T8963
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited Australian Cement Holdings Enterprise Award
Award variation - nominated private sector awards - application amended - deletion of obsolete training provisions - applications granted - operative ffpp 7 September 2000 REASONS FOR DECISION This amended application, made by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (TCCI), pursuant to s.23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, was for the purpose of varying 39 private sector awards to remove obsolete training provisions. Mr T Edwards, for the TCCI, submitted that the Australian Traineeship System, which commenced about 1985, had gone through various evolutionary stages since its inception and it was clear, he said, that a number of programs were now obsolete. He contended that awards, being the subject of this application, contained obsolete training provisions related to one or more of the following items: Australian Traineeship System (AST) Mr Edwards further submitted that it was in the public interest to remove obsolete provisions from the awards as those bound by the awards might rely on them in good faith, believing them to be the extant law, and as a result, may find themselves in considerable difficulty. Mr Edwards said the TCCI was committed to a process of tidying up awards of the Commission, in respect of both apprenticeships and traineeships and, he stated, there were ongoing negotiations between registered organisations of employers and employees to update the National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award. Mr Edwards took the Commission to the process adopted by the TCCI to:
Mr Tullgren, representing the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch, indicated their support for the application. He stated that the TTLC had been involved in extensive consultations prior to the making of the application. Mr Tullgren submitted that the application was properly before the Commission and there was no basis under the terms of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 not to approve the application. He said it certainly did not offend the public interest. Mr Flanagan, for The Australian Workers' Union, Tasmania Branch, supported both the intention and the objective of the application. It was his submission that it was not contrary to the public interest and the Commission should approve the application. Mr Flanagan was of the view that the application was the first step on the path of ensuring appropriate industrial regulation in state awards relating to training matters generally. Mr Jacobson, for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch, submitted that the application was consistent with the principles established by the Commission and met the requirements of s.36 of the Act. Having heard the submissions of the parties present at the hearing, and noting the unanimous support for the application, we have arrived at the conclusion that the awards, being the subject of this application, will be varied to delete any reference to obsolete training provisions associated with: Australian Traineeship System (AST) In doing so, we are of the view that this approach is in the public interest and consistent with the Wage Fixing Principles and in particular Principle 12 - Award Review Process. This decision will take effect from the first full pay period to commence on or after 7 September 2000. In due course members of the Commission will issue Orders, in their respective areas of responsibility, giving effect to this decision.
R J Watling Appearances Date and Place of Hearing |