T177
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
This application sought to vary the Ferro Alloys Award by consent by making provision for a new allowance to be known as the Laundry and Protective Clothing Allowance. The amount of such allowance to be $1.80 per week. It is not a matter of coincidence that on 16 April this year, in matter T No 78 of 1985, I refused to increase the existing Disability Allowance by more than CPI increases, and specifically rejected the loading of the Disability Allowance with a further $1.80 per week. The employer at the time opposed the introduction of a new specific allowance to cover, in part, the provision and laundry of items of protective clothing. It became clear to me at that time that the proposal represented no more than a compromise agreement which could not be properly accommodated within the Principles of Wage Fixation relied upon so long as both parties doggedly maintained the stance which they did. The instant claim is presented in a way which represents a shift in stance and therefore the uncontested evidence before the Commission is different. I was told by Mr Abey, on behalf of the Company that in essence the proposed allowance is an amount which represents partial compensation for the laundering of protective clothing and the provision of ancillary protective clothing, ie clothing which is not already provided by the Company. I was also told that the cost of laundering a pair of overalls is currently $2.00 and the issuing of protective clothing is irregular and the actual cost is therefore difficult to assess. It was a matter of common ground however that whilst the cost of provision of protective clothing of the kind contemplated and laundering would exceed $1.80 per week, the cost is imprecise. The cost of granting the claim would be approximately $40,000 per annum (representing .4% of the annual wages bill). Principle 9(b)(ii) was relied upon. Decision The uncontested evidence before the Commission is that the provision of protective clothing and laundry of clothing because of the occurrence of dirty work is fact. Similarly the evidence is that the true cost of these two items, on average, exceeds $1.80 per week. The real cost was not revealed, but is not at issue because the parties to the agreement are content to achieve $1.80 per week at this time and ask the Commission to ratify the new allowance at this level of payment. Principle 9(b)(ii) provides as follows:
The literal meaning to "having regard to such expenses" would seem to indicate a duty to as near as possible accurately gauge the level of such expense. However, no party was prepared to attempt to pinpoint the real cost in the circumstances which exist because they were honour bound to keep to the deal struck. Whilst it is within the power for the Commission to grant more or less than any claim made, I do not propose to do so on this occasion. Instead I intend to grant the precise amount claimed for the following reasons: 1) I am satisfied on the evidence that a cost is incurred in laundry and provision of reasonably necessary protective clothing. 2) The cost incurred is (as a minimum) $1.80 per week of 38 hours. 3) On the evidence before me the allowance sought is not already comprehended in the wage rates of employees. 4) The Principles will not be offended by the granting of the claim. 5) The cost of granting the claim will not be great and will therefore constitute a very small addition to overall labour costs. 6) I have had proper regard for the duty imposed by Section 36 of the Act and conclude that pubic interest will not be offended by granting the claim. Form of Variation: The Ferro Alloys Award will be varied by adding new Clause 9, Part I, as follows:
Operative Date: This award variation shall apply from the beginning of the first pay period to commence on or after 8 August 1985.
A Robinson |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||