Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T12395 - July 2006

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s23 application for award or variation of award

Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
(T12395 of 2005)

Private Sector Awards
[See end of decision for Awards varied]

 

FULL BENCH:
PRESIDENT P L LEARY
DEPUTY PRESIDENT P C SHELLEY
COMMISSIONER J P McALPINE

HOBART, 27 July 2006

Wage Rates - State Wage Case 2006 - application to vary private sector awards - Awards rates to be increased by $20 per week - Wage related allowances to be increased by 3.45% - Meal allowance increased to $13.60 - State Minimum Wage determined at $504.40 - s.35(1)(b)

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council (TTLC) seeks pursuant to ss.35(1) and (4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 (the Tasmanian Act) to:

"(i) increase all award rates and existing allowances relating to work or conditions, in private sector awards of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission, from a common operative date of, on and from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 August 2006 by an amount equivalent to 4%;

(ii) to increase the minimum wage that is payable to adults without regard to the work performed to $503.80 per week;

(iii) obtain an increase of the rate of meal allowance in all relevant awards;

(iv) to the extent necessary to effect these changes, amend the Principles of the Commission."

[2] In a letter dated 28 March, 2006, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (the Commonwealth Minister) intervened in the proceedings pursuant to s.27(3) of the Tasmanian Act and submitted that with the introduction of the WorkChoices legislation:

"....[the] Commonwealth Parliament has evinced a clear intention that:

(i) minimum rates of pay applicable to employees in the new federal system (as defined in section 5 of the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005 (WRA) - for example, employees of constitutional corporations - will be exclusively determined by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC);

(ii) minimum rates of pay applicable to other employees currently covered by the federal system will remain within the jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) for a period of 5 years (transitional employees) having regard to, amongst other things, the wage setting decisions of the AFPC, and the desirability of its decision being consistent with wage setting decisions of the AFPC."1

[3] Leave to intervene was granted to the Commonwealth Minister and in our decision of 26 April, 2006, we rejected the submission of the Commonwealth Minister, supported by employer representatives, to adjourn these proceedings to await the outcome of a determination by the AFPC.

[4] We said:

"In general terms Mr Amendola's submission [for the Commonwealth Minister] seeks that the Commission await a determination of the AFPC before considering the application before us. In other words where s.35(7) of the Tasmanian Act refers to a decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), that reference be read to mean a determination of the AFPC."2

[5] We decided that we would "hear and determine the application by the TTLC" for the following reasons:

"It is our view that to do otherwise would be to ignore our statutory obligations.

Further we consider it would be a serious injustice for those employees who remain under the jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Act, regardless of the number, not to have their claim heard, particularly as it would seem unchallenged that there is a high percentage of employees in Tasmania for whom a safety net increase is their only wage movement.

It is only those employees who have not negotiated an agreement with their employer who will be subject to any increase that may flow from the application before us and are more than likely the only employees who have not received a wage movement since August, 2005. Further, any determination of the AFPC will not apply to those employees anyway."3

[6] In our earlier decision we addressed in some detail our reasons for rejecting the submission of the Commonwealth Minister and we do not need to repeat those reasons in this decision.

[7] The Commonwealth Minister, again supported by employer representatives, now seeks that we do not make a decision on the application before us until such time as the AFPC has made its determination expected in Spring 2006.

[8] We intend to determine the application in accord with our statutory responsibilities.

[9] The following advertisement was placed in the three daily newspapers in Tasmania on 26 and 27 May 2006.

"Application No T12395 of 2005

Hearing of an application by Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council to vary all Private Sector Awards of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission to (i) increase all award rates and existing allowances relating to work or conditions, in private sector awards of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission, from a common operative date of, on or from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 August 2006 by an amount equivalent to 4 per cent (ii) to increase the minimum wage that is payable to adults without regard to the work performed to $503.80 per week (iii) obtain a special increase of rates of travelling allowances in all relevant awards and (iv) to the extent necessary to effect these changes, amend the Principles of the Commission will be heard by a Full Bench at 9.30am on Wednesday 28 June 2006 in Hearing Room 1, 1st Floor, Commonwealth Law Courts, 39-41 Davey Street, Hobart.

In a decision issued 26 April 2006 the Commission issued the following directions:

`The applicant shall file in the Commission, marked attention Kerrie Parsons, and serve on all parties who have recorded an appearance in this matter, a comprehensive outline of submissions, witness statements and any other documents on which the applicant intends to rely by close of business 2 June 2006.

A party wishing to respond to the submissions of the applicant shall file in the Commission, marked attention Kerrie Parsons, and serve on the applicant a comprehensive response to the applicant's submission, witness statements and any other documents relied upon by close of business 16 June 2006.

The application will be listed for formal hearing at 9.30am on Wednesday, 28 June 2006.

Advice as to any witnesses required for cross-examination, if relevant, should be provided by no later than close of business Friday, 23 June, 2006.' "

[10] No additional submissions were received as a result of those advertisements.

The Submissions:

[11] We deal firstly with the submissions of the Commonwealth Minister and the employer representatives seeking that we do not decide the application before us until such time as the AFPC has made its determination.

Commonwealth Minister:

[12] Having unsuccessfully sought to have the hearing delayed, the Commonwealth Minister is now seeking to have the Commission's decision delayed until after the AFPC'S decision, whenever in Spring 2006 that might be.

[13] The Commonwealth Minister submitted that such a delay would be desirable in the interests of "national consistency".

[14] In a written submission filed by the Commonwealth Minister it was argued that by making a decision in advance of the AFPC, a disparate system of minimum wages would be created, making it difficult for businesses that operate across jurisdictions.

"By abandoning national consistency in minimum wage setting, this application, if granted, could be the first step to increasing minimum wage differentials that could become more and more divergent over time...The Commonwealth submits that the appropriate course of action is for the TIC to defer a decision on these applications until it has had the opportunity to consider the decision of the Fair Pay Commission in Spring 2006."4

[15] In support of this position the Commonwealth Minister relied on information (including promotional information) about the AFPC, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Commonwealth Act) and a brief description of wage setting arrangements in OECD countries.

