T279
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
The Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) lodged with the Commission this application to increase all wage rates and allowances by 3.8% to take into account the movements in the Consumer Price Index for the March 1985 and June 1985 quarters. They also sought an operative date from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 4 November 1985. During the hearing of applications T265 and T266 of 1985 (being applications to vary salaries and allowances in nominated public and private sector awards in accordance with the National Wage Case decision of 4 November 1985), Mr. Abey, representing the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries (T.C.I.) requested the Commission to withhold any favourable decision from the Aerated Waters Award as members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia, (Tasmanian Branch) (F.L.A.I.E.U.) and the Transport Workers Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) (T.W.U.) had been engaged in strike action in pursuit of a claim for a 36 hour week at Cadbury Schweppes Drinks Division and the Cascade Fruit Juice Co. The Full Bench when handing down its decision on applications T265 and T266 of 1985 on 19 November 1985, had this to say: "On the evidence before us we are not prepared to include the Aerated Waters Award in any common rule decision, apart from that part of the award which deals with clerks. We refer to Commissioner Watling, who has been dealing with the dispute raised before us, the question of whether or not the 3.80 claim should be applied, and if so, from what date." This separate application, T279, has arisen out of the abovementioned decision. HISTORY The dispute which gave rise to the Full Bench excluding the Aerated Waters Award from its decision on 19 November 1985, can be summarised as follows: 1. On 7 February 1985, the F.L.A.I.E.U. (Tasmanian Branch) served a log of claims on the Industry seeking changes to the Award. 2. The claim, amongst other things, sought the introduction of a 36 hour week for employees and, a redundancy provision. 3. The Industry met with the Unions on several occasions after the log of claims had been served, the most recent meeting before the strike action took place was 11 October, 1985. 4. The Industry informed the Unions that they were prepared to negotiate on the question of a Redundancy Agreement, however, on the question of a 36 hour week, the Industry saw the claim as being outside the Wage Fixation Principles and, therefore, they were not prepared to accede to the claim. 5. On Thursday, 31 October 1985, members of the .L.A.I.E.U. and the T.W.U. went on strike at the Cascade Fruit Juice Co. plant. On the same day members of the F.L.A.I.E.U. employed at Cadbury Schweppes Drinks Division also went on strike and a picket line was established to prevent distribution from that plant. 6. A meeting was convened of union members at Coca Cola Bottlers Pty. Ltd., Launceston on 1 November 1985, however, it is understood that they declined to participate in strike action in pursuit of the claim. 7. At the request of the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, a hearing was convened under the provisions of Section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 for the purpose of settling the dispute. This hearing took place before me on Monday 4 November 1985 (T261 of 1985). 8. In my decision, handed down on that day, I said in part:- "After considering the submissions presented by the parties, I take this opportunity to remind the Unions that the strike action embarked upon by their members and the establishment of a picket line in pursuit of a 36 hour week, is outside the Wage Fixation Principles to which the Unions have given a commitment to abide by for the period of their operation." I went on to say: "The continuation of this industrial action may well call into question the undertakings given by the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union (Tasmanian Branch) and the Transport Workers Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) at future hearings of the Commission. With these points in mind I strongly recommend to members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) and the Transport Workers Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) currently on strike at Cascade Fruit Juice Co. and Cadbury Schweppes, that there be a return to work tomorrow morning and the picket lines established to further their claim be removed. On the question of the claims by the Unions for a Redundancy Agreement, I strongly recommend to the Employers that they confer with the Unions at the earliest opportunity with a view to negotiating a Redundancy Agreement applicable to the Cadbury Schweppes Drinks Division and Coca Cola companies. I would expect the Unions to convey to their members at tomorrow morning's meeting this strong recommendation of the Commission and, to impress on the members, the commitment given on their behalf to the Commission to abide by the Wage Fixation Principles." 