Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

TP1/16

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Decision Appealed - See T2356 T2357 T2358

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

TP1/16 IN THE MATTER OF A REFERRAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 63(10)(b) FOR DETERMINATION OF INTEREST OF THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA, TASMANIA BRANCH IN THE WELFARE WORKERS AWARD
   
COMMISSIONER P.A. IMLACH

HOBART, 14 March 1990

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPEARANCES:

 

For the Hospital Employees
Federation of Australia,
Tasmania Branch
- Mr R. Warwick
   
For the Tasmanian Public
Service Association
- Mr G. Vines
   
For the Tasmanian Teachers
Federation
- Mr C. Lane
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:
   
9 March 1990 Hobart  

 

This is an award interest determination referred to me by the President under Section 63(10) of the Act.

The Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, Tasmania Branch (the HEF) sought an interest in the Welfare Workers Award; the Tasmanian Public Service Association (the Association) objected to the granting of that interest.

At the hearing Mr R. Warwick appeared for the HEF and Mr G. Vines appeared for the Association.

Mr C. Lane, representing the Tasmanian Teachers Federation (TTF), sought to intervene on the basis that the TTF is an interested party.

Mr Warwick objected to the TTF being allowed to intervene, but his objection was overruled.

Mr Vines, for the Association, argued that the status quo should remain and that the HEF should not be granted interest in the Award. He pointed out that the Award covers eight State Government departments, now restructured into three, the Health Department, the Education Department and Community Health Services. The Association and the TTF are long standing parties with interest in the Award, he said; at the present time they were mutually preparing a major case on behalf of welfare workers. The Association has the majority of welfare workers enlisted in its ranks and its rules provide coverage. Altogether about 320 employees are involved.

By already seeking to enlist members the HEF had caused disruptions in the workplace and if it were granted an interest further disruption would ensue Mr Vines said.

He claimed that the status quo had been successful and that the industrial interests of welfare workers had been well catered for. He sought the upholding of the Association's objection.

Mr Lane, for the TTF, supported the Association's submissions saying that the TTF had worked well with the Association and demarcation had not been a problem, but if the HEF were granted an interest in the Award, disruption was possible. He said a lot of work for welfare workers was in hand and it was not in their interests nor the public's for an interest to be granted to the HEF. He sought a continuation of the status quo in relation to award interest.

Mr Warwick, for the HEF, claimed the granting of an interest in the Welfare Workers Award. In support of the HEF's application he quoted the requirements of Section 63(10)(c) of the Act and produced evidence supporting the fact that the HEF had complied with two of the three requirements therein, namely membership (ten members) and rules coverage. He also said that, the HEF's record for many years supported his submission that the granting of the award interest "would not prejudice the orderly conduct of industrial relations in Tasmania." He rejected claims that the granting of award interest for the HEF would cause disruption saying that healthy competition benefits the employees concerned. He also said that the granting of interest would not be against the public interest nor orderly industrial relations.

In reply, Mr Vines submitted that ten members were insignificant, in any case each one was eligible to join the TPSA. He said that whilst the HEF's rules gave coverage in the health area which was limited, the TPSA's rules and coverage applied to all areas in the jurisdiction of this Award. He said the Award was already clearly settled as to interest and in the light of the possible industrial disharmony which could well be caused he strongly objected to the granting of an interest in the Welfare Workers Award to the HEF.

Despite all the argument against the granting of an interest in the Award to the HEF, I believe I am simply bound to consider the requirements of the Act, as specified in Section 63, and, if I am satisfied that the HEF has met all those requirements satisfactorily, I ought to grant the interest unless, presumably there is some other overwhelming factor against that course; I am aware of none.

I am satisfied that the HEF has met the requirements of the Act in that:

1. it has members who are employees subject to the Award;

2. their membership is consistent with the HEF's rules; and

3. the granting of an interest in the Award will not prejudice the orderly conduct of industrial relations in Tasmania.

I therefore determine that the HEF has an interest in the Welfare Workers Award.

A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Registrar as required by Section 65A(6) of the Act.

An order, operative from the date of this decision is attached.

 

P.A. Imlach
COMMISSIONER