IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This application by the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association of Australia, Tasmanian Branch, was filed on 25 October 1988. It came before the Commission for mention in Launceston on 15 November 1988, and the hearing resumed in Hobart on 2 December.

The application sought inclusion in the Retail Trades Award of provisions to cater for the employment of Nightfill Assistants; that is, employees specifically engaged for the purpose of replenishing fixtures and/or shelves at night in supermarkets.

Mr Fenton, representing the SDAEA, informed the Commission that the application then before the Commission arose out of an agreement between the SDAEA and Coles Supermarkets registered before the then Industrial Board in 1979 which, it was submitted, remained extant. He said that during discussions concerning implementation of a 38-hour week it was decided to overhaul the original document and replace it with a new one along the same lines as an award. That agreement was expanded to include K Mart, and was signed by all parties in 1988.

However a "hiccup" arose in relation to the "after midnight" allowance and this became the subject of a dispute notified with the Commission in July 1988.1 But as part of an "outside-Commission" settlement, Mr Fenton said it had been decided that agreement particulars should be presented to the Commission for the purpose of having nightfill employees identified under the Retail Trades Award. It was submitted that an award variation reflecting conditions and wage rates for Nightfill Assistants would have wider general application than the somewhat restrictive scope of an agreement.

Mr Edwards for the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries concurred. He acknowledged that the variation sought was in line with the agreement said to be then in force. Moreover it would mean that the same provisions would be available to all employers in the retail industry. He said that the requested variation would be very much in the public interest. Mr Edwards indicated that at present employers who wish to use people during the hours stated in the proposed variation would be paying overtime rates. The requested award variation would therefore mean a cost reduction. Obviously there would be no cost impact on the industry should the claim be granted.

Mr Blackburn for the Retail Traders' Association supported the application.

An operative date of 1 January 1989 was requested by both Messrs Fenton and Edwards. This was not opposed by Mr Blackburn.

At the request of the parties the Commission's decision and order was deferred to allow sufficient time to frame a suitable draft. This was duly prepared but later further amended.

In due course a draft variation acceptable to all parties was submitted to the Commission together with an explanation regarding the reason why it became necessary to further amend the already agreed document.

The final proposal is acceptable to the Commission and offends neither the guidelines nor the public interest.

For that reason the award will be varied as agreed. However the date of operation shall be from the first pay period commencing on or after today's date. The wage rates stated include both the State Wage Case 3% and $10 components.

In agreeing to amend the award in the manner proposed it needs to be noted that on the one hand employers have reserved the right to, at some later stage, recanvass the question of commencing time on Thursday nights. For its part the union indicated an intention to further pursue the matter of cessation of work at midnight on public holidays.

L A Koerbin
PRESIDENT

1 T1443 of 1988