[16] The Commonwealth Minister argued that:

"There is only one practical way to maximise the possibility of achieving national consistency in minimum wage adjustments. That is for the jurisdiction with the numerically largest and geographically widest coverage to make a decision first. Clearly, that is the Fair Pay Commission. Following the national decision, those jurisdictions with a smaller and narrower coverage would be able to have regard to the national decision.

This approach would not guarantee national consistency. It recognises that smaller jurisdictions might decide not to follow the decision of the larger jurisdiction. But it gives the aim of consistency the greatest possible chance. It would enable consistency to be achieved wherever possible.

Such an approach is inherently sensible and has been followed by the States in the past for good reason.

To abandon the pursuit of national consistency when it is open to the TIC to delay a wage adjustment for only a few months until Spring 2006 would be most undesirable."5

[17] Further, the Commonwealth Minister submitted:

"The TIC is faced with a choice. It can, for the first time in many years, take the leap into the dark that is being encouraged by the TTLC and grant a wage adjustment in the absence of any federal decision. Alternatively, it can make its decision with the benefit of considering a national determination - a determination that will cover a significantly larger number of employees than any adjustment by the TIC"6

[18] Section 35(1)(b) of the Tasmanian Act prescribes:

"Certain matters to be dealt with by a Full Bench of the Commission

(b) making provision for, or altering, a minimum wage that is to be payable to adults without regard to the work performed."

[19] Section 47AB of the Tasmanian Act prescribes:

"The minimum weekly wage for an adult full-time employee is the Tasmanian minimum wage as determined annually by the Commission under section 35(10)(A)".

[20] Section 35(10A) of the Tasmanian Act provides:

"A Full Bench of the Commission must convene and conduct a hearing annually to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage specified in section 47AB".

[21] When discussing the provisions in the Tasmanian Act regarding minimum wage Mr Cole said that the instant case is the first determination of a Tasmanian minimum wage and there should be a consideration of the timing of that, and in particular, the question of what is the meaning of "determine annually". There is no definition of "annually" in the legislative change. He submitted:

"...And now, obviously, as a minimum it means that there would have to be hearings yearly. "Annually" means, essentially means yearly, but it does not necessarily indicate whether we are talking about a calendar year, or a financial year commencing on any particular date.

Now, certainly, after the first determination is made, in other words, after the outcome from these proceedings, there will then be a determination...in each year from that point."7

[22] Mr Cole submitted that "annually" should mean within a year from the commencement of the legislative changes which would mean within a year from 15 February 2006.

[23] Further he said that the Commission, in its decision of 26 April 2006, was inclined to the view that as a matter of law the Commission had to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage by August 2006, but, he said:

"...it is a matter of law a decision does not have to be made by August 2006, so if there were public interest considerations that persuaded the Commission to bring a decision down after that date, such as the public interest issues that the Commonwealth is emphasising about awaiting the spring 2006 determination of the Fair Pay Commission well then it is open to the Commission to do that..."8

[24] In our decision of 26 April, 2006, we said that there must be an annual determination of the minimum wage, we did not say "that as a matter of law the Commission had to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage by August 2006."

[25] We said:

"...Annually, in our view, means a 12 month period, not, as was submitted by Mr Watson, a period from August 2004 to the end of year 2006. We disagree that this could satisfy the requirement of s.35(10A) of the Act which requires that a Full Bench...must convene and conduct a hearing annually to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage..."9

The Tasmanian Minister

[26] The Tasmanian Minister for Justice and Workplace Relations (the Tasmanian Minister), in his written submission, noted that any determination by the AFPC would not apply to private sector employees who remain under the jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Act. Those employees have not received a wage adjustment since August 2005.

[27] The Tasmanian Minister submitted that:

"...on this occasion an increase of $20.00 per week is appropriate in the circumstances prevailing and should apply to the minimum wage, with a similar adjustment to all award rates of pay where applicable."

[28] And further:

"The Minister contends that such an increase provides an equitable adjustment for the lower paid whilst maintaining an effective safety net for all award covered employees.

It is noted by the Minister that both the TTLC and the TCCI have not sought amendments to the current wage fixing principles. A continuation of the existing principles is endorsed as a means of orderly wage fixing within the Tasmanian industrial relations system."

[29] The Minister submitted:

"The proposed adjustment to award rates of pay for private sector employees can be sustained through Tasmania's strong economic performance characterised through sustained jobs growth, reduction in unemployment, robust private sector investment and the development of major infrastructure projects."10

[30] Mr Baker, for the Tasmanian Minister, submitted that a flat increase of $20.00 per week was more appropriate than the 4% increase sought in the TTLC application. He said that any attempt to redress the compression of relativities was "a matter for another day and another application."

The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI)

[31] The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) submitted that its primary position was that the Commission should wait until the AFPC'S determination is known before the instant application is determined, in order to: "maintain the consistent approach of the TIC to safety net adjustments in Tasmania since the TIC's first wage case decision in 1985".11

"It has been the uncontested position for some time prior to the implementation of the WorkChoices amendments that the majority of the private sector workforce in Tasmania is covered by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Federal Awards and Agreements).

It would also be the uncontested position in our submission that this majority of employees has grown since the WorkChoices amendments on 27 March 2006."12

[32] Mr Watson, for the TCCI referred to the statement of the Full Bench in the 1999 State Wage case where it was said:

"In our opinion, recalling the words of the 1985 State Wage Case Full Bench, it is in the public interest for the Principles to operate on a uniform basis throughout the various areas of jurisdiction."

[33] He also said that:

"...to be consistent with that position the TIC would wait for the determination for the increased (since 1999) majority of employees in Tasmania before making its determination for the instant application which we submit will apply to a far lesser minority (now possibly 10% of the private sector workforce in Tasmania) than was the case in 1999.

The aforementioned statement of the Full Bench goes back to the first TIC state wage case decision of 1985, was reinforced in 1999 and has been practically continued for 2000-2005.

We submit that in the interests of consistency of outcome for minimum wage movement in Tasmania and also to continue the consistent approach to this outcome, the TIC should wait for the determination of the AFPC before determining the instant application."13

[34] The TCCI'S secondary position was that the Commission should award a safety net increase of $13.50 per week which represents a 2.8% increase in accordance with the CPI figure for the 12 months ended March quarter 2006, and a 2.5% increase to work-related allowances.

