IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

T.608 of 1986 has already been the subject of two decisions of the Commission. The first dated 8 January 1987 determining a threshold argument, the second issued on 9 February 1987 deciding in principle that the classification Deputy Chief Superintendent should be contained in the Prison Officers Award (the Award).

T.642 of 1987 was joined with T.608 of 1986 for hearing purposes in proceedings prior to the decision of 9 February 1987.

Having decided as above, all that remains for determination is an appropriate salary level.

It was submitted by the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) and endorsed by the Minister for Public Administration that the current salary scale afforded the occupant of the position is appropriate and should be included in the Award. It was further submitted that Principle 10 - First Awards and Extensions of Existing Awards, is the appropriate principle under which the variation could be processed.

The current rates paid to the Deputy Chief Superintendent position are those applicable to Class X Administrative and Clerical Employee of the Clerical Employees Award. They are:

It was further submitted that should the Commission not accept the submissions of the parties going to Principle 10, a secondary argument that the matter could be processed in accordance with Principle 4 - Work Value Changes, was sustainable. To that end the Minister for Public Administration called Mr. P. R. Patmore, Director, Management Service Division, Law Department to give expert evidence going to the substantial changes encompassed in the role of the Deputy Chief Superintendent.

I accept the submissions of the parties that the matter can be processed in accordance with Principle 10. The position Deputy Chief Superintendent is a new one created within the prison service. Its role encompasses a number of additional responsibilities not previously the domain of the Deputy Superintendent, who is presently, the highest classified prison officer within the Award.

I also accept the salary levels quoted above as appropriate for inclusion in the Award.

The Award will therefore be varied to include the classification Deputy Chief Superintendent with salary levels as prescribed above.

As nothing turns on it and to avoid any confusion the Award will be varied from 9 March 1987.

Consequential variations are left for the parties to discuss and hopefully furnish me with an agreed draft order varying the Award. This position was accepted by the parties during proceedings and it seems to me to be the best way of avoiding possible problems. Should no agreement be reached the matter will be relisted to allow further debate and a decision if necessary.

I was also asked by the TPSA to comment on whether or not the Deputy Chief Superintendent should retain conditions afforded by the Clerical Employees Award. I refrain from doing so at this point and refer that question back to the parties for further consideration. However I make the observation; if the appointment of a senior uniformed officer under the provisions of another award has the effect of applying a basic condition (such as hours of work) different to the conditions of uniformed officers generally, it further highlights why it should not have been done in the first instance. Order

JG King
COMMISSIONER