Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T426 - President - 14 November

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

 

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

 
T.426 of 1986 IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Minister for Public Administration to vary the DRAFTING OFFICERS AWARD
   
  re: coverage for part-time and casual employees; inclusion of the Minister for Public Administration as the employer party; restructuring of classification scales; and removal of discriminatory terminology and redundant material
   
PRESIDENT 14 November 1986
 

 REFERENCE TO A FULL BENCH

Mr Commissioner Gozzi has referred to me a number of issues upon which he has requested a ruling. I have been asked to decide whether or not all or any of the matters he has identified should now be dealt with by a Full Bench. Those matters are conveniently listed on page 30 of his interim decision of 11 November 1986 and are stated to be questions arising as to:-

1. Application of the Drafting Officers Award to all drafting officers whether members of a registered organisation or not.

2. Qualifications held by employees that are deemed by the Commissioner of Public Employment to be equivalent to those prescribed by award, or asked for by the employing authority as a prerequisite to appointment or promotion.

3. The definition of "temporary employee", including the question of the time an employee may be regarded as temporary.

4. Whether or not existing award references to employees being "classified or graded" should be now altered to read "appointed or promoted", having regard for the provisions of the State Service Act 1984.

5. The correct terminology to be included in relation to progression of trainee drafting officers.

6. The need for, use, acceptance and inclusion in the award of, classification standards.

7. Appropriate terminology to indicate the source from which conditions of service applicable to employees is to be ascertained.

8. Whether or not the award should contain references to the Head of Agency in lieu of or in addition to references to the controlling authority.

Having now studied the Commissioner's interim decision I have formed the opinion that the questions raised by him are of sufficient importance to warrant those matters being dealt with by a Full Bench.

This will inevitably involve wide-ranging discussion. In view of this, and bearing in mind the sensitive economic climate in which decisions must now be taken, it seems to me this reference might also be used as an appropriate vehicle to facilitate objective debate on the extent to which the controlling authority or his agent should be free to determine, by classification or other means, the level of remuneration for work done by State employees.

Sections 3 (5) and (6) of the State Service Act 1984, and Section 32 (5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 appear to provide sufficient scope for the Commission to hear argument about, and pronounce upon, its perceived role in dealing with industrial matters, including disputes, affecting State employees.

I will therefore convene a Full Bench to consider all of the matters referred to by Mr Commissioner Gozzi and restated by me as items 1 to 8. In addition, pursuant to Section 25 (4) of the Act I will refer to the Bench the general question of the role of the Commission in relation to determination of salaries, salary scales, qualifications for appointments or promotion, disputes and conditions of employment affecting State Employees, as defined. In this way it may be possible to establish clear guidelines for expediting rationalisation (if that be a desirable consequence) of awards covering State employees.

 

L. A. Koerbin
PRESIDENT