IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPEARANCES:

DATES AND PLACES OF HEARING:

22 July, 1985 Hobart

Mr Jarman representing the North West Regional Water Authority and, the applicant in this matter, opened his submission by reminding the Commission that during the hearing of T No 28 of 1985, he had indicated that the Authority had expressed a desire to have `Engineers' classifications contained in the North West Regional Water Authority Employees' Award, thus eliminating the need for the Provisional Award.

Mr Jarman sought, through his application, to make appropriate amendments to the Award to cater for Engineers and he included a request to rescind the North West Regional Water Authority Staff Provisional Award.

Mr Jarman's submission can be summarised as follows:

1. The rates and conditions contained in the claim document were in line with the Professional Engineers' Award.

2. The North West Regional Water Authority currently employs one engineer.

3. The current salary being paid to the person, was equivalent to Class VI, Grade 2 of the Professional Engineers' Award.

4. In addition to the engineer currently employed, the Authority held one position for an engineer equivalent to Class I, II, III, contained in the Professional Engineers' Award, depending on qualifications.

5. There was a perceived need to have scales available in the North West Regional Water Authority Employees' Award to classify such an engineer if the position was to be filled.

Mr Beckerath, representing the Tasmanian Public Service Association, stated that whilst he respected the North West Regional Water Authority's application, nevertheless, the Tasmanian Public Service Association was in the same position as it was during the hearing of application T No. 28 of 1985.

The Association, on that occasion, as it did at this hearing, maintained that it would be more appropriate to have the North West Regional Water Authority made party to existing awards of the Commission and, in this instant, the Professional Engineers Award.

Even though the Association of Professional Engineers, Australia were not represented at the hearing, Mr Beckerath recognised that the telex sent to the Commission by Mr N G Henderson of the Association of Professional Engineers, Australia (a copy of which was given to the parties) supported the application.

The parties at the hearing also agreed to rectify some typographical errors appearing in the Order arising out of T No. 28 of 1985.

DECISION

This application could, in certain circumstances, be classed as a continuation of Hearing T No. 28 of 1985, at which the North West Regional Water Authority foreshadowed their desire to have all employees classified under a single award.

Prior to this hearing the Authority was party to two Awards of the Commission -

1. The North West Regional Water Authority Employees' Award and,

2. The North West Regional Water Authority Staff Provisional Award

The Provisional Award applies only in so far as it relates to `engineers'.

I was informed during the hearing that the Authority employed one engineer, with the possibility of another in the future.

In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I am persuaded to the view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the North West Regional Water Authority Staff Provisional Award to remain in force when it only covers one engineer and, therefore, it should be rescinded and, I decide accordingly.

To enable the engineer currently employed by the North West Regional Water Authority to have the protection of Award coverage and also, to conform with Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, I believe the `Scope' of the North West Regional Water Authority Employees' Award should be extended to cover all employees of the Authority, including engineers.

Turning now to the appropriate classifications, classes and grades that should be included in the Award.

Mr Jarman, representing the Authority submitted that the engineer currently employed by the Authority was paid a salary equivalent to Class VI, Grade 2 of the Professional Engineers' Award and it was his claim that the classifications and definitions contained in the Professional Engineers' Award should be written into the North West Regional Water Authority Employees' Award (see attachment).

This suggestion receives my support as it reflects the current practice and caters for the future employment of engineers by the Authority as foreshadowed by Mr Jarman during his submission.

I am of the opinion that the claim does not contravene the Wage Indexation Guidelines, nor is it inconsistent with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984.

Operative Date:

As no submission was put to me on the operative date of any new award, I determine that it shall be from the first full pay period to commence on or after 29 July 1985.

R J WATLING
COMMISSIONER