IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

This matter concerns an application by the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) (the FLAIEU) was heard in conjunction with matter T. No 1570 of 19881, and seeks to vary the Restaurant Keepers Award by increasing all wage rates by 4% in accordance with the requirements of the Second Tier Principle of the Wage Fixation Principles. Consistent with such requirements the application includes a number of other proposed award variations going to conditions of employment, and these are categorised as cost offsets.

A small number of other minor variations are included, but they fall under the heading of "tidying up of the award" matters. Basically they either remove or update redundant award provisions.

Agreed cost offset items include the following:

1. New classification of "All Others".

2. New junior rate for 16 years of age and under in Divisions B, C and D.

3. Apprentices who complete trade to be paid adult wages.

4. Board and Lodging figures updated by 100%.

5. Casual clause updated.

6. More flexible times for taking of meal breaks by reducing time to be worked prior to commencement from two hours to half an hour.

7. Overtime and Penalty Rates clause update.

8. Greater flexibility of part-time hours by reducing minimum period to be worked from 4 to 3 hours a day and 12 to 9 hours a week.

9. Greater flexibility in form of payment of wages.

10. Greater onus placed on employees to comply with appropriate notice in respect of sick leave.

11. Update of Time and Wage Provision.

12. Restriction of travel allowance to overtime.

13. New requirements for return of uniform to reduce loss.

14. Provision for efficiency discussions at workplace level (non-award matters) then report to Industrial Commission prior to implementation, if necessary.

Whilst it was generally acknowledged that costing the savings attributable to the above items is difficult on an industry wide basis, it was claimed that in combination they are significant and justify the granting of the 4% claim, with the qualification that employer representatives argued that a matter still in dispute needed to be included in the package. That matter concerns the "Mixed Functions" clause and the parties requested I arbitrate upon the outcome.

To illustrate the extent to which cost savings may be made the FLAIEU produced exhibit S5 to show that in respect of just one item savings in the order of 8.8% could be achieved. The example is as follows:

Assume an employer employs a person for ten hours casual then makes them part-time (kitchenhand);

Saving of $8.81 or 8.8%

Such savings will now be possible because of the greater flexibility and less stringent award provisions proposed.

In addressing the question of the Wage Fixation Principles, the parties relied upon the Restructuring and Efficiency Principle .

It was stated that the proposals advanced were also sustainable on the basis of the fact that:

1. Discussions between the parties were lengthy and detailed and constituted genuine attempts to achieve a result based upon proper criteria.

2. There was a complete absence of industrial action.

3. Cost savings negotiated are real.

4. The consultative process was difficult given the high degree of casualisation of employees and the lack of uniformity of hours worked in the industry.

5. Whilst costings are approximate, employers can achieve significant savings if they manage restaurants efficiently.

6. The approach taken by the parties in this matter is similar to those elements of the Retail Trades Case matter2 which were accepted by a Full Bench of this Commission.

7. Similar changes to the Motels Award3 were accepted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The parties could not agree to a variation to the "Mixed Functions" provisions already contained in the award. However, it was a matter of common ground that problems which have occurred in the past relate to the failure of the award to clearly define the duties and responsibilities of persons differently classified.

Both parties are committed to addressing this part of the problem as soon as possible, together with an examination of the possible review and perhaps amalgamation of some classifications.

For my part I really only need to address myself to the question as to whether or not the package presented is sufficient to justify the granting of a 4% wage increase in the terms of the Principles, or whether other items need to be found.

On the evidence and material placed before me I am satisfied that the improvements in pay sought will not result in increased costs exceeding 4% of wages and salaries. I am also satisfied that to grant the claim would be consistent with Section 36 of the Act.

The claim is therefore granted.

I do believe it is in the best interest of all parties concerned to address the problems associated with lack of clarity or other deficiencies of the award. And leave is reserved for either party to raise such issues at a later time.

OPERATIVE DATE

As from the first pay period to commence on or after 1 November 1988.

Order [correction order] is attached.

A. Robinson
PRESIDENT

1 Licensed Clubs Award
2 T No 1165 of 1988
3 C No 2808 of 1988