IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This decision deals with an application by the Federated Ironworkers' Association (FIA) to vary the Wireworking Award by reducing ordinary hours of work from 40 to 38.

Mr Harper for the FIA supported his application by submitting two exhibits. The first H1 is an agreed draft order reflecting the necessary variations to the award and H2 a list of productivity offsets used as the basis for negotiation between the parties.

A summary of the main points relied on by Mr Harper is as follows:

• agreement has been reached between the parties;

• Titan Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd is the only known employer bound by the award;

• a total of fifteen (15) employees are affected by the agreement;

• a 38 hour week has been worked by the employees since 3 May 1982;

• in spite of the above the FIA is prepared to agree to a prospective date of operation for the award variations;

• while it was generally accepted that the notional impact of a 38 hour week was a 5% increase in total labour costs, a saving of 7% had been achieved through the various cost offset arrangements;

• cost offset proposals agreed by the parties to the federal Metal Industry Award were used as the basis for negotiations.

The more significant cost offsets are:

• the afternoon tea break has been eliminated resulting in an estimated increase in productive time of 20 minutes per employee per day;

• the morning tea break is staggered to allow for the continuous running of machines;

• the elimination of changing and wash-up time in working hours which has resulted in an increase in productive time of seven minutes per day per employee;

• employee and Union acceptance of the right of Supervisors to strictly enforce the changed working arrangements; (the result of this understanding has been that the estimated 7% gain has been maintained since May 1982);

• with the introduction of a 19 day month and agreed tighter controls sick leave has been reduced by 50%;

• no mixed function claims would be made by employees when changes brought about by the reduction in working hours resulted in work otherwise justifying a higher rate of pay being performed.

Other matters contained in Exhibit H2 were also agreed or could be the subject of further negotiation to achieve productivity improvements.

Mr Edwards representing the company confirmed the detail of the agreement reached with the FIA. He particularly emphasised the achieved cost offsets which had resulted in a sustained 7% increase in productivity per employee. This had been primarily accomplished by machines running for the full working day, the only break being for the midday meal.

As Mr Edwards could not confirm that Titan Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd was the only employer bound by the award; he submitted any award variations should be prospective.

In response to questions from the Commission both parties indicated that it was highly unlikely that there was any other employer bound by this award.

I was also advised that it was an oversight by the parties which had resulted in the award not being the subject of proceedings, before this Commission or its predecessor the State Industrial Boards, seeking appropriate award variations to accommodate the agreement to reduce working hours.

While I have made known my views on situations like this, there is in reduced working hours claims a compensating advantage in considering variation of a subject award after an agreement has been in operation. The parties in this case were able to confirm that the anticipated cost savings from their negotiations had not only been achieved but had been maintained for a period in excess of three years. A commendable situation which in view of some of the agreed changes demonstrates a genuine commitment not only to the earlier negotiations but particularly to the ongoing application of the total agreement.

Having heard competent and detailed submissions adequately supported with documentation, I have little difficulty in arriving at a conclusion in this case. It is my view that the requirements of the National Wage Principles in particular Principle 5 have been more than satisfactorily met. The award will therefore be varied to reflect the agreement of the parties effective from the first pay period commencing on or after 21 August 1985.

The order varying the award is attached.

J G King
COMMISSIONER