Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T162

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T. No 162 of 1985 IN THE MATTER OF an application by the FEDERATED MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS' UNION to vary the ICE CREAM MAKERS AWARD

in relation to Special Rates

   
COMMISSIONER J G KING 12 August 1985
   
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Federated Miscellaneous
Workers' Union
- Mr L Brown
   
For the Tasmanian Chamber of
Industries on behalf of
Australian United Foods
- Mr W Fitzgerald
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:
30 July 1985      Hobart 

This application, subject of proceedings before the Commission on 30 July 1985, seeks to vary the Ice Cream Makers Award by deleting Clause 4 "Special Rates" and inserting in lieu thereof the following:-

"4 Special Rates

(a) Employees classified in item 3, sub clause (a), Clause 2 of this Part employed in Cold Stores shall be paid an additional amount of $16.10 per week. When a greater or lesser amount of hours than 38 are worked in a week, the Special Rate shall be pro-rata to the hours worked.

(b) Cumulative on the wage rates prescribed in Clauses 1, 2 and 4(a) of this Part employees classified in item 3 sub clause (a), Clause 2 shall be paid the following additional amount per week:

    (i) If required to drive a fork lift truck - $7.50

    (ii) If required to drive a fork lift truck in a Cold Store - $14.00.

The operative date of the variation to be from the first pay period commencing on or after 1 July 1985.

Mr Brown appearing for The Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union, in speaking to the application, advised the Commission as follows:

  • this award now applies to one employer only, Australian United Foods;

  • company expansion and changes in work methods have resulted in the introduction of fork lift trucks;

  • the changes took place in April 1985;

  • agreement has been reached between the parties on the introduction into the subject award of appropriate allowances to compensate employees for changes in their work;

  • the agreement satisfies the tests of the National Wage Principles and in particular Principle 4 - Work Value Changes;

  • the agreed date of operation is the first pay period commencing on or after 1 July 1985;

  • the new allowances are already being paid by the company.

In response to a question from the Commission, Mr Brown advised that part (a) of the above clause had been dealt with in National Wage Case proceedings and was therefore withdrawn.

Mr Fitzgerald for the company confirmed the detail of the agreement as outlined above. He also submitted that the agreement could be processed in accordance with Principle 4.

I have a number of difficulties with this application, not the least of which is a situation where the parties are seeking an award variation to introduce new allowances which are already being paid by the company. This, in my opinion, is a most unsatisfactory situation for reasons which will become obvious.

On the basis of the submission put by the parties and my understanding of the situation, I am prepared to ratify the agreement providing for an allowance for employees required to operate Fork Lift Trucks. There is no doubt that work practices have changed and along with them increased responsibility and skill on the part of certain employees. While there was no submission from the company going to the point, one can readily accept that the new loading procedures are also much more efficient than those previously applying.

As the Commission has been responsible for some delay (because of other commitments) in the listing of this application, I am prepared to endorse the agreed operative date of the variation, ie first pay period commencing on or after 1 July 1985.

In relation to the second part of the new provision sought, I have difficulty accepting that an employee already in receipt of an allowance of $16.10 for working in Cold Stores should receive more than $7.50 extra when operating a Fork Lift Truck in the same Cold Store. It would seem to me that there must be a substantial element of double counting. In the absence of sufficient information or evidence to satisfy my concern, I am not prepared to vary the award as claimed.

The file will be left open to allow the parties to come back to the Commission with further submissions or evidence if they so desire.

An order reflecting this decision is attached.

 

J G King
COMMISSIONER