[35] Mr Watson said:

"...we believe a safety net increase of $13.50 per week would be reasonable and sustainable for the economy and for business in Tasmania.

The suggested increase of $13.50 per week is equivalent to a 2.8% increase in the minimum wage which is in accordance with the CPI figure for the 12 months ended March quarter 2006."14

[36] It was submitted that the proposed increase should apply from the first full pay period on or after 1 August, 2006.

[37] Mr K Rice, for the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers Association (TFGEA), said that he fully supported the submissions of the TCCI, as did Mr D McDougall for the Australian Retailers Association, Tasmania (ARA).

[38] Mr W FitzGerald of the Australian Mines and Metals Association Inc. (AMMA) advised the Commission, by facsimile, that he had reconsidered his previous position that AMMA had no employees covered by state awards, and that he supported the submissions of the TCCI.

The Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council (TTLC)

[39] The Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council, in their written submission, said:

"It is our application that the minimum wage should be set at $503.80.

It is further our application that the timing of the rises should be such as to maintain the traditional date of affect of first pay after August 1 in every year.

It is also submitted that it is logical, consistent and efficient that this pay hearing also deal with general movements to wage rates and wage related allowances set in the Awards of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. It is our application that these rates all be increased by 4% in line with movement in the Wage Price Index.

It is further noted that the Act requires the full bench to have regard to the decisions of the Australian Commission... The Tasmanian Industrial Commission has determined that this does not extend to the AFPC and no obligation exists to either wait for or pay consideration to any determinations of that body."15

[40] Mr Tullgren, for the TTLC submitted that:

"All such Commissions recognise they have an independent statutory responsibility to set wages. The fact is, we say, that as a result of the amendments made in the Workplace Relations Act the Commonwealth has created a situation where there is significant diversions between the Federal and the State systems. It was the Commonwealth, we say, that leapt into the dark, not the States, and we note that the Western Australian Industrial Commission addressed this issue at paragraphs 70 to 73 of their decision and at paragraph 70 the Full Bench said:

We reject the rather presumptuous written submission of the Commonwealth that for us to do as we are obliged to do under the Act would be a "leap in the dark". We note the submission was effectively disowned in the Commonwealth's oral submission. We emphasise that it is not the role of the Commission in these proceedings, as the Commonwealth seems to suggest, to somehow anticipate some future determination of the AFPC..."16

[41] The TTLC submitted that there is a positive requirement on the Commission to determine the minimum wage and all other rates of pay and that the Parliament had determined that that time would be annually.

"The [Tasmanian] Commission has the legislative obligation to consider such an application for those workers who remain within the judgment of this Commission. To await, as suggested by the Commonwealth and the employers, the outcome of the Fair Pay Commission is to suggest that the Tribunal's legislative obligations are aligned to or subordinated to those of the Fair Pay Commission."17

[42] Further:

"...if the Parliament of Tasmanian had wanted this Commission to...take account of...deliberations from the Fair Pay Commission the Parliament would have amended the law to actually say that..."18

Mr Tullgren said that whilst in strict technical terms there might be an argument that there are two minimum wages [an award minimum wage and a minimum wage for all adult full-time employees] however:

"...the practical reality is that we are talking about a minimum wage. This Commission has set a minium wage over a number of years. It is contained in the State wage-fixing principles...

...There is an intention to be a minimum wage, not to be multiple minium wages...it cannot seriously be argued...that Parliament intended that it was going to create two minimum wages that could be applied differently. "19

[43] Mr Tullgren further submitted that the Commission has had responsibility for fixing wages and that decisions had been operative from 1 August each year which would have been known by the Parliament when it made the legislative changes. The requirement at s.47AB to set a minimum wage for adult full-time employees and the requirement at s.35(1)(b) to set a minimum wage payable to adults without regard to the work performed, are effectively the same.

Economic Summary:

[44] The submissions of the TTLC, the Tasmanian Minister and the TCCI acknowledged that the Tasmanian economy has experienced a sound performance in the last financial year and into this financial year. The submissions are in concert that the National economy is strong and that it has a degree of influence on the state economy.

[45] It was acknowledged that the very positive growth of the last few years has slowed, but still remains high. The TCCI described the current Tasmanian economic environment as having plateaued, albeit at a high level.

[46] The TTLC and the Tasmanian Minister have relied upon the Tasmanian Budget papers 2006/7 and the Department of Treasury and Finance Mid Year Financial Report, December 2005 in support of their claim to increase award wages in private sector awards.

[47] The following records part of a comprehensive submission provided by the Tasmanian Minister in respect to the economic position of the State:

"The Minister contends that such an increase provides an equitable adjustment for the lower paid whilst maintaining an effective safety net for all award covered employees.

KEY FACTORS - THE ECONOMY 2006:

Tasmania continues to experience its best economic conditions in decades

Tasmania's economic performance in recent years has been characterised by:

· Sustained jobs growth in all regions of the State;

· A substantial reduction in unemployment, and in the number of long term unemployed persons;

· A strong private sector investment, reflecting high levels of business confidence;

· Continued growth in consumer spending;

· Consumer confidence due, in part, to increases in household wealth;

· Population growth and;

· A buoyant construction industry, arising from growth in dwelling investment and major infrastructure projects.

Many of Tasmania's export industries, especially mineral related industries, have benefited from economic growth in China and other major trading partners that has led to high commodity prices.

In the coming financial year it is expected that there will be:

· Continued strong economic growth, driven by investment and consumption spending and growth in the value of exports;

· Further growth in employment;

· Major projects, including those undertaken by State Government businesses, that will benefit the Tasmanian economy, both directly and indirectly;

· Favourable monetary conditions, with low and stable inflation and relatively low nominal real interest rates;

· An expanding export sector due to favourable national and global economic conditions.

Despite slower GDP growth over the past year, the Australian economy remains robust. The Australian Government Budget for 2006-07 forecasts a national growth rate of 3¼ per cent.

The forecast population and employment growth and income tax cuts announced in the Australian Government's 2006-07 Budget are expected to lead to continued growth in household spending in the coming year. Tasmania will continue to benefit from the increased capacity and greater competition in air travel arising from the operation of the discount carriers. The contribution to spending by visitors to the State is therefore expected to be around the current high levels, despite the cessation of the Sydney to Devonport ferry service.

