IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This application, amongst other things, seeks to include in the Hospitals Award (the Award) various new allowances for tradesmen Plumbers and Electrical Mechanics. The claims with some modifications are the same as those contained in applications T872 and T878 of 1987. In a decision dated 1 October 1987, I referred that part of the applications dealing with these allowances back to the parties for further consideration.

Mr Holden advised that this application now supercedes any claims outstanding in T872 andT878 of 1987, those files therefore, will now be closed.

The second part of the application seeks the updating of tool allowances in accordance with the decision of a Full Bench of the Commission in T833 of 1987.

There is agreement between the parties, that tool allowances should be increased in the manner determined by the Full Bench and that the date of operation of the Award variation be 1 December 1987.

The Award will be varied accordingly.

The first of the new allowances sought reads as follows:

"An Electrical Mechanic who:

(a) is required by the employer to hold an "A" Grade Wireman's Licence, or is required to perform work which must be performed by a person holding an "A" Grade Wireman's Licence, shall be paid $13.10 per week in addition to the above salary rates."

Significant wording changes are contained in the above provision compared to the one claimed in the earlier applications. The previous provision sought read:

"An Electrical Mechanic who :

(a) holds an "A" Grade Wireman's Licence shall be paid $13.10 in addition to the above salary rates.

My concerns, detailed in the decision of 1 October 1987 relating to this claim, have been generally satisfied by the new wording. However, I believe the usual standard applying to the payment of such allowances is that the employee is not only required to have the necessary qualifications, he/she must also be required to exercise the skills envisaged by them. The word "or" in the clause sought will therefore read "and".

The Tasmanian Confederation of Industries (TCI) raised no objections to the new provision being inserted in the Award.

The second provision sought reads:

"An Electrical Mechanic who:

(b) hold an "A" Grade Wireman's Licence and who is the nominee of the Board of Management of a hospital, registered with the Hydro Electric Commission as an electrical contractor, and provided such electrical mechanic is at all times acceptable to the said Commission, he shall be paid a licence nominee allowance of $36.30 per week whilst acting as such nominee, provided that this allowance shall apply to only one employee in each hospital so registered, except that it may be extended to include a nominee, approved by the H.E.C. on those occasions where such nominee is required to relieve the permanent nominee during periods of approved leave of absence exceeding five working days."

The above new provision was also not opposed by the TCI.

However, its support was qualified to the extent that it should only apply to employees required to exercise appropriate skills in conjunction with new construction work.

I have considerable doubt about the relevance of this particular claim to employees of private hospitals. That doubt, to some extent, is confirmed by the submission of the TCI indicating that it had no knowledge of the existence of an employee acting as a nominee.

In the absence of an employee required to operate as a nominee, I am not prepared to include this provision in the Award.

It goes without saying that in the event circumstances change a new application may be lodged.

The third claim seeks:

"(a) A plumber, registered as such by the appropriate State Authority shall in addition to the above salary rate be paid a Registration Allowance at the rate of $14.20 per week."

The TCI did not oppose the insertion of the above provision in the Award.

The primary argument in support of the provision was the fact that the allowance is contained in the Hospital Employees (Public Hospitals) Award. Mr Holden relied heavily on the nexus between the two awards and the fact that prior to my decision of 1 October 1987 (inserting the classification Plumber in the Award) the State Plumbers Award would have been binding on the employers making it mandatory that the allowance be paid.

The Award will be varied by the insertion of the above provision with some variation to the wording. The last variation sought reads:

"(b) A Registered Plumber, other than a Foreman Plumber (classified as such); who is required to act as the employers' nominee and to assume responsibility in his own name for the plumbing work of a hospital or department of a hospital shall be paid whilst acting as such nominee an allowance of $36.30 per week."

The applicant also relied on the nexus argument when addressing this aspect of the application. However, a particular problem had arisen in recent months which would be resolved by an award variation in accordance with the above.

The problem involved a plumber currently employed by St Vincents Hospital, who for some time has been acting as the plumbing nominee. The employee has, since 10 September 1987, been paid an allowance in recognition of that requirement. In addressing this particular circumstance Mr Holden sought a date of operation of this provision of 10 September 1987. He also submitted that should the allowance currently being paid not equate to, or exceed the amount claimed, that he would not seek any adjustment for the period in the interim.

The TCI qualified its support for the provision by indicating that it believed the allowance should only apply when new construction work is required.

The Award will be varied by the inclusion of the above provision. As it is my understanding that work requiring a nominee is not restricted to "new construction work" I will not limit its application as requested.

The date of operation of this allowance so far as it effects St Vincents Hospital will be 10 September 1987. However, that date of operation is conditional on no claims being made for retrospective adjustments should the allowance already being paid not exceed $36.30 per week.

With the exceptions as detailed in this decision the date of operation of the order is the first pay period commencing on or after 21 December 1987.

Before concluding this decision I believe it appropriate to make some observations about this application. Whilst I have now agreed, with one exception and some qualification, to grant the claims I still have some reservations going to the merit.

If I had been considering these allowances for the first time, (i.e. they were not already in other significant awards) my decision may have been quite different.

However, now that the payment of any of the new allowances is conditional on the employer requiring the employee to work or act in situations which require the payment of the allowances my major concerns are satisfied. As the employer has the discretion, it is obviously his choice, where appropriate, to pay one of his employees an allowance or alternatively use a contractor as and when required.

The cost associated with the granting of the allowances now the subject of the order attached will be minimal. I believe the decision does not offend the public interest or the Wage Fixing Principles.

JG King
COMMISSIONER