T4258 and T4259
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, MEAT TRADES AWARD
Award variation - export and local boning and slicing tallies REASONS FOR DECISION These applications by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, Tasmanian Branch (AMIEU) sought the variation of the Meat Trades Award and the Abattoirs Award to include export and local boning and slicing tallies. The applications were joined for hearing purposes. Primarily the claim by the AMIEU was predicated on providing better opportunity for employees engaged in boning and slicing to continue working in the meat industry to retiring age which was said by Mr Swallow not to be the norm because of excessive throughputs resulting in workers compensation claims rendering employees unfit to continue working as boners or slicers. Mr Swallow, apart from anecdotal commentary, did not produce any hard data to substantiate his contention relating to workers compensation; albeit I recognise and have a high regard for Mr Swallow's experience in the meat industry. Mr Swallow informed the Commission that what he was seeking was no more than what applied in all mainland States. Relevant comparative award information was provided to the Commission by Mr Swallow in Exhibits AMIEU1, 2 and 3. However the key to the AMIEU claim was Exhibit AMIEU4. This exhibit equated the weekly wage rates for boners and slicers in Division B of the Abattoirs Award to the weekly tallies for those categories of employees as set out in Clause 51 of Division B of that award. The rationale in this approach was to demonstrate to the Commission that when the weekly wage rates for boners and slicers are divided by the per carcase piecework rates weekly tallies are achieved. That is, in the case of a boner for example, who has a weekly wage of $374.30, the weekly tally, having regard to the piecework rate of 0.9826 cents per mutton carcase would be 381 mutton carcases per week, i.e. $374.30 divided by 0.9826 cents. However in the tallies part of the award, i.e. Clause 51, the weekly tally for a boner is 400 mutton carcases per week. Mr Swallow claimed that 381 mutton carcases a week should be regarded as tally, not 400 carcases. The same rationale applies to slicers; although the weekly wage rate and the carcase rates are different. As are the carcase rates for the various categories of stock processed, whether boning or slicing. However the mutton carcase example referred to above is illustrative of the submissions advanced by Mr Swallow. Mr Edwards appearing for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia (Tasmanian Division) on behalf of meat industry employers which are members of these organisations opposed the claim principally on the basis that it could not be sustained having regard to the wage fixing principles. Essentially Mr Edwards contended that the only avenue available to the AMIEU was to prosecute its claim in accordance with the Work Value Changes Principle. That being the case the datum point for work value assessment is the date subsequent to the operation of the second instalment structural efficiency exercise; which in respect of the Meat Trades Award and Abattoirs Award was 24 May 1991. Mr Edwards submitted that as there had been no change in the work involved since that date, justification for lowering existing tallies as set out in Clause 51 could not be established. Also to illustrate the cost impact of the AMIEU claim Mr Edwards demonstrated in Exhibits TCCI.1 and TCCI.2 that in the event throughput (processing levels) was maintained at existing tally levels as set out in Clause 51 of the Abattoirs Award wages costs would increase from 9.7 per cent to 21.95 per cent, per week, depending on the type of processing undertaken. Mr Swallow submitted that increased costs was not an issue in this matter as negotiations on overtally rates could take place following the equation of tallies to the weekly wage rates set out in Division B of the Abattoirs Award. I understand the motivations of Mr Swallow in promoting this claim. The reality is however that it cannot succeed having regard to the requirements of the wage fixing principles relevant at the time. As was stated by Mr Edwards on behalf of those employer members of the TCCI and MATFA, justification for a work value change cannot be sustained and accordingly the claim must fail. Quite apart from that however it was not made clear to me whether or not piecework rates were established on the basis that they comprehend an incentive component for piecework processing. Apart from that I can think of no other logical reason why the weekly wage rates in Division B and the piecework rates for carcases processed subject to Clause 51 do not equate for tally purposes. Having regard to the manner in which the award is framed in so far as Clause 51 is concerned where reference is made to pieceworkers being paid not less than the appropriate weekly wage rates in Division B, in the event meat is not available for processing, I assume that those people involved in putting that particular proviso in Clause 51 did so for a very good reason. That being that weekly wage rates in Division B would only be available to pieceworkers in the event no meat was available for processing and that when processing was undertaken the piecework rates would apply. It would appear there never was any intention to equate tallies for pieceworkers with the weekly wage rates for boners and slicers in Division B. None of the foregoing does anything to ameliorate the concerns of Mr Swallow which go to ensuring longevity in the meat industry for his members. I reiterate that those concerns were not demonstrated to the Commission by the production of hard data. However I accept that Mr Swallow is genuinely concerned. Given the impediments of the February 1992 wage fixing principles and having regard to my observations on the relationship between piecework rates and weekly wage rates for tally purposes, it would seem to me that this particular issue is capable of being addressed concomitant with the structural reviews of the awards which I have been urging the parties to undertake. The issue should also be capable of being further addressed in industrial agreement negotiations which I understand form the record of these proceedings are taking place between the AMIEU and some employers. I would also draw to the attention of the parties the introduction of the Enterprise Awards or Section 55 Agreements Wage Fixing Principle as outlined in the December 1993 State Wage Case decision. Clearly the way has been opened for individual enterprise negotiations and for the outcome to be reflected in Enterprise Awards or Section 55 Agreements.
R.K. Gozzi Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: |