e.g. Certificate IV in Workplace assessment) where possible. Method of assessment clearly articulated to employees. Competencies linked to appropriate endorsed Industry Standards. Method and nature of assessment clearly documented, with employees and advocates made fully aware of the process by which wages are determined.	The main focus of the assessment process is matching employees to jobs and clients that are compatible with their skills. The process is clear and transparent and very easily understood by employees. Productivity is recorded daily in the form of jobs completed. Quality Audit reports indicate that employees are very aware of their wages and how they can earn more money. The wage system and pay rates are described in plain English in a Policy and Procedures Manual for employees.
Linking Assessment to Training Strong links with training and skills development for employees.	Time is set aside each week for training. Employees receive ongoing training in basic work skills and associated life skills.
Fair Wage Outcomes Wages linked to an award or industry standard for the type of work undertaken. Wages reflecting the capacity of the employee to complete the tasks constituting their job. Wages reflecting the training level attained by the employee (e.g. qualifications, licences, etc.) Wages taking the employee's supplementary skills into account (e.g. supervision, quality assurance, OH&S awareness. Wage system providing an incentive to achieve higher level skills or qualifications. Wages not based on the organisation's capacity to pay.	Remuneration for each job is based on the output of a person without a disability working a 38 hour week at the Minimum Adult Wage. Wages are directly related to the employee's capacity and job completion. A Quality Audit report notes that wages have increased over time and that employees view their wages as very fair. The wage system provides immediate feedback and motivation for employees. In addition to their productivity-based pay, employees receive other entitlements including sick leave, family leave, recreation leave and superannuation.
Practical Application of the tool Ease of use Transparency and ease of understanding Appropriateness to the work undertaken by employees	The tool is described by Waverley Helpmates staff as "really easy" and "simple to use". The tool is transparent and appropriate to the work undertaken.
Administration and Cost Implications Cost of implementation and maintenance of the tool Administrative implications including workload of assessment	The only cost of the wage system is the staff time required to assess jobs, determine remuneration for each job, assess and job match employees, and calculate wages. Most of these processes would be required in any commercial garden maintenance or cleaning business.
Industrial Relations Union participation Links to Industrial Relations agencies Avenues for review or appeal of wage outcomes	The wage assessment tool is incorporated in an Enterprise Agreement with an updated version of this agreement currently before the Australian Fair Pay Commission. There is a Complaints and Problems Policy described in plain English in the employees' manual which can be used for complaints in relation to wages.

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]

10.10 Conclusions

The Waverley Helpmates Wage Assessment Tool is a very simple and transparent wage system which is well-suited to the nature of the work undertaken by the employees of this organisation.

The payment method is consistent with that commonly used in the garden maintenance industry and the pay rates are based on able-bodied output and the Minimum Adult Wage.

The wage assessment process is well understood by employees and involves them in recording their job completion data.

A Quality Audit has found that Waverley Helpmates complies with KPI 9.1 of Disability Service Standard 9, relating to employment conditions. KPI 9.1 requires that pro-rata wages must be determined through a transparent assessment tool or process, such as the Supported Wages System, or tools that comply with the criteria referred to in the Guide to Good Practice Wage Determination.

Information Sources:

• Interview with Heather Buckland, Program Coordinator, and Marianne Steuart, Support Worker, Waverley Helpmates
• Wages Tool document supplied by Waverley Helpmates
• Job Assessment and Allocation Process form
• Customer Initial Contact Record form
• Gardener Job Condition Assessment form
• Gardening Work Skills Assessment form
• Performance Assessment form
• Job Assessment and Allocation Process – Cleaning
• Cleaning Work Skills Assessment form
• Letter from Sue Adam, Technical Expert, SAI Global
• Extract from SAI Global Surveillance Audit Report, June 2007
• Extract from Walter Turnbull Report

[ Return to Top   Return to Section ]