T3389 and T3353
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association Federated Clerks Union of Australia, RETAIL TRADES AWARD
State Wage Case August 1991 - 2.5% increase - new clauses REASONS FOR DECISION These applications for the increase of 2.5 per cent in wage rates and work related allowances in accordance with the State Wage Decision of 13 August 1991 were heard contemporaneously. Mr Griffin, for the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA), tendered a draft order dealing with the proposed variations and in detail addressed the structural efficiency requirements of the Principles. He submitted that the parties either had already dealt with, or were in the process of dealing with, those issues set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the Structural Efficiency Principle. In particular that the award already gave specific consideration to: (i) contract of employment matters dealing with the employment of casual and part time employees; (ii) the arrangement of working hours;
(b) Broken Leave; Hours of Work; Overtime; Rosters. (iv) Enterprise Agreements based on increased efficiency and productivity (an amendment to the existing clause was proposed which will ensure that all agreements which seek to vary a provision of the award shall be referred to the Commission). A clause was proposed to be inserted in the Award enabling the employer to "direct an employee to carry out such duties as are within the limits of the employee's skill competence and training: provided that such duties are not designed to promote deskilling". A Structural Efficiency clause in the following terms was proposed which it was submitted further complied with that Principle:-
Mr Griffin asserted that the parties had implemented substantially the Structural Efficiency Principle contained in the October 1989 State Wage Case decision and had commenced the minimum rates adjustment process. In conclusion he sought retrospective operation of the increase to 13 August 1991. In support of the claim for retrospectivity he relied on the delay caused by his first application being rejected by the Registrar (it was improperly authorised) and the precedent established by a Full Bench in the recent public sector matter. As a secondary position Mr Griffin submitted that the date of operation should be the date of hearing, viz. 13 September 1991. Mr Grubb for the Federated Clerks Union of Australia (FCU) supported the submissions of the SDA and indicated that his union would be clarifying the situation relating to its new classification structure in the near future. Mr Strickland for the National Union of Workers (NUW) and Mr Hansch for The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU) also expressed support for the proposed award variations tendered by the SDA. While the SDA, FCU and TWU had given the written commitments required by the Principle, Mr Strickland advised that his union's commitment was forwarded in relation to each award and would be provided that day. That commitment has been received. For the employers Mr Abey indicated consent to the applications provided the operative date was not retrospective. He submitted that no special grounds had been established to justify a retrospective date of operation. Mr McDougall endorsed the submissions made by Mr Abey. I indicated on transcript that I was satisfied that the parties had complied with the requirements of the Principles and I determined that subject to receiving in writing the commitment of the NUW in respect of this award it would be varied in the manner proposed. So far as operative date was concerned I informed the parties that I intended to reject the application for retrospectivity on the grounds that it was not justified in these circumstances. That intention is now confirmed. Accordingly the award variations will be operative from the first full pay period commencing on or after 13 September 1991. A copy of the order [correction order] is attached.
F D Westwood Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: |