|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
Industrial Relations Act 1984
|
|
|
|
T.608 of 1987
|
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TASMANIAN PRISON OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION TO VARY THE PRISON OFFICERS AWARD
RE: INSERTION OF A NEW CLASSIFICATION
|
| |
|
|
COMMISSIONER JG KING
|
HOBART, 8 January 1987
|
| |
|
|
PRELIMINARY DECISION
|
| |
|
APPEARANCES:
|
| |
|
For the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association
|
- Mrs S. Herbert with
Mr G Harris
|
| |
|
|
For the Tasmanian Public Service Association
|
- Mr G Vines
|
| |
|
|
For the Minister for Public Administration
|
- Mr F. D. Westwood
with Mr P. Patmore
|
| |
|
|
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:
|
| |
|
16 December 1986 Hobart
|
| |
|
Application T.608 of 1986 lodged by the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association (T.P.O.A.) seeks to vary the Prison Officers Award (the Award) in the following manner:
"Amend the following:
Clause 2 Scope Clause
7 Definitions
"By the insertion of 'or elsewhere within the Prison Service' after the words 'Kilderry Prison Farm' in both instances."
Amend Clause 8 Salaries
(1) Prison Officer
by the deletion of:
"Deputy Superintendent
1st year of service - 27034
2nd year of service and thereafter - 27662"
and the insertion of the following:
"Deputy Superintendent/Deputy Chief Superintendent
1st year of service and thereafter - 27662" "
Mr. Vines for the Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.P.S.A.), as a threshold matter, submitted that the Commission should refrain from hearing the matter by exercising its discretion given by section 21(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984.
He commenced his submission as follows:
"Mr. Vines:
Our submission, sir, is that under that section 21(2)(c) of the Act, the Commission should refrain from hearing this matter and that the application should be dismissed before hearing.
The application that has been presented, or has been made by the P.O.A. may appear on the surface to be nothing unusual by whats claimed in that application, but I submit that its not a genuine application; that it is not a genuine industrial matter in accordance with the definition of an 'industrial matter' in the Act and particularly the exclusion relating to Part (i) - that definition regarding 'appointments, or promotions, other than in respect of the qualifications required for advancement;' and that its not in the public interest that the matter should be heard."
(transcript page 1/2)
Mr. Vines then proceeded to outline the unfortunate background which he considered to be the motivation for the application. Mr. Westwood appearing for the Minister for Public Administration supported Mr. Vines' submissions.
It is not my intention to detail the background, only to make an observation: that if a major consideration in presenting the threshold argument was to keep, what is considered a scurrilous attack on a T.P.S.A. member, out of the public record, I suspect by the end of the preliminary proceedings there was very little of the story that was not public.
Whatever the motives of the T.P.O.A. in lodging this application, it seems to me it has every right to seek to include in an appropriate award a new title or classification. Nothing was put in the threshold argument which convinces me that the application should not be heard on the merit. The ultimate outcome in this matter will of course depend on the merit of the respective submissions put by all the parties.
I therefore dismiss the T.P.S.A. threshold argument and will relist the application at the request of the T.P.O.A.
JG King
COMMISSIONER
|