Business confidence in the State remains solid and there are a large number of development projects in the pipeline that will boost construction activity in 2006-07. These include a number of tourism related accommodation initiatives, new retail ventures, a number of forestry projects and continuation of the natural gas reticulation phase.

It is forecast that Tasmania's economy will grow by 3½ per cent (in real terms) in 2006-07 as a result of the factors listed above. The forecasts for 2006-07 do not take into account the economic impact of the proposed pulp mill at Longreach, as construction on this project is not scheduled to commence until 2007-08. The investment value of the proposed pulp mill has been estimated at around $1.4 billion and is expected to create thousands of direct and indirect jobs.

LABOUR MARKET AND PRICES:

Based on year-to-date data, Treasury estimates that employment will increase by 3¼ per cent in 2005-06, which follows very solid growth of 2.9 per cent in 2004-05. It is expected that this momentum will largely be maintained into 2006-07 with forecast growth of 2¾ per cent. This compares to the Australian Government's Budget forecast for national employment growth of 1 per cent in 2006-07.

With around 6 100 new jobs expected in the labour market in 2006-07, the State's participation rate is forecast to average 61¾ per cent for 2006-07, up from the estimated 2005-06 participation rate of 61 per cent. While the expected improvement is welcomed, Tasmania's participation rate is still the lowest in the nation. While this is partially due to Tasmania's age structure, it does highlight an aspect of the Tasmanian labour market where improvements are required.

Treasury is forecasting a year-average unemployment rate of 6¼ per cent in 2006-07, following an estimated year-average of 6½ per cent in 2005-06. While this would represent a slight improvement on the 2005-06 expected outcome, unemployment remains higher than in other jurisdictions, and remains a serious concern for the State Government.

The experience over the past year has confirmed that the underlying momentum in the Tasmania economy remains strong and that the performance of most key indicators is again expected to be comparable to national averages.

UNEMPLOYMENT:

After a significant reduction in 2004-05, when the unemployment rate (in trend terms) reached a record low of 5.7 per cent in December 2004 and January 2005, growth in the participation rate has seen the unemployment rate increase to 6.5 per cent in May 2006.

CONCLUSION

As has been outlined by the submission Tasmania continues to experience strong economic growth.

· Growth that has produced 30,000 new jobs since January 1999;

· A substantial reduction in unemployment:

· Long term unemployment halved;

· Unprecedented private sector investment;

· Continued growth in consumer spending and high consumer confidence;

· A return to population growth.

Strong economic growth is forecast to remain strong driven by investment and consumption spending. Another $2.5 billon in investment is planned or underway reflecting high levels of confidence shown by the Tasmanian business community.

These economic drivers will grow employment and increase Tasmania's population. Finally global growth will support our export-based industries particularly those with markets in Japan, China and India."20

The TCCI relied upon two internal documents being the Tasmanian Economic Outlook March 2005, with a 2006 update, and the Tasmanian Survey of Business Expectations for the June Quarter 2006. The Submission by TCCI, in the main, reflects the positive outlook for the economy and states:

"Expectations for the Tasmanian economy over the next twelve months have markedly improved and are at their highest point in twelve months"(Tasmanian Survey of Business Expectations June 2006)

However TCCI has cautioned that among some of their members there is an expectation of business conditions waning in the immediate future.

The Hobart CPI is forecast to increase by 3% in 2005/2006.21

Inflation is likely to be influenced by an expected continuation of the tight Tasmanian labour market and the shortage of suitably skilled workers. According to the TCCI Survey of Business Expectations, concern over the availability of suitably skilled employees continues to be considered the primary constraint on business growth.

The National and global economies will obviously have an impact on the health of the Tasmanian economy. From the evidence presented by the TCCI, TTLC and the Tasmanian Minister, the National economy is buoyant. This prognosis is forecast to continue, certainly for the next twelve months, and in all likelihood will have a positive influence on the Tasmanian economy. However the State has no influence over exchange rates, interest rates or the price of oil or minerals.

Should we await a determination of the AFPC?

[48] The submissions presented in respect to this proposal were in the same vein as the submissions presented as to why we should adjourn the proceedings to allow the AFPC to make its determination. The Commonwealth Minister submitted that "there is nothing in the WorkChoices Act that undermines or seeks to end a consistent national approach to minimum wage adjustments. On the contrary, the WorkChoices Act seeks to create a national system of workplace relations."22

[49] The Commonwealth Minister submitted that not to await the determination of the AFPC would be "most undesirable" and further argued that for this Commission to make a decision could result in "disparate minimum wage outcomes across Australia," which, it was submitted, seems to provide no difficulty to the TTLC in conjunction with peak unions in other States. It was claimed that "such an outcome will make life difficult for those operating businesses and employees working within those businesses." No evidence was presented to support this possibility although it could well be an inevitable result.

[50] However we are required, by statute at ss 35(1)(b) and 47AB, to determine a minimum wage for Tasmania which will operate as a safety net for the purposes of bargaining, either collectively or individually.

[51] This Commission has never suggested that WorkChoices seeks to end a "consistent national approach" in respect to minimum wage adjustments, we have noted however that we are not bound by any determinations made by the AFPC. We are required by reference to s.35(7) "....to have regard to a decision of the Australian Commission ...." In the past this Commission has adopted, in general terms, decisions of the Australian Commission and mostly by the agreement of the parties. There is no agreement in respect to this application and the Commission is required to act within its statutory responsibilities and determine the claim before it.

[52] There are no specific requirements prescribed in the Tasmanian Act which we must consider when determining a claim for an increase in the minimum wage. Nonetheless we think it appropriate that we have regard to our public interest considerations as prescribed at s.36(2) of the Tasmanian Act, to:

"(a) consider the economic position of any industry likely to be affected by the proposed award or proposed agreement;

(b) consider the economy of Tasmania and the likely effect of the proposed award or proposed agreement on the economy of Tasmania with particular reference to the level of employment; and

(c) take into account any other matter considered by the Commission to be relevant to the public interest."23

[53] State Wage Case applications have now been determined by the Western Australian, New South Wales and South Australian Commissions. The Western Australian and New South Wales Commissions have determined a minimum wage of $504.40 per week and the South Australian Commission has determined an amount of $501.40 per week as its minimum wage.

