IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This application seeks to vary Sections IV, V and VI of Part II, Conditions, of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award (the Award) by inserting into the Award provisions to reflect a reduction in weekly working hours from forty (40) hours to thirty eight (38).

Mr. Rees, appearing for the applicant organisation, the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmania No. 2 Branch (H.E.F.), referred the Commission to the agreed draft order attached to the application and which contains all of the consequential Award changes necessarily made to allow for a hours reduction to thirty eight hours a week.

Mr. Rees was granted leave to amend the draft order to effect several minor corrections to the original document, including a new page ten.

The H.E.F. was supported in its application by Mr. Imlach, appearing for the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch, by Mr. Brown appearing for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch and by Mr. Grant appearing for the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, Tasmanian Branch.

Mr. Rees informed me that the matter before the Commission is intended to give effect to an agreement between the parties to the relevant sections of the Award for the introduction of a 38 hour week.

Mr. Brown indicated that whilst the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries was representing employers, extensive direct negotiations by the unions involved, with employers and establishment representatives, had also taken place.

The important task of satisfying the Commission that the proposed reduction in working hours complied with Principle 5 Standard Hours, was left to Mr. Sertori, appearing for the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries.

Whilst applications for a reduction in working hours are reasonably common place, an essential requirement is the vetting of them in accordance with the strict tests of Principle 5.

In this regard I noted that the parties had applied themselves with apparent diligence. In particular I found Mr. Sertori's exhibits S1 and S2 extremely helpful.

Those exhibits set forth a summary of all of the cost offsets (exhibit S1) and a cost evaluation of those offsets (exhibit S2).

The summary of cost offsets contains seventeen (17) specific items, and each item was explained in detail by Mr. Sertori.

I was impressed by his documentary in support of each specific cost offset. In my opinion his comments added weight to his submission that employers in the respective establishments are totally aware of the proposed changes to the Award and the new methods of work, and that they are prepared for them.

I am mindful that the application before the Commission concerns three distinct areas; Residential Hostels, Sheltered Workshops and Day Training and Activity Therapy Centres. Each area involves employees working with and caring for Intellectually, Physically and/or Sensory Handicapped Persons.

I therefore accept Mr. Sertori's submission that, consequentially, the method of implementation of the 38 hour week will vary between establishments.

Notwithstanding this aspect, I am satisfied that a genuine attempt has been made by all concerned; employers, unions and employee representatives, to offset costs and to facilitate an efficient introduction of the 38 hour week.

The extensive discussions between the parties referred to by Mr. Rees, Mr. Brown and Mr. Sertori, have resulted in working arrangements which accord with the dicta for the introduction of shorter working hours contained in Principle 5.

Mr. Sertori's exhibit S2, as amended, shows that the residue time cost for the 38 hour week will be 0.277, representing the average cost of implementation across the three Sections of the Award.

Specifically, the breakdown of costs and cost offsets are as follows:-

(Source - Exhibit S2)

A detailed analysis of the above costs and offsets are contained in exhibit S2. Each area of cost offset was thoroughly explained by Mr. Sertori. I agree with his comments when he said

"... you will see as we go through this document that the resulting cost of the 38 hour week is certainly negligible ...."

Transcript p.18

Later Mr. Sertori said

"... that certainly is a negligible cost and one that will not impose any difficulty upon the economic circumstances of any of the establishments."

Transcript p.21

On reflection, it is obvious to me that a great deal of ground work has been undertaken to pave the way for the introduction of the 38 hour week.

For instance, substantial in-plant discussions have begun with employees; also the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries has conducted seminars for all those establishments affected, outlining the entire award changes and some of the more unique aspects of the 38 hour week.

Mr. Sertori ably demonstrated to the Commission that the whole exercise leading to this application was methodically undertaken and the preparation for the introduction of the 38 hour week has been thorough.

In summary, I conclude that the introduction of a 38 hour week for employees subject to Sections IV, V and VI of the Award adequately meets the tests required to be applied by Principle 5.

A further important consideration in this matter is that of Public Interest.

During the course of these proceedings I had this consideration and Principle 5 in mind.

I am satisfied that the granting of this application is consistent with the Public Interest and that neither the economic position of the establishments affected by my decision, nor the economy of Tasmania, will be adversely affected.

In this instance, the operative date for my decision will reflect the agreed position of the parties in this matter, that is the first pay period commencing on or after 17 March, 1986.

The order (correction order) reflecting my decision will be issued in due course, and will be issued as a consolidated award.

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER