T3214 T3229 T3239 T3241 T3245 T3249 T3250 T3276 T3277 T3278 T3279 T3280 T3281 T3282 T3283 T3285 T3286 T3287 T3294 T3298 T3320 T3321 T3322
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 See end of decision for Awards varied The Tasmanian Public Service Association Health Services Union of Australia, The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, The Ambulance Employees' Association of Tasmania Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association Tasmanian Technical Colleges Staff Society Police Association of Tasmania Tasmanian Teachers Federation The Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia, The Association of Professional Engineers, Australia, Health Services Union of Australia, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, Tasmanian Salaried Medical Practitioners' Society Metals and Engineering Workers' Union United Firefighters Union,
State Wage Case August 1991 - 2.5% increase - applications to vary public sector awards - granted REASONS FOR DECISION These matters all concerned applications to vary nominated public sector awards to reflect increases in wage rates and work-related allowances. Whilst most of the applications were couched in terms other than those pursuant to the 13 August 1991 State Wage Case decision1 leave was granted by the Commission to various applicants to amend their applications to conform with the foregoing decision. In the circumstances all of the applicants sought a 2.5 per cent increase in wage rates and work-related allowances. Additionally the majority of applicants requested that this increase be made available only to union members. At the commencement of proceedings the Commission joined all applications on the basis that:
The Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) had previously conferred with other applicant employee organisations and undertook the principal role in advancing the claims before us. In that regard Mr Vines appearing for the TPSA made submissions on each of the criteria as set out in Principle 2 - Structural Efficiency in order to satisfy the requirements for an adjustment in wage rates and work-related allowances as set out in the Principles. Mr Vines relied upon the extensive list of matters going to the restructuring of the State Service some of which had already been introduced and other that are either still in the process of implementation or are currently before another Full Bench2 of the Commission for arbitration where agreement has not been reached. Mr Vines also provided documentary proof of a commitment for the insertion of appropriate facilitative clauses in awards consistent with the parameters set out in Principle 2 - Structural Efficiency, paragraphs (c) and (e) of the State Wage Case decision of 13 August 1991. At this stage the Minister has not responded. It was submitted by Mr Vines that all of these measures relate directly to the requirements of Principle 2, items (a) to (g) inclusive. The Commission was also told that the provisions of Section 34(b) of the Act enabled the variation of awards relating to certain classes of employees, and this could be taken to mean unionists only. Supporting submissions were put by other organisations include the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, Tasmanian Branch, the Tasmanian Salaried Medical Practitioners' Society, the Tasmanian Teachers Federation, The Secondary Colleges Staff Association, the Tasmanian Technical Colleges Staff Society, the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch, the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 2 Branch, The Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia, Tasmanian Branch, The Association of Professional Engineers, Australia, Tasmanian Branch, The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch), The Ambulance Employees' Association of Tasmania, the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch, the United Firefighters Union, Tasmanian Branch, the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association, the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association, and the Police Association of Tasmania. Mr Hanlon for the Minister put forward a methodology for the implementation of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission State Wage Case decision3 of 13 August 1991. The methodology of the Minister incorporated the following, i.e.:
The union response to these Government proposals was to unanimously reject them. Such rejection was based upon alleged failure of the consultative processes of the past making progress towards settling important issues; an alleged predisposition towards negative cost cutting; and the failure of the Government to settle upon any fixed agenda items. Unions also contend that the agency by agency approach was only a deliberate time wasting exercise to delay a wage increase at this time. Decision We have critically examined the submissions going to structural efficiency measures said to be already in place and which correspond to items (a) to (g) in new Principle 2 - Structural Efficiency. It is of fundamental importance that such measures be of substance and not merely window dressing to have the appearance of being genuine. We have a duty to ensure that impediments to improving individual performance and skill levels of State servants are removed and that wasteful practices and procedures are identified and eliminated. Our considerations must also be balanced with the need to consider the public interest as defined by Section 36 of the Act. All of the evidence before us leads to the conclusion that the State Service has undergone and is continuing to undergo significant restructuring change, accompanied by a reduction in employee numbers. Further proposed structural efficiency changes are still to be decided and are before a separate Full Bench. Because they are not before us it is inappropriate that we do more than note that they are being considered. However we believe that it would, in all of these circumstances, be gravely unjust not to give credit to the achievement of measures already being applied. It would be similarly unjust in our view to endorse the process proposed by the Government which in our opinion would impose delay upon delay. In all of the circumstances we have decided to vary all awards specified in Attachment 'A' and which were made subject to these proceedings by increasing wage rates and work-related allowances by 2.5% appropriately rounded off. We are not persuaded to confine increases to those persons considered by individual organisations to be union members. This question was thoroughly debated before another Full Bench4 but rejected for reasons given on 22 May 1987. We adopt those reasons. The University of Tasmania at Hobart provided a written submission giving reasons for seeking that the University of Tasmania General Staff Award not be considered in the context of the TPSA application. We appreciate the complex situation which exists regarding Federal and State Award coverage for the University at this time, but the situation which would be created by deferring a decision concerning one single award pending the outcome of extraneous events in another jurisdiction would be even more untenable. Accordingly the award concerned forms part of our decision. Finally we decide that appropriate facilitative clauses should be inserted in all relevant awards as soon as the parties have been able to either put forward an agreed proposal for the Commission's consideration, or in the alternative seek arbitration upon the form of words. The Police Association of Tasmania argued that their awards should be exempt from such a proposal because of provisions contained in the Police Regulations Act and the nature of the oath of office taken by police officers. We accept that, prima facie, the status quo should remain in respect of police award. However leave is reserved for this matter to be further raised if necessary during proceedings differently constituted. Similarly we believe it would not be appropriate to withhold the making of orders until this matter is finally determined, but the matter should be pursued through separate applications in individual awards. Whereas all employee organisations gave oral commitment during the course of the hearing, they are reminded that written commitments from all such organisations are required in the terms specified in the Principles before orders are made. These commitments are to be duly signed by an authorised union officer. Date of Operation The date of operation of this decision shall be the first full pay period to commence on or after 13 August 1991 because we believe the circumstances constitute reasons which make it fair and just to allow some retrospectivity. Orders Individual Commissioners will issue orders for awards within their respective assignments.
Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: ATTACHMENT 'A' AWARDS TO BE VARIED 1 T.3069 and T.3166 of 1991 |