[54] The Western Australian and New South Wales Commissions awarded an increase of $20 per week to the minimum wage, the South Australian Commission awarded an increase of $17 per week to award wages up to and including $570.00 per week and $18 per week above that weekly award rate.

[55] It would seem that there will not be, nor can there be, national consistency in minimum wage outcomes which is the ground relied upon by the Commonwealth Minister seeking us to delay our determination.

[56] We have previously noted that it seems to be accepted that Tasmania has the largest number of employees who rely on safety net increases, as such we are of the view that to delay any determination would disadvantage those employees.

[57] It is not clear whether, or how, the AFPC will take into account prejudice that may be caused by delay.

[58] The expected effect of WorkChoices will result in a smaller number of employers and employees being subject to awards of the Tasmanian Commission, and whilst there is no specific data or publicly available statistics which are relevant to this group, it is expected that the number is significant albeit a certain number will be State public service employees who are not subject to this determination but are party to the State Service Agreement. Nevertheless, the then Minister for Industrial Relations the Hon Judy Jackson, in her second reading speech in the Tasmanian Parliament, estimated that some 30% or 40% of employees may be affected by our decision although we do not rely on that estimate and acknowledge that there is a wide variance between the parties as to the number of employees who could be affected by our decision.

[59] The majority of those employees are not party to bargaining arrangements and rely for any wage increase on State Wage Case determinations.

[60] Our reasons for deciding to reject this application by the Commonwealth Minister to not make a determination in respect to the TTLC application until such time as the AFPC has made its determination, are the same as our reasons for rejecting the Commonwealth Minister's first application to not proceed to hear the TTLC application until a determination by the AFPC and found in our decision of 26 April, 2006.

[61] Accordingly, we reject the submission of the Commonwealth Minister, supported by the employer representatives, to await a decision of the AFPC before determining the TTLC application.

Is there an inconsistency between s.35(1)(b), s.35(10A) and s.47AB?

[62] Section 35 of the Tasmanian Act is titled: Certain matters to be dealt with by a Full Bench of the Commission.

[63] Section 35(1)(b) requires a Full Bench of the Commission to make:

(b) ...provision for, or altering, a minimum wage that is to be payable to adults without regard to the work performed."

[64] Section 35(10A) provides:

"A Full Bench of the Commission must convene and conduct a hearing annually to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage specified in section 47AB."

[65] This part of s.35 denotes a matter to be dealt with by a Full Bench and is a recent amendment which mandates a Full Bench to determine annually a minimum wage for Tasmania.

Section 47AB.provides:

"The minimum weekly wage for an adult full-time employee is the Tasmanian minimum wage as determined annually by the Commission under section35(10A)."

[66] Sections 35(1)(b) and 35(10A) are found in Part III Awards section of the Tasmanian Act, Division 1 of Part III - "Power to make awards and related matters;" s35 refers to "Certain matters to be dealt with by Full Bench of Commission."

[67] Section 35(1)(b) is found under the Awards provisions of the Tasmanian Act and provides that only a Full Bench of the Commission shall deal with matters related to a minimum wage. The provision then states that any minimum wage so determined shall apply to "...adults without regard to the work performed."

[68] Whilst the prescription is found in Division III, which records the Award powers of the Tasmanian Commission it is our view that the wording of s.35(1)(b) could be construed to mean that any minimum wage determined by a Full Bench would apply to all employees in the State as the inclusion of the words "...without regard to the work performed" appears superfluous if the intent is for the minimum wage to apply only to award employees. The words so prescribed may well imply that any minimum wage determined by a Full Bench is intended to apply to award free employees and/or employees performing work not covered by an award of this Commission.

[69] Section 35(10A) provides:

"A Full Bench of the Commission must convene and conduct a hearing annually to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage specified in section 47AB."

[70] As previously noted this part of s.35 denotes a matter to be dealt with by a Full Bench and mandates a Full Bench to determine annually a minimum wage for Tasmania. However if it is the view that s.35(1)(b) already provides the power to determine a Tasmanian minimum wage the change is a matter of timing only to ensure a consideration of the minimum wage on an annual basis. 

[71] If s.35(1)(b) is interpreted as only applying to employees covered by awards of the Commission and does not extend a minimum wage determined by that section to award free employees (....without regard to the work performed) then s.35(10A) is a new power and one that is relevant to this decision.

[72] Section 47AB.provides:

"The minimum weekly wage for an adult full-time employee is the Tasmanian minimum wage as determined annually by the Commission under section35(10A)."

[73] Section 47AB is found in Division 2A of the Tasmanian Act which describes the Minimum conditions of employment relating to all employees and in respect to minimum wage refers back to the power prescribed in s.35(10A).

[74] This section seems to be no more than a definition of s.35(1)(b) and its effect is subject to which interpretation is applied to s.35(1)(b).

[75] The Commission in its Wage Fixing Principles has provided for a State Minimum Wage since 2002 following an application by the TTLC to "provide a minimum wage that is payable to adults without regard to the work performed...." That application was not opposed.

[76] In that decision the Commission recorded:

"Ms Fitzgerald provided a history of the establishment of the federal minimum wage.

She said:

"In 1997 the Federal Commission decided to determine a minimum wage to be called the Federal minimum wage for full-time adult employees in a conservative response to an application by the ACTU for a living wage. The Federal minimum wage was established as the wage below which no full-time adult employee working under a Federal award was to be paid. The ACTU had sought the minimum wage payable under the Metal Industry Award, for example, to go to $380.00 per 38 hour week. The Commission set the Federal minimum wage for full-time adult employees at $359.40 and for junior, part-time and casual employees a proportionate amount. The Commission stated in that decision which was print P1997 at page 77 that it decided not to link the level of the Federal minimum wage with any defined benchmark of needs but rather to equate the Federal minimum wage with the minimum classification rate in most Federal awards, that is the rate of the C14 classification in the Metal Industry Award."

