IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

Matters T.270 and T.271 of 1985 were applications to amend the now-titled Keyboard Employees and Office Assistants Award (Keyboard Award) and the Clerical Employees Award (Clerical Award), to recognise and implement changes brought about by the proclamation of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984.

In the original Full Bench decision in matters T.270 and T.271, dated 11 December 1985, the parties were invited to further address the Commission on the matter of the insertion into the respective awards of 36 & 3/4 hours provisions.

Accordingly, to all intents and purposes when the Full Bench issued its decision the matter had been finalised, save the hours question.

Subsequently, other matters came before me, sitting alone, namely applications to similarly vary the Recreation Officers and Welfare Workers Awards.

In presenting argument in these latter two matters, the representative for the Minister for Public Administration, applicant, in respect of certain matters, relied upon the content of the orders issued as a consequence of the Commission's decision in respect of matters T.270 and T.271 of 1985.

However, as the matters in respect of the Recreation Officers and Welfare Workers Awards progressed, it became apparent that the draft orders, relating to the use of the terms "Controlling Authority" and "Head of Agency", were not consistent with the orders previously issued by the Full Bench in matters T.270 and T.271 of 1985.

Mr. Jarman) appearing for the Minister for Public Administration, indicated that the differences I have referred to above may be able to be resolved when the Hours matter in the Clerical and Keyboard Awards came before the Full Bench for finalisation.

Similarly, it was agreed between the parties and the Commission that in respect to the proposed inclusion of 36 & 3/4 hours provisions in the Recreation Officers and Welfare Workers Awards, that these particular matters should also be dealt with by the Full Bench considering the Hours question in respect of T.270 and T.271 of 1986.

Finally, the Commission received a request from the Office of Industrial Relations, that when matters T.270 and T.271 of 1985 again came before the Full Bench in respect of the Hours matter, that further submissions be allowed to facilitate necessary minor amendments to both awards.';

On the resumption of the Full Bench hearing to consider the Hours question, matters T.333 and T.338 of 1986 were joined for a consideration of the Controlling Authority/Head of Agency terminology. The matters raised in the letter received from the Office of Industrial Relations were also considered.

Following submissions on each of the above matters, the Full Bench:

(a) granted an adjournment in relation to the hours question; and

(b) referred each of the other matters to me for determination.

Decision

1.  MINOR AWARD VARIATIONS TO CLERICAL AND KEYBOARD AWARDS

Exhibit S1, which outlines the minor amendments proposed in respect of the Clerical and Keyboard Awards, is as follows:

"1. Redundant Provisions, Adjustment of Reference Provisions and Relocation of Provisions

(i) Delete proviso referring to salary on employee in Agent-General's Office, London. Clerical Employees' Award Clause 8 - Salaries Keyboard Employees and Office Assistants' Award Clause 8 - Salaries.

(ii) Delete proviso relating to Proficiency Allowance for employees as at 8th December 1978 Keyboard Employees and Office Assistants' Award - Clause 8 1 (iii) proviso.

(iii) Clerical Employees' Award - Clause 8 (3)
Replace words in brackets (For classifications refer clause 8 item 1) with (For classifications refer Clause 8(1) and (2)) and similar change in Clause 10.

(iv) Clerical Employees' Award
Clause 8 (3)(B) proviso - minimum payment of 3 hours worked - be removed and inserted as a proviso following Clause 8 (3)(iii).

(v) Keyboard Employees and Office Assistants' Award
Clause 8 1 be amended by adding Teachers Aides and Word Processor Operator to list of classifications."

I propose to deal seriatim with each item contained in the exhibit.

Item (i) - both awards - Delete proviso referring to salary for an employee in the Agent General's Office, London

The parties were in agreement that this proviso should be deleted as Tasmania no longer operates an Agent General's Office in London.

Clearly the proviso is redundant and it is no longer appropriate for it to remain in the award and I decide accordingly.

Item (ii) - Keyboard Award - Delete proviso relating to Proficiency Allowance

This proviso in Clause 8 (1)(111) of the Award is as follows:

"PROVIDED ALWAYS that a machinist who was in receipt of a proficiency allowance at the rate of $316 per annum at the date upon which the Clerical Officers' Keyboard and Office Assistant Classifications (Public and Mental Health Services) Principal Award No. 4 (viz, 8 December 1978) shall from the operative date of this Award be entitled in substitution therefor to the allowance specified in (iii)(b)."

Mr. Stevens, appearing for the Minister for Public Administration, said that the amount of $316 per annum was now incorporated in the $762 per annum proficiency allowance for a machinist contained in Clause 8(iii)(b).

