IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

On 31 July 1985, we decided to make a first separate award in respect of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) and directed the parties and the intervenor to prepare a draft for submission to the Commission.

We issued extensive written reasons on 13 February, and 2 December 1986, concerning this question as well as why we were not prepared to adjourn sine die or permit withdrawal of the applications.

On the last mentioned date we said this matter would be listed for continued hearing to finalize the award early in 1987.

On 10 June 1987, the matter was listed for mention. When it came on for hearing on that date the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) sought an adjournment to a date to be fixed pending the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission going to the question of possible Federal award coverage.

We refused the adjournment application in the terms sought but instead adjourned to 26 June 1987, when we would hear the parties in relation to remaining clauses of the draft award.

Because of our decision the TPSA withdrew from the proceedings.

In the intervening period the TPSA sought to have us restricted from further hearing this matter pursuant to Section 66 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. A Full Bench of the Federal Commission dismissed that application.

When the hearing resumed the Minister for Public Administration and the Minister for Industrial Relations were represented separately.

Both Ministerial representatives said they did not agree with our decision to make a first award for TMAG nor the reasons advanced by us.

They requested that we seriously consider reversing our decision to make an award. This would allow the Minister for Public Administration to apply any existing awards deemed appropriate to classifications employed at TMAG.

The request in this regard was supported by the TPSA.

We now address the request to reverse our decision to make an award.

It needs to be stated that ever since we made our decision in this matter the principal parties have refused, in one way or another, to accept it and have continued to argue it at every opportunity. This has been the most significant factor in causing the matter to be so protracted.

As long ago as 13 February 1986, in our Reasons for Interim Decision when addressing an application for an adjournment sine die, we said at page 16:

"The reasons advanced to us for an adjournment sine die amount to no more than a rejection of our earlier decision to make a new, separate award in respect of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and its employees."

We went on to say at page 17:

"The predisposition of the parties to close their minds to the proper role and function of this Commission, pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1984, and the principles adopted by this Commission compared to the separate and distinct function of Heads of Agency and others pursuant to the State Services Act amounts to no more than a nihilism."

Clearly, from that time nothing has changed, despite our comprehensive reasons given then and subsequently.

So far as we are concerned no new relevant reasons have been advanced at this time. Rather the same old reasons have been rehashed.

Our considered, unanimous, view remains unaltered. Ours is the award-making function and duty, imposed by the requirements of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984. In carrying out that function and duty we are required amongst other things to satisfy ourselves as to public interest (Section 36).

We are bound by the Wage Fixation Principles, as are the TPSA.

This Commission adopted those Principles after conducting a hearing at which were represented major employer and trade union organizations.

The Commission adopted those Principles because, among other reasons, it was found to be in the public interest that we do so.

Significantly, we were also urged to adopt those Principles by the Minister for Public Administration and the Minister for Industrial Relations. Now that we are rigidly and even-handedly applying those Principles there appears to be some resistance being applied for the sake of expediency.

Such an impasse as has now been reached, if indeed that is what it is, is clearly undesirable, and it disturbs us that a Full Bench decision of this Commission should be continually frustrated in the way that it has by such significant parties and the statutory intervenor.

Nevertheless it is important that where we are satisfied on all of the material and evidence before us that a course of action is right, then that course be carried out regardless of the status of the parties concerned.

We are, after all, an independent and impartial statutory body and as such will make the difficult decisions without fear or favour, regardless of who is involved.

We see it as of considerable importance that the TMAG be covered by a distinctly separate award and reject the argument that the decision to make such an award be reversed.

Consequently the hearing will be resumed at 10.30am on Wednesday, 15 July 1987, for the purpose of giving interested parties the final opportunity of addressing the content of the award.