[77] In respect to the creation of a State minimum wage Ms Fitzgerald said:

"The Federal Commission clearly decided to set a floor below which a wage actually paid to an employee for ordinary time should not fall. In determining the actual quantum and indeed the safety net adjustment, the Commission in 1997 took account of contemporary economic factors including levels of productivity; inflation; the desire for high employment; living standards generally and the needs of the low paid, as indeed the Commission has in subsequent living wage cases. With regard to other relevant jurisdictions, the jurisdictions of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia, the Federal minimum wage has been adopted in these jurisdictions. While in 1997 at the State wage case we did not seek to flow on the Federal minimum wage and to establish a State minimum wage, the effect of the flow on of this and past safety net adjustments and the reformatting of awards has resulted in the adult full-time entry level classification in most awards being the Federal minimum wage. Therefore for the majority of private sector awards the establishment of a minimum wage for all adult full-time workers will have no actual effect. However, I understand that there are some awards in which the adult entry level rate of pay is below the current Federal minimum wage which was $413.40. Some, because of the minimum rates adjustment - some because the minimum rates adjustment requirements have not been completed; some because past safety net adjustments have not been applied; some perhaps because no one relies on the award for their wages and conditions and some perhaps because the entry level rate is set at less than 80 per cent of the tradesperson's rate. However, I argue that whatever the reason awards in this jurisdiction like the Federal and other State jurisdictions must ensure that the Federal minimum wage be established as the floor."24

[78] It would seem that the TTLC application at that time was intended to apply to employees covered by awards of the Commission.

[79] We reject the submission of the Commonwealth Minister that the recent amendment to the Tasmanian Act, which requires the Commission to determine a minimum wage annually, means not before February 2007 which is twelve months since the amendment was promulgated. The Commission has recognised a minimum wage on each occasion it has determined a State Wage Case and in 2002 implemented a process whereby a standard minimum wage would apply in each of the Commission's awards, it is therefore not a new concept, the only change has been the amendment to the legislation which formalises what has been past practice. Reference to the second reading speech in the Tasmanian Parliament on 10 November, 2005, would seem to confirm that view. Minister Jackson, said:

"Overwhelmingly, these minimum conditions are already in existence"

and

"The bill also stipulates that the Industrial Commission must each year determine the Tasmanian Minimum Wage (the minimum wage in most awards is currently $484.60 per week). The Tasmanian Minimum Wage will be the lowest rate an adult employee can be paid, whether covered by an award or an agreement, or award-free."

[80] The Minister also said:

"The minimum conditions in this legislation will, of course, be only for people covered by State awards, State agreements and award-free agreements. If we had not brought in this legislation, the Howard legislation would have prevailed because there would have been a vacuum. This legislation, of course, cannot cover anyone who is forced to go into the Federal system, but it will cover those who remain in our State system under State awards and agreements and award-free, which we estimate will be somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent.

The intention of the bill is to provide a safety net of basic conditions of employment that will underpin award and agreement-making for employees covered by Tasmania's industrial relations system. This safety net will also ensure that minimum standards are established for award-free employees.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to reiterate that this bill does not create any new conditions. These minimum conditions have long been a right for the great majority of Tasmanian workers. The Tasmanian Government believes that a strong, impartial industrial umpire is absolutely necessary for any industrial relations system. We have just such an independent umpire here in Tasmania - the Tasmanian Industrial Commission." [our emphasis]

[81] It would appear from the Minister's speech that the understanding has been that the minimum wage determined by a Full Bench of this Commission in accord with s.35(1)(b) of the Tasmanian Act has application to all employees whether they are covered by awards of this Commission or not. It is our view that the wording in s.35(1)(b) is ambiguous and could be read either way. Nevertheless the practical reality is that the minimum wage determined by the Commission as prescribed by s.35(1)(b) is the Tasmanian Minimum Wage and the area of ambiguity is as to its application not whether a Tasmanian Minimum wage has been determined.

[82] Accordingly we are satisfied that the recent amendment in respect to minimum wage does no more than prescribe in legislation what has been the past practice of the Commission. The operative date for State Wage Case determinations in the past has been the first pay period on or after 1 August, and we intend to continue with that operative date and are of the view that to do so satisfies our obligations under the statute. We concede that the prescription in the legislation is ambiguous and our powers of enforcement, if any, for employees not covered by awards, is unclear, however those are matters more rightly dealt with by the Parliament.

[83] We agree with the submission of Mr Tullgren that:

"...the practical reality is that we are talking about a minimum wage. This Commission has set a minimum wage over a number of years. It is contained in the State wage-fixing principles... There is an intention to be a minimum wage, not to be multiple minimum wages it cannot seriously be argued...that Parliament intended that it was going to create two minimum wages, that could be applied differently. "

Do we award a flat or a percentage increase?

[84] It was submitted by TTLC that a percentage increase was more desirable than a flat dollar amount to avoid any further compression of relativities within award classification structures.

[85] The Tasmanian Minister proposed a flat increase of $20.00 as "such an increase provides an equitable adjustment for the lower paid whilst maintaining an effective safety net for all award covered employees."25

[86] Whilst the TCCI supported the Commonwealth Minister in requesting the Commission to await a determination of the AFPC, it did propose as its secondary position a flat increase of $13.50 per week, which is equivalent to a 2.8% increase based on the CPI figure for the 12 months ended March quarter 2006, with an increase to work related allowances of 2.35%. The TCCI propose a flat increase and opposes the TTLC claim of a 4% increase.

[87] We note that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has sought flat dollar increases to the award safety net for the last six years and that the AIRC has awarded flat increases since 1993 which have been replicated, in general terms, by this Commission.

[88] Whilst there has been little discussion about relativities in recent AIRC decisions, the AIRC in its Safety Net Review of 2001 said:

"In our view skills, responsibilities and the conditions under which the work is performed remain relevant considerations in the fixation of fair minimum wages, However the form of the increase is a matter for determination on the merits of the particular case taking into account all of the relevant statutory provisions. In this case we have concluded that it would not be appropriate to award a percentage increase."26

[89] This Commission has different statutory provisions to the AIRC but we agree with the AIRC and its view as to the relevant considerations in the fixation of fair minimum wages.

[90] We have decided in this matter however to award a flat increase.

