T316
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
REASONS FOR DECISION
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING: 17 February 1986 Hobart
This matter related to an application by the Minister for Public Administration represented in these proceedings by Mr L Johnson, for the inclusion of a savings provision in the Teaching Service (Teaching Staff) Award. The savings provision is to cater for the particular circumstances of Mr W Tomalin who was transferred by the Director-General of Education from a Recreation Officer position in the Curriculum Branch of the Education Department to a teaching position at the Clarence High School. As a consequence of the transfer, Mr Tomalin is disadvantaged by $60 per annum, being the difference between the yearly salary of the two positions. The teaching position being the lower of the two. Accordingly, this application was initiated by the Director-General of Education as he was concerned to ensure that salary maintenance would prevail for Mr Tomalin. In this regard Mr Johnson was granted leave to amend the application to correctly reflect the intention of the Director-General that the $60 differential be maintained until this amount could be absorbed as a result of salary movements, for whatever reason, in the Teaching Service (Teaching Staff) Award which affected his new classification. Mr Lane, appearing for the Tasmanian Teachers' Federation (TTF), confined his opposition to the amended application by indicating that whilst the TTF did not oppose the eventual absorption of the $60 (by, for example, a work value salary increase to his new classification) the TTF considered that, in calculating the salary maintenance allowance, National Wage Case increases should be applied to both his old and new classifications. Thus the $60 allowance would continue to increase by the percentage amounts of National Wage Case decisions until the allowance was eventually absorbed by other means. Having regard to the respective position of the parties, and in the likely event that other transfers may be initiated by the Director-General, similar to Mr Tomalin's case, it is in my view appropriate that I give an indication of what my general attitude is. I am of the opinion that the actual difference in salary giving rise to salary maintenance, should stand alone and this amount reduce until absorbed as a consequence of salary adjustments to the transferred employee's substantive position. To make it absolutely clear, in my opinion the differential should not be adjusted and should in fact be absorbed as quickly as possible. Having expressed that view my decision in this matter is that a savings provision be included in the Award; the provision to lapse when the $60 has been absorbed as a consequence of movements, for whatever reason, to Mr Tomalin's new classification. The order reflecting my decision is attached. The operative date is the effective date of Mr Tomalin's transfer, i.e. 1 January 1986.
R K Gozzi |