Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T5188, T5189 and T5190

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.23 application for award or variation of award

Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union -
Tasmanian Branch

(T.5188, T.5189 and T.5190 of 1994)

HOTELS, RESORTS, HOSPITALITY AND MOTELS AWARD
LICENSED CLUBS AWARD
RESTAURANT KEEPERS AWARD
and Correction Order

 

COMMISSIONER IMLACH

HOBART, 27 March 1995

Award variation - classification rates and supplementary payments relative to other minimum rates awards

REASONS FOR DECISION

These applications, which were joined at the outset for hearing purposes, were made by the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch (the Union) and sought variations to the Hotels, Resorts, Hospitality and Motels Award, the Licensed Clubs Award and the Restaurant Keepers Award (the three Awards).

The variations sought followed and relied upon a decision in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, on 10 June 1994, amending the Hotels, Resorts and Hospitality Industry Award 1992 of that Commission. In brief that decision introduced a second Minimum Rates Adjustment (MRA) process in particular to align the wages prescribed in the federal award with the federal Metal Industries Award MRA percentage standards based upon the tradesman's rate being the 100% criterion which percentages emanated from the 1989 federal National Wage Case decision. All this involved changes in relativities. These applications sought to apply the relevant parts of the federal decision to the three Awards in the form of changes to classification levels, wages and definitions. The prosecution of all these matters was based upon the continued application of the Structural Efficiency Principle in the Guidelines of the Commission. There were other consequential amendments also sought.

The parties presented with quite a degree of agreement in these matters, but, were not agreed as to the appropriate provisions for the payment of commencing employees nor employees advancing from Level 1 to Level 2 in the classification scale, nor employees absent from the industry for some time. The Union sought to have the same provisions as in the federal amendments, but the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd (the Chamber) wanted provisions which, it claimed, were fair to all employees. The federal provisions allowed for all new employees to advance to a higher rate of pay after a set period of days on the basis that the necessary acquisition of knowledge, experience and skills would have taken place in that period.

The Chamber argued strenuously that the period concerned ought to be specified as hours worked, primarily on the basis that, were such a system not to be adopted, part-time and casual employees would advance to the next incremental step at the same time as full-time employees, but, not having had the same amount of experience.

To assist the Commission in its understanding and deliberations the parties arranged for inspections to be held at quite a number of establishments representative of the areas covered by the three Awards. The Chamber also brought witnesses forward in support of its contentions.

The Union in particular relied very much on the so-called nexus between the federal Hotels, Resorts and Hospitality Industry Award 1992 and the three Awards, in particular the Hotels, Resorts, Hospitality and Motels Award of the Commission. The Chamber acknowledged the "nexus" but, was anxious that it not be regarded as a precedent to be applied automatically. The Chamber submitted that the nexus applied, if at all, to the Hotels, Resorts, Hospitality and Motels Award of the Commission, but, not necessarily to the Restaurant Keepers Award nor the Licensed Clubs Award.

I endorse the applications to the extent that the parties were agreed.

As to the main point of disagreement I accept the submissions of the Chamber. On the basis of equity the hourly basis sought to be prescribed for those needing to gain knowledge, skills and experience is far preferable to the set periods of time sought by the Union. In the same context it is appropriate for an employee progressing from Level 1 to Level 2 to remain on the Level 1 pay rate for a period of experience and learning in the higher duties expressed in hours. I also accept the submissions of the Chamber that the claimed "nexus" with the federal award should not be slavishly followed in full when a good reason exists for not doing so.

I also agree with the Chamber that duties listed at one level in the employee classification structures in the three Awards do not need to be repeated for higher levels; this is consistent with the provisions of the Structural Efficiency clauses of the three Awards.

I am satisfied that the amendments sought are in accordance with the Guidelines of the Commission and are not against the public interest.

Accordingly I decide that the draft orders submitted by the Union will be implemented subject to variations I have decided above.

The operative dates agreed between the parties, commencing on 1 May 1995, are endorsed, but, those increases due in the future will need to be applied for as they fall due.

 

P.A. Imlach
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr D. Mathewson for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch.
Mr F. Johnson for The Registered Clubs of Tasmania Co-operative Society Limited.
Mr S. Gates for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1994.
Hobart:
October 10, 26
1995.
Hobart:
February 7