Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T1976

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.1976 of 1989 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TASMANIAN CONFEDERATION OF INDUSTRIES FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE RETAIL TRADES AWARD

RE: SECTION MANAGER

PRESIDENT 13 JULY 1989
INTERPRETATION
APPEARANCES:
For the Tasmanian Confederation
of Industries
- Mr. T.J. Edwards
  with
  Mr. J. Clements
For the Secretary for Labour, Department
of Labour and Industry
- Mr. C. Johnston
  and
  Mr. M. Armsby
For the Shop Distributive and Allied
Employees' Association,
Tasmanian Branch
- Mr. P. Targett
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:
11.7.89                  Ulverstone

This application for interpretation of the Retail Trades Award came before the Commission at Ulverstone on 11 July 1989.

Mr. Edwards, representing the applicant, sought and was granted leave to amend the application. The subject matter then before the Commission became the pre-existing classification of "Section Manager/Manageress and/or Buyer/Orderer". He reminded the Commission that that classification had been the subject of an application for interpretation on a previous occasion.1

Mr. Edwards informed the Commission that this matter came before the Commission following an investigation carried out by the Department of Labour and Industry consequent on a complaint made by Mr. Bradley Grey, an ex employee of K-Mart in Burnie. The DLI concluded that Mr Grey should have been appropriately classified under the award definition of Section Manager/Manageress and/or Buyer/Order, a contention with which the employer disagreed. The employer concluded that, having regard for the circumstances of his employment, Mr Grey had been award free. It was alleged there was no classification in the award that would appropriately cover the duties he had performed.

At the request of the applicant the hearing was adjourned into private conference in order that the parties might explore their differences with a view to resolving the dispute.

Subsequently Mr. Edwards advised the Commission that discussions between the parties, (principally between the company and the Department of Labour and Industry representative) had broken down. And in view of the Department's stated intention to litigate this matter regardless of the outcome of proceedings before the Commission, the company had decided to withdraw its application for interpretation.

The application to withdraw is granted. The file is therefore closed.

 

L.A. Koerbin
PRESIDENT

1 T.392 of 1986