Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T464, T470 and T483

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T. No. 464 of 1986 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES' & BUILDERS LABOURERS' FEDERATION, (TASMANIAN BRANCH) TO VARY THE BUILDING TRADES AWARD
   
  RE: AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THE 2.3% NATIONAL WAGE CASE DECISION
   
T. No. 470 of 1986 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE BUILDING WORKERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION OF AUSTRALIA (TASMANIAN BRANCH), TO VARY THE BUILDING TRADES AWARD
   
  RE: AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THE 2.3% NATIONAL WAGE CASE DECISION
   
T. No. 483 of 1986 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES UNION OF AUSTRALIA (TASMANIAN BRANCH) TO VARY THE BUILDING TRADES AWARD
   
  RE: AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THE 2.3% NATIONAL WAGE CASE DECISION
   
COMMISSIONER R. J. WATLING 01 September, 1986
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Australian Building
Construction Employees' and
Builders Labourers' Federation
(Tasmanian Branch)
- Mr. J. Bacon
   
For the Building Workers'
Industrial Union of Australia
(Tasmanian Branch)
- Mr. M.L. Cordwell
   
For the Operative Painters and
Decorators' Union of Australia
(Tasmanian Branch)
- Mr. W.B. Thompson
   
For the Plumbers and Gasfitters
Employees' Union of Australia
(Tasmanian Branch)
- Mr. R. Hevey
   
For the Amalgamated Society of
Carpenters and Joiners of Australia
(Tasmanian Branch)
- Mr. M.J. Dowd
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation
of Industries
- Mr. T.J. Edwards
   
For the Master Builders'
Association of Tasmania
- Mr. A.J. Smith
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
 
18 August, 1986 Hobart

Three applications were combined for the purpose of this hearing. They were T. Nos. 464, 470 and 483 of 1986, made by the Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation (Tasmanian Branch), the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) and the Plumbers' and Gasfitters' Employees Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch).

In essence, the applications sought to do two things:

1. Amend the Building Trades Award by inserting a formula for the purpose of calculating the hourly hire rates appearing in Part I, Sections I, II and III of the award, along with the consequential amendments needed to compute the rates.

2. Insert a new 'site allowance' clause in Part I, Sections I, II and III of the award.

The first part of the application had its genesis from an earlier decision of the Commission in T. No. 398 of 1986 when the Full Bench stated:

"Method of Calculation

Having examined the rates contained in the agreed documents and specifically the hourly hire rates, we have gleaned that they have been calculated by the use of a formula which does not appear in this award.

We are taking this opportunity to give the parties notice that any future variations to this award will be carried out by using the figures contained therein unless an appropriate formula is inserted for the purpose of computing the hourly hire rates.

We are of the view that it is absolutely essential that the parties to, and persons bound by this award should be able to calculate the rates without reference to a different award of another tribunal."

The parties presented an agreed position to the Commission on the formula to be used when computing the hourly hire rates in Sections I, II and III of the award, and the consequential provisions to be included in the award arriving out of the introduction of the formula.

I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the Full Bench in its decision on application T. No. 398 of 1986 and the award will be varied in the terms agreed to by the parties.

During the course of the hearing questions were raised relating to the Plumbers section of the award (Parts I and II, Section II) being varied to reflect the National Wage decision, when the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union had announced a national campaign to gain wage increases and better conditions of employment outside the Wage Fixation Principles.

It was also suggested by the Master Builders' Association of Tasmania that the award not be varied until the Plumbing Trades (Southern States) Construction Agreement had been varied.

It must be remembered that the three applications before the Commission were not for the purpose of determining whether the Building Trades Award should be varied to incorporate the National Wage decision, or to reduce wage rates because of noncompliance with the Wage Fixation Principles. They were for the purpose which has been spelt out earlier in this decision.

On 22 July 1986, a Full Bench of this Commission handed down a decision granting a 2.3% increase .to all awards including all sections of the Building Trades Award. A commitment by the unions to the new Wage Fixation Principles was a condition precedent to flowing on the 2.3% adjustment.