9. This recommendation was rejected by the members of the F.L.A.I.E:U. and the T.W.U. at their meeting held on 5 November 1985, and the strike continued. 10. At the request of the T.C.I. the hearing was reconvened on 12 November 1985. 11. After many hours of private discussions I was informed by the parties that an agreement had been reached to their mutual satisfaction and they believed it to be within the parameters of the Wage Fixation Principles. 12. Members of the F.L.A.I.E.U. and the T.W.U. employed at the Cascade Fruit Juice Co. decided to return to work on Wednesday 13 November and members of the F.L.A.I.E.U. employed by Cadbury Schweppes Drinks Division returned to work on Thursday 14 November. In this matter, Mr. Sherry, representing the F.L.A.I.E.U. requested the Commission to increase wage rates and allowances by 3.8% to operate from the first full pay period to commence on or after 4 November 1985, in line with the National Wage decision. This request was also supported by Mr. Hansch representing the T.W.U. I was reminded by both unions that they had given the following commitment to the Full Bench of this Commission on 26 November 1985, which included the Aerated Waters Award. "(Name of Union) reaffirms the commitments given in 1983 on the basis upon which those commitments were given and accept the extension of those commitments for the requested six months. The undertakings given by the (Name of Union) must be seen in conjunction with the commitments given by unions through the A.C.T.U. to the A.C.T.U./Federal Government agreement on Wages, Taxation, Superannuation and other related matters. Mr. Abey, representing the T.C.I., in this matter said he was encouraged by the assurances given by the unions not to pursue any extra claims outside the Wage Fixation Principles. However, he advanced the argument that a similar commitment was given in 1983 and history had shown that the unions were unable to live up to the commitment certainly in relation to the recent dispute. Whilst not opposing the 3.8% increase claimed by the unions, Mr. Abey said he felt it was totally inappropriate for the Commission to flow a 3.8% increase into the award during the period when the two unions were actively in breach of the Principles. He said that all striking members of the F.L.A.I.E.U. and T.W.U. did not resume a normal full day's work until Friday 15 November and it was for that reason he supported an operative date for the variation of the award from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 18 November 1985. I intend granting the claim for a 3.8% increase in wage rates and allowances in this award because to do otherwise would be a denial of wage justice, however, I have grave misgivings about granting the operative date sought by the applicant for the following reasons: 1. A claim was made on the Industry which, amongst other things, contained a claim for a 36 hour week which, in my view, was clearly outside the Wage Fixation Principles. 2. There is no doubt in my mind that the strike action which took place from 31 October 1985 until 13 and 14 November, had as its main thrust the quest for a 36 hour working week 3. Whilst recognising that not all persons employed in this industry took strike action in support of the claims, nevertheless, a significant proportion did and I believe there is a collective responsibility where an award applies to a number of establishments. 4. I am of the opinion that it is quite unreasonably to seek an operative date from the first full pay period to commence on or after 4 November 1985 when the two unions concerned were participating in strike activity from 31 October 1985 until 13 and 14 November 1985. 5. I was assured during the dispute that the members of the two unions concerned were fully acquainted with the Wage Fixation Principles but they still chose to ignore them and the recommendation of the Commission, even after the Commission had informed them that their actions may well call into question the undertaking they gave to abide by the Wage Fixation Principles at future hearings of the Commission. Therefore, I decide the operative date of this decision shall be from the first full pay period to commence on or after 15 November 1985 which was the first day after a number of employees in this industry had discontinued their strike activity. It is also my intention to insert the following clause in the award: "Provided that, it is a term of this award that the unions undertake that they will not pursue any extra claims, award or overaward, except where consistent with the Principles of Wage Fixation of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission." This is consistent with the Full Bench decision in T265 and T266 of 1985. I have noted that the F.L.A.I.E.U. and T.W.U. have given a commitment in the terms previously stated in this decision and, therefore, the Order giving effect to this decision will be released shortly.
R.J. Watling |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||