Mr. Evans informed the Commission that he had only been made aware of this and the other changes proposed in the Office of Industrial Relations letter, already referred to, shortly prior to the Full Bench hearing, and thus indicated that he would need a little time to consider the implications of this particular proposed variation.

The hearing continued on the basis that Mr. Evans would inform the Commission, in writing, as to the outcome of the Association's considerations.

Accordingly, by letter dated 18 April 1986, Mr. Evans informed the Commission that he had no objection to the variations as outlined in Exhibit S.1.

The proviso in question shall therefore be deleted.

Item (iii) - Clerical Award - Clause 8(3)

Clause 8(3) refers to salaries for part-time and casual employees. In that, sub-clause, the claim is to delete the words

"(For classifications refer Clause 8 item 1)"

and insert in lieu thereof:

"For classifications refer Clause 8(1) and (2)".

This wording correctly identifies the appropriate sub-clauses for the classifications in question and the variation is granted.

Item (iii) - Clerical Award - Clause 10, New Appointments and Promotions

The variation sought is to again correctly stipulate the appropriate clauses in the award relating to classifications.

The proposed variation to Clause 10, by adding "...and (2)" to the reference "Clause 8(1)",is therefore granted.

Item (iv) - Clerical Award - Clause 8(3)(B) Minimum Payment Proviso

The parties are in agreement that this proviso is wrongly located in the above sub-clause and should be re-located as the proviso following Clause 8(3)(111).

The relocation of this proviso by the deletion from Clause 8(3)(B) of the proviso:

"PROVIDED ALWAYS that a casual employee's terms of engagement shall be by the hour with a minimum payment of 3 hours for each day worked."

and the re-insertion of the proviso as the first proviso after sub-clause 8 (3)(111) is approved.

As a consequence of this variation, the proviso currently situated thereat shall now commence "PROVIDED ALSO THAT...".

Item (v) - Keyboard Award - Clause 8(1) Employees

We were requested by the parties to include in that clause the classifications of Teachers Aide and Word Processor Operator.

These inclusions are approved.

2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY/HEAD OF AGENCY TERMINOLOGY

As indicated in this decision, when matters T.333 of 1986 and T.338 of 1986 were before me, the parties, where appropriate, relied upon the Commission's Orders issued in T.270 and T.271 of 1985 as the models to follow.

However an inconsistency in the various references to Controlling Authority and Head of Agency was identified between the draft orders submitted to the Commission and those issued by the Full Bench in T.270 and T.271.

It was agreed between the parties and myself that this matter should be considered by the Full Bench when next dealing with matters T.270 and T.271.

Accordingly matters T.333 and T.338 were joined with Full Bench matters T.270 and T.271 in respect of Hours of Work and the question of Controlling Authority/Head of Agency terminology.

At the hearing of this matter before the Full Bench, the parties agreed that the terminology "Controlling Authority" is the most appropriate term to be used at this time.

That is to say that references to Head of Agency contained in the draft orders for the variation of the Welfare Workers and Recreation Officers Awards should be deleted and replaced by the reference Controlling Authority.

The Full Bench in T.270 and T.271 acquiesced to the agreed' exclusive usage of Controlling Authority in those awards.

However, as this particular aspect was highlighted in matters T.333 and T.338 of 1986, the issue was more fully addressed in the joint proceedings before the Full Bench.

It is accurate to indicate that the parties and the Commission recognise that it is not ideal to refer to "Controlling Authority" in the awards in relation to responsibilities and powers currently (at least) vested with Heads of Agencies by the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984.

This is particularly so when regard is had for the overall thrust of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 which envisages a decentralisation of certain responsibilities to Heads of Agencies.

We, of course, understand that there are many complexities involved, some of which have been previously canvassed before the Commission and indeed some of which are still ongoing.

Nevertheless each particular issue should be resolved, taking cognisance of the consequential issues that may arise and which in turn require resolution.

This process, as we have already evidenced, will no doubt require the input and the dedicated application and goodwill of, at times, many participants in the industrial arena.

There are very clear implications by not including specific references to Heads of Agency, where appropriate, in awards of this Commission. We are, however, prepared to lend our support to the proposal of the applicant, on the basis that the parties are working towards the resolution of problems perceived by them, some of which, we are told, may require legislative amendments to the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984.

We would expect to be kept informed of such developments, as it is only by the integrated involvement of all the appropriate parties, including the Commission, that the ideals of the State Service Act will be fulfilled.

Following the conclusion of the Hours matter, which has been set down for 6 May 1986, orders will be issued disposing of matters affecting the Keyboard and Clerical Awards (T.270 and T.271 of 1985).

With regard to applications T.333 of 1986 and T.338 of 1986, decisions made herein in relation to those applications will automatically carry forward as part of the final decision, to be made when all matters in respect of those applications have been concluded.

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER