Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T1905, T1913 and T1951

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.1905, T.1913 and
T.1951 of 1989
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS BY THE SHOP DISTRIBUTIVE AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND THE FEDERATED CLERKS UNION TO VARY THE BOOTMAKERS AWARD
   
  RE: 3% SUPERANNUATION, 4% SECOND TIER AND 38 HOUR WEEK
   
COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI HOBART, 23 June 1989
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Federated Clerks Union
of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch
- Mr D Fry
   
For the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association
- Tasmanian Branch
- Mr P Fenton
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries - Mr T Edwards
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
19 June 1989             Hobart  
   

These applications concern Divisions D and E of the Bootmakers Award. The applications specifically seek the variation of those Divisions to incorporate a 38 hour week, the 4 per cent second tier wage increase based on appropriate offsets and 3 per cent Superannuation provisions.

Mr Fry submitted that the parties had reached agreement and that the variations sought to be made are by consent.

The offsets for the 38 hour week and second tier increase broadly reflect those endorsed in the Retail Trades Award.

Where applicable these will be incorporated as award variations to Divisions D and E.

The operative date for those variations and those giving effect to the 38 hour week and 4 per cent will be from the first pay period to commence on or after 31 July 1989.

Superannuation

This was also a consent matter and is endorsed by the Commission operative from the first pay period to commence on or after 28 August 1989.

The Procedure for seeking exemptions has been modified following a conference between the Commission and the parties.

Essentially the exemption provision is to reflect that in the event of any exemption applications being made these will be determined by the Commission and not otherwise. All applications for exemption are to be made to the Commission; however I would anticipate that the parties hold some prior discussions before a hearing takes place to determine their respective attitudes to the application(s).

Nothing in the exemption clause is to be construed to mean that any of the parties have a direction in refusing or endorsing an application that may be made for exemption. That is a matter for the Commission.

The draft orders in respect of all matters are to be forwarded to the Commission in due course.

At this stage, as only Divisions D and E are subject to the variations now endorsed, appendices to those Divisions will suffice.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER