TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s29 application for hearing of an industrial dispute

Pasminco Metals - EZ
(T.3686 of 1992)

and

Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees,
Tasmanian Branch

Industrial dispute - allocation of duties during ordinary work hours - production levels in the Cell Room

REASONS FOR FURTHER DECISION

This matter concerned a dispute between Pasminco Metals - EZ (Pasminco) and the Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch (FIMEE) concerning production levels in the Cell Room. The issues was previously addressed in my Reasons For Decision dated 14 May 1992.

In essence Pasminco contended that production output on Number 3 shift was consistently low and was the cause of some concern. The graph in Exhibit N.7 appeared to support that contention.

Mr Long appearing for FIMEE expressed some safety concerns which he suggested impacted on production output. Nevertheless he indicated that the employees concerned had passed a resolution that they would work "consistently and safely".

If there are indeed safety concerns, then these should be addressed as a matter of first priority. Clearly however it is questionable, to say the least, that there should be such a difference in output between the remaining shifts compared to Number 3 shift.

A further issue in these proceedings related to the prerogative of Pasminco to direct an employee to carry out such duties as are within the limits of the employee's skill, competence and training. In the August 1991 State Wage Case decision (T.3069 and 3166 of 1991) the Full Bench said that this would be adopted as a principle:

"...on the understanding that any award provision enabling an employer to direct an employee to carry out such duties as are within the limits of the employee's skill, competence and training should not deny such employee any award entitlement which might be applicable for performing work of a higher classification; nor should the provision enable the employer to pay an employee at a rate lower than the employee's substantive classification for performing work of a lower classification."

Decision p.21

Clearly the employer has, as a consequence of the provisions of clause 13(f)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Electrolytic Zinc Award the authority to direct employees to work as directed provided that the understandings referred to in the above Full Bench decision are observed. Nothing was put to the Commission to support that Pasminco had acted to the contrary.

Subsequent to the hearing in this matter I was informed by the parties that production output on Number 3 shift had improved, albeit that sulphur dioxide problems had an adverse effect. Having regard to the report of the parties it appears that further proceedings are not necessary.

Accordingly this file is closed.

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr G Long and Mr M Reeves for the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch.
Mr A Fenech and Mr Jeffries for Pasminco Metals - EZ.

Date and place of hearing:
1992
Hobart
August 17