Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T1524, T1525, T1549 and T1550

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T1524, 1525, 1549 & 1550 OF 1988 IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE WAGE CASE DECISION FOR THE HOSPITALS AWARD
   
COMMISSIONER R J WATLING HOBART, 26 September 1988
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, Tasmanian Branch - Mr. G. Grant
   
For the Hospital Employees Federation of
Australia Tasmania No 1 & 2 Branches
- Mr. P. Imlach with
  Mrs. V. de Groot
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation
of Industries
- Mr. W. Fitzgerald
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
22 September 1988         Hobart  

 

When the Full Bench of the Commission handed down the State Wage Case decision on 5 September 1988, it stated that the award variations arising out of that decision would be processed by individual members of the Commission.

Therefore, I convened a conference of the parties to the Hospitals Award on 13 September 1988 for the purpose of examining whether or not certain sections of the Award should be varied as the two Branches of the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, being parties to this award, gave the commitment in the form required.

The Full Bench stated in its decision that:-

"(g) It is not the Commission's intention to approve agreements or arbitrate any increases to wages or salaries or any other award improvements unless all unions party to an award give a commitment in the prescribed form.

However, in the isolated case where commitments are not forthcoming from all unions party to the award, a member of the Commission may vary a certain Division(s) contained in the award where he is satisfied the particular classifications are clearly delineated and all unions whose members are covered under that Division have given the required commitment. This will only be done after hearing submissions from all parties to the award or agreement. In each case the question of the operative date of the award will be left to the Commissioner concerned."

This matter was for the purpose of hearing submissions from the parties to this award regarding the divisions that should be varied arising out of the State Wage Case decision as the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, Tasmanian Branch did not give their commitment to the Wage Fixation Principles on the day set out in the decision.

At the hearing, Mr. Imlach, on behalf of the two Branches of the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, maintained there were a number of clear divisions within the Hospitals Award which delineated classifications, and as the unions he represented gave the required commitment, those divisions should be varied.

Mr. Grant, representing the RANF, opened his submission by reading into transcript a commitment to the Principles for this award on behalf of his organisation and sought increases to all divisions of the award, including those nursing classifications for whom his organisation had constitutional coverage.

In the State Wage Case decision, the Full Bench decided that on Friday, 9 September 1988, there would be a hearing to take the required commitments in the prescribed form from all unions.

It also went on to say:-

"(d) Awards not varied as a result of the hearing on 9 September 1988 will be dealt with on individual merit at a later date and be the subject of a separate application. The operative date of this decision may not automatically apply to those awards."

The purpose of this hearing was not for taking commitments from any organisation, but for the purpose of finalising orders emanating from the State Wage Case decision after certain unions had given the required commitment at the hearing on 9 September 1988.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the RANF that they should make application if they wish to now give a commitment to the Wage Fixation Principles in accordance with the State Wage Case decision.

In relation to the classifications contained in the award affecting the two Branches of the HEF, it is my decision they be varied in the terms of the State Wage Case decision from the first full pay period to commence on or after 15 September 1988.

The award is clearly divided into a number of sections and I have satisfied myself that all the unions whose members are covered under clearly delineated sections or divisions have given the required commitment.

To make it perfectly clear, those divisions that will be varied are as follows:-

Clause 8 - WAGE RATES

DIVISION A - STAFF EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE HOSPITALS -

    SUBDIVISION 2 - ANCILLARY SERVICE AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES;

    SUBDIVISION 3 - EXECUTIVE STAFF;

    Subclause 2. WAGE RATES JUNIORS

DIVISION C - EMPLOYEES IN ESTABLISHMENTS PROVIDING CARE FOR AGED PERSONS -

    SUBDIVISION 2 - TRAINED STAFF;

    SUBDIVISION 3 - ANCILLARY SERVICE AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES;

    Subclause 2. WAGE RATES - JUNIOR WORKERS

DIVISION E - EMPLOYEES OF HOMES FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS AND IN THE CASE OF ST GILES SOCIETY ALSO INCLUDES EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN AUXILIARY SERVICES AS PROVIDED -

    Subclause 2. JUNIORS

Order:

The order giving effect to the State Wage Case decision is attached.

 

R. J. WATLING
COMMISSIONER