Decision:

[91] The TTLC submitted that the cost of granting the claim would be negligible and would add about 0.7 of 1% to the Tasmanian aggregate wage bill. This submission was not challenged. It was the submission of the TTLC that the Wage Price Index (WPI) is an appropriate and relevant measure for wage increases. The WPI for Tasmania grew by only 1.1% to the March 2006 quarter or 4.1% over the year.

[92] It was submitted that the WPI "is designed to measure changes in wage movements rather than [wage] levels and unlike the Average Earnings on a national Accounts basis (AENA) it does not incorporate non-wage costs. The WPI is constructed measuring the cost of purchasing the same quality and quantity of labour input. It is analogous in its construction to that of the CPI. Hence, the WPI is less subject to compositional change and therefore less volatile than the other measure of wage movements. As the WPI is not affected by compositional change, it is the best measure to assess the economic impact of wage changes to the employer. The WPI is the Reserve Bank of Australia's preferred measure of wages growth."27

[93] In its Safety Net Review decision of 2005 the Australian Commission said that it had previously accepted that the WPI was the most useful indicator for its purposes.

[94] Accordingly we agree with the Australian Commission and adopt the WPI as the "most useful" indicator in our determination of the TTLC claim.

[95] The Tasmanian Minister indicated that "The proposed adjustment to award rates of pay for private sector employees can be sustained through Tasmania's strong economic performance characterised through sustained jobs growth, reduction in unemployment, robust private sector investment and the development of major infrastructure projects."28

[96] It was the submission of the TCCI that an increase of $13.50 per week was "economically sustainable and responsible." It said that "The Tasmanian economy over the past 12 months has definitely witnessed an easing of its high growth levels reached over the 2003-2004 period. The economy is slowing to more sustainable levels which will please many economic analysts who believed Tasmania was growing too rapidly. Its reliance on booming housing prices and an increase in disposable incomes was fuelling its unsustainable growth."29

[97] TCCI did not oppose an increase but did oppose the claim by the TTLC for a 4% increase to award rates, it advised caution in any consideration of the increase to be awarded.

[98] The Federal Treasury has said that wage growth "should remain solid, given continuing strong demand for labour in some sectors of the economy."

[99] In its economic outlook papers accompanying the 2006 Budget the Federal Treasury forecast a 4% increase in the WPI in 2006-2007, saying that slower employment growth will dampen wage increases "although continuing tight conditions in parts of the labour market, particularly those most affected by the mining sector, will prevent wage growth from slowing significantly." The Federal Treasury noted that a risk remains that the high wages being paid in the resource sector will spill over into increased wage demands in other sectors.

[100] The decision we make will only affect, in the majority of cases, those employees not party to agreements and not able, for whatever reason, to bargain with their employers for an agreement. We reiterate herewith our reasons for not adjourning the proceedings to await the outcome of any determination by the AFPC:

"It is our view that to do otherwise would be to ignore our statutory obligations.

Further we consider it would be a serious injustice for those employees who remain under the jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Act, regardless of the number, not to have their claim heard, particularly as it would seem unchallenged that there is a high percentage of employees in Tasmania for whom a safety net increase is their only wage movement.

It is only those employees who have not negotiated an agreement with their employer who will be subject to any increase that may flow from the application before us and are more than likely the only employees who have not received a wage movement since August, 2005. Further any determination of the AFPC will not apply to those employees anyway."30

[101] In considering the impact of an increase in the minimum wage we were referred to the 2006 "Boosting Jobs and Incomes - Policy Lessons from Reassessing the OECD Jobs Strategy."

[102] The report said:

"Experience confirms the importance of policies to assure that real wages adjust flexibly in response to supply - and demand - side pressures, so as to support high levels of employment in a constantly changing economic environment...Experience also indicates that both decentralised and centralised bargaining often result in better employment performances than when bargaining is at the sectoral level. This is because decentralisation offers stronger relative wage flexibility and centralisation provides greater aggregate real wage flexibility.

Recent developments suggest that a moderate legal minimum wage generally does not undermine employment, but also that adequate allowance for wages below that level for youth and possibly other vulnerable groups is essential."31

[103] The effect of minimum wage/safety net adjustments on unemployment has been a vexed issue for some time. The Australian Commission has addressed the matter in a number of Safety Net Review decisions and said in its Safety Net Review decision of 2005:

"In the May 2004 decision the Commission repeated the observation made in the May 2003 decision, that it would be assisted by high quality research into the employment effects of safety net adjustments.

The issue was again referred to at the commencement of these proceedings. In the preliminary hearing of this matter the President raised for the consideration of parties and interveners whether there may be some benefit in extending the opportunity to other groups in the community and members of the community to participate in these proceedings, particularly in relation to the issue of the connection between minimum wages and unemployment. The Commission raised as one possibility a preparedness of the Full Bench to sit in State capitals and advertise hearing times and invite public submissions. No party or intervener responded positively to this invitation.

Further, during the course of oral argument, the Commission sought additional data from the Commonwealth. Some data were provided which were of assistance. However, importantly, the Commonwealth did not provide any data with respect to the following:

· the proportion of the workforce to which safety net adjustments applied in 1997 and 2004;

· the proportion of the workforce to which the federal minimum wage adjustment applied in 1997 and 2004; or

· the contribution made by safety net adjustments to aggregate wages growth for each of the last three years."32

[104] The issue was not one debated before us but is a matter we have taken into consideration albeit there is a lack of relevant research directed to the effect of safety net adjustments on unemployment in Australia generally, as was noted by the Australian Commission.

[105] It is our view that there has been no sustainable argument against a wage increase or an increase in work related allowances. The difference between the TTLC claim, the proposal of the TCCI and the proposal of the Tasmanian Minister is as to the quantum of any increase. We are of the view that the Tasmanian Minister's proposal of a flat rate of $20 increase on the minimum wage, from the data presented, is sustainable as is an increase of 3.45% in the work related allowances.

[106] We have had regard to all of the considerations discussed in this decision and we have decided that award rates of pay in all private sector awards of the Commission shall be increased by an amount of $20.00 per week. We are of the view that a flat increase gives appropriate emphasis to the needs of the low paid with a lesser increase at the higher classification levels thereby reducing the overall economic impact which would flow from a percentage increase.