On 29 July 1986, the Full Bench considering the National Wage Case reconvened for the purpose of taking individual commitments from individual employee organisations.

The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union was one of those employee organisations who gave a commitment on that day and, later, followed it up by sending a written commitment to the Commission. Therefore, it is not a matter for me to determine whether or not plumbers' classifications contained in this award should be denied or granted the 2.3% National Wage increase. This has already been decided by the Full Bench.

In passing, it is worth noting that the wage rates in this award for plumbers, now differ from those appearing in the Plumbing Trades (Southern States) Construction Agreement.

This breaks a nexus that has existed for a number of years.

Turning now to the second part of the claim which was to insert in this award a new 'site allowance' provision to read as follows:

"The Union, on behalf of its members, may request an employer to consider a site allowance to compensate for all special factors and/or disabilities on a project.

Where the parties have considered the merit of the claim and have agreed on a proposed rate, it shall be referred to the Commission for ratification.

Where agreement cannot be reached, the parties shall refer the matter to the Commission which shall determine an appropriate rate, if any, to compensate for such special factors and/or disabilities: provided, however, that the Commission may determine that such site allowance shall be paid in lieu of any of the special rates related to conditions on the site as prescribed in Clause 2, Part 2 Conditions hereof.

The Commission shall ratify or determine such matters on the criteria outlined in the Full Bench decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dated 25 February 1983 (Print F1957).

Where the procedure prescribed by this subclause is being followed, work shall continue normally.

A site allowance determined in accordance with this subclause shall be deemed to be prescribed by this award."

It was put to me that the verbage contained in the suggested new provision is the same as that appearing in the Federal awards relating to the building industry.

Whilst I support the adoption of this more descriptive clause relating to site allowances in preference to that which currently appears in this award, nevertheless, I have great difficulty in accepting that part of the clause which states

"The Commission shall ratify or determine such matters on the criteria outlined in the Full Bench decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dated 25 February 1983 (Print F1957)."

All parties indicated that it was their opinion that it was appropriate for the Commission to pick up this reference.

In support of this contention, Mr. Edwards, representing the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, took comfort from a number of references contained in Print F2900 of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; this being a decision of that Commission resulting from the September 1985 National Wage Case.

Mr. Smith, representing the Master Builders' Association of Tasmania, also presented a lengthy submission on this matter, however, both he and Mr. Edwards made the suggestion that if the Commission was to reject this part of the site allowance clause, then their alternative position was that the Commission should "have regard for" the criteria outlined in the decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dated 25 February 1983, (Print F1957) when determining site allowance claims.

In support of this position the parties were of the opinion that the adoption of the previous mentioned criteria "would go one step further to ensure a greater degree of uniformity between the Federal and State Commissions."

Having considered all the relevant submissions I am not prepared to accept the proposition that this Commission should determine site allowances exclusively on the criteria outlined in a decision of another tribunal.

Whilst the Commission will have regard for the decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dated 25 February 1985, and for that matter any other relevant decisions, nevertheless, it will not be bound by them.

The Commission's first requirement is to hear and determine matters in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act 1984 and it will continue in the future, as it has in the past, to observe that requirement.

Having made the position of the Commission clear, it is my intention to adopt the site allowance provision agreed to by the parties, except for the offending section which was referred to earlier.

The orders giving effect to this decision are attached and it should be noted that they also include T. No. 300 of 1985 and T. No. 435 of 1986. Order Part I and Order Part II

Operative Date

The agreed operative date was the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 July 1986. This coincides with the implementation of the National Wage decision in T. No. 435 of 1986.

As the main thrust of these applications was to introduce a formula for computing the hourly hire rates, I believe it is appropriate that its introduction should have the same operative date as the National Wage Case decision and I decide accordingly.

 

R. J. WATLING
COMMISSIONER