[107] All work related allowances shall be adjusted by 3.45% which represents the percentage adjustment of the $20.00 increase at the tradesperson's rate as expressed in the Metal and Engineering Industry Award.

[108] Meal allowances will be increased to $13.60 in accord with the agreed formula.

[109] As far as it is necessary we declare that pursuant to ss 35(1)(b) and s.47AB of the Tasmanian Act that the minimum wage for Tasmania will be $504.40.

[110] Our decision will take effect from the first full pay period on or after 1 August, 2006.

[111] Variations to rates and allowances should, in respect to weekly rates be rounded to the nearest 10 cents, in respect to daily rates to the nearest 5 cents, and in respect to hourly rates to the nearest cent.

[112] The current wage fixing principles will be amended where necessary to reflect the terms of this decision.

[113] Principle 5 and Principle 14 are still relevant and available:

5. ARBITRATED SAFETY NET ADJUSTMENT

5.1 All wage rates in awards, including junior, apprentice and trainee rates (on a proportionate basis) may be varied from time to time to include arbitrated safety net adjustments in accordance with determinations of this Commission.

5.2 The amount of any arbitrated safety net adjustment is to be reduced to the extent of any over award payment currently being paid by an employer.

5.3 The safety net adjustment will only be available where the rates in the award have not been increased, other than by safety net adjustments, or as a result of the Minimum Rates Adjustment or Work Value Changes Principles, since November 1991.

14. ECONOMIC INCAPACITY

Any registered organisation with an interest in an award may apply on behalf of an employer or group of employers to temporarily reduce or postpone or phase in the application of any increase in labour costs under the Principles on the grounds of very serious or extreme economic adversity. The merit of such application will be determined in the light of the particular circumstances of each case and any material relating thereto shall be rigorously tested. The impact on employment at the enterprise level of the increase in labour costs is a significant factor to be taken into account in assessing the merit of any application.

[114] Orders will be issued in due course to give effect to this decision.

 

P L Leary
PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr P Tullgren with Mr S Cocker for the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
Mr T Kleyn for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch
Mr M Watson with Mr S Hall (6-7-06) for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
Mr W Fitzgerald 6-7-06) for the Australian Mines and Metals Association (Incorporated)
Mr K Rice for the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers Association
Mr D McDougall for the Australian Retailers Association, Tasmania
Mr P Baker with Ms J Fitton intervening on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Workplace Relations
Mr S Amendola (29-3-06); Mr PR Cole with Mr M Roddam (6-7-06) intervening on behalf of the Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

Date and place of hearing:
2006
March 29
July 7
Hobart

1 Correspondence Commonwealth Minister 28 March, 2006
2 Full Bench decision, 26 April 2006, para 18
3 Supra 56 - 58
4 Exhibit Commonwealth 1; p. 3
5 Supra p. 19
6 Supra p. 22
7 Transcript PN 713 - 714
8 Transcript PN 745
9 Full Bench decision, 26 April 2006, para 55
10 Exhibit Tasmania 1; p. 1
11 Exhibit TCCI 1; p.4
12 Supra p.5
13 Supra p.5
14 Exhibit TCCI 1; p.7
15 Exhibit TTLC 1; p. 4-5
16 Exhibit TTLC 2; para 70
17 Transcript PN 608
18 Supra PN823
19 Supra PN 814 - 816
20 Exhibit Tasmania 1
21 Supra p.6
22 Exhibit Commonwealth 1 at 4.3
23 s.36(2) Tasmanian Act
24 State Wage Case decision 2002; paras 9,10
25 Exhibit State 1; page 1
26 Print PR00201, para 139
27 Exhibit TTLC 1; paras 82, 83
28 Exhibit Tasmania 1, p.2
29 Exhibit TCCI 1; page 33
30 Full Bench decision 26 April 2006, paras 56-58
31 Exhibit TTLC 5; p.13
32 Print PR00205; paras 173-175

Awards Varied:
Aerated Waters
Architects (Private Industry)
Australian Cement Holdings Enterprise
Automotive Industries
Baking Industry
Barristers and Solicitors
Bootmakers
Broadcasting and Television
Building and Construction Industry and Correction Order
Building Trades
Business Services
Butter and Cheesemakers
Carriers
Catholic Education
Child Care and Childrens Services
Clay and Mud Products
Cleaning and Property Services
Clerical and Administrative Employees (Private Sector)
Clothing Industry
Community Services
Concrete Products
Dairy Processing
Dentists
Disability Service Providers
Draughting and Technical Officers (Private Industry)
Electrical Engineers
Entertainment
Estate Agents
Farming and Fruit Growing
Fibreglass and Plastics
Fish, Aquaculture and Marine Products
Fuel Merchants
Furnishing Trades
Hairdressing, Health and Beauty Fitness
Health and Fitness Centres
Horticulturists and Correction Order
Hospitals
Hotels, Resorts, Hospitality and Motels
Ice Cream Makers
Impact Fertilisers Enterprise
Independent Schools (Non-Teaching Staff)
Independent Schools (Teachers) Tasmania
Insurance
Laundry and Dry Cleaning
Leather, Canvas and Sheet Plastic Fabrication
Licensed Clubs
Meander Dam Development Project
Meat Processing Industry
Meat Retailing
Medical Diagnostic Services (Private Sector)
Medical Practitioners (Private Sector)
Metal and Engineering Industry
Metalliferous Mining and Processing
Miscellaneous Workers
Mobile Crane Hire
Monumental Masons
Musicians
National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector)
Nursing Homes
Optical Industries
Photographic Industry
Plant Nurseries
Plumbers
Printers
Produce
Professional Engineers and Scientists (Private Industry)
Public Accountants
Public Vehicles
Quarrying and Lime Processing
Restaurant Keepers
Retail Pharmacy
Retail Trades
Rubber Trades
Security Industry
Shearing Industry
Shellfish Industry
Shipbuilders
Shipping
Silviculture and Afforestation
Surveyors (Private Industry)
Tasmanian Information Technology
Textile
Timber Merchants
Totalizator Agency
Transport Workers General
Veterinary Services
Wholesale Pharmaceutical
Wholesale Plant Bakeries
Wholesale Trades
Wireworking
Zinifex Hobart Smelter Enterprise
Zinifex Rosebery (Mining)