IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

My interim decision in this matter, dated 3 August 1987, details the background to these particular applications.

For the purpose of continuity all that is required to be stated at this juncture is that the question of introducing shorter working hours into the Meat Trades Award and the Abattoirs Award has been before the Commission since December 1986.

Since that time numerous hearings and conferences have been held.

Abattoirs Award

In the light of the recent acquisition by R.J. Gilbertsons Australia Pty Ltd/Itoman Australia Pty Ltd of the abattoirs under the control of Richardson's Meat Industries Limited, the parties have agreed to suspend discussions for the introduction of a 38-hour week in this award.

This will assist the new owners of the abattoirs concerned to focus their attention on the consolidation of their operations in this State.

In the circumstances I have decided to adjourn application T.619 of 1986 sine die.

Meat Trades Award

Proceedings in relation to this award have, to say the least, been protracted. This has ensured, however, that all those who will be affected by this decision have had ample opportunity to have their views made known to the Commission.

In my interim decision I indicated that the introduction of reduced working hours in this award was being canvassed under three principal headings, viz., 1. smallgoods; 2. retail; 3. wholesale.

Employees working in smallgoods operations have already secured a 38-hour week operative from 3 August 1987, in accordance with my interim decision.

As it turned out the retail and wholesale sectors could not be realistically considered separately as was originally intended, and were therefore grouped together under the heading of 'retailing'. Both sectors have been subjected to combined scrutiny by the parties and the Commission with regard to identifying cost offsets acceptable to the Commission.

Retailing Sector

On examining this sector of the Meat Trades Award (the award) Mr Edwards and Mr Swallow submitted numerous detailed exhibits.

Each party claimed to have valued their cost offsets in an appropriate manner. Notwithstanding, the exhibits produced by the parties revealed significant differences in the savings attributed by them to each of the offsets.

The cost offsets in question are:

In addition, the 40 hour divisor for penalty rates, casuals and part-timers is to be retained for 12 months.

Mr Swallow submitted that the laundering of clothing cost offset alone produces cost savings to the employer in excess of the cost for introducing and working a 38-hour week.

To illustrate that position, Mr Swallow tendered Exhibit S4, a copy of a notice sent to members of the AMIEU, indicating the annual cost of laundering of protective clothing, which on production of receipts can be claimed as a tax deduction.

Based on the figures contained in that exhibit, and using the award pay rate for a general butcher, Mr Swallow's calculations are as follows:

The laundry costs for each employee, as extrapolated in Exhibit S4, amount to $21.00 per week.

Having regard to the Interpretation of the President in T.809 of 1987, going to the provision of clothing in retail butcher shops, Mr Swallow submitted that as employers are currently required to meet the cost of laundering clothing as specified in that interpretation, the value of the cost offset to employers, on the foregoing calculations, is $9.18 surplus to that required to pay for a weekly two hour reduction in working hours (i.e. $21.00 - $11.82 = $9.18 surplus).

The value of this particular cost offset was vigorously refuted by Mr Edwards on several counts including:

Whilst the disparity in the value of the remaining cost offsets previously referred to are not as great as for laundering costs, the differences were nevertheless unable to be satisfactorily reconciled by the Commission.

In the case of Mr Swallow's calculations all offsets were costed against a base derived from the award wage rate for a general butcher.

On the other hand Mr Edwards attempted to value the cost offsets in terms of their practical effect in the work place and the impact they would have, in percentage terms, on the annual cost of wages for individual supermarkets and retail butcher shops.

At this point it is necessary to indicate that when referring to supermarkets I do so in the context of the exhibits produced by Mr Edwards and which relate to Purity and Coles; Exhibits E2 and E3 respectively. I found these exhibits to be extremely beneficial.

Also, in reaching my conclusions in this matter I have noted the comments of Mr Edwards that the Meat Division of Roelf Vos Stores, Wrapped Meats, falls somewhere in between Coles and Purity in terms of assessing cost offsets against the cost of working a 38-hour week.

In this particular hours matter the parties have provided the Commission with extensive material to enable it to reach a decision.

I am of the opinion that the cost analysis undertaken has been one of the most comprehensive of any 38-hour week matter in which I have been involved.

Minute scrutiny has been brought to bear on the various segments of the industry covered by the award.

That is, whilst the award has equal application to the wholesale, retail and smallgoods areas, each sector has been separately analysed to ensure that costs are minimised.

As a consequence of segmenting the award in this way, it has become clear that before a 38-hour week can be endorsed for the remainder of the award (smallgoods is already in operation) the question of offsets in the butcher shop area, as opposed to the supermarket area of the retail sector, needs further clarification and extrapolation.

That is to say, on the information and submissions made I am satisfied that as far as possible costs associated with the working of a 38-hour week for 'supermarkets', the definition of which is to be finalised in award drafting conferences involving the Commission, have been minimised.

To that extent I can indicate, subject to the achievement of a suitable definition for supermarkets so as to differentiate them from 'local' butcher shops, that a 38-hour week can commence in those outlets.

To enable appropriate discussions on method of implementation to take place between the parties, I have decided that the operative date for the award variation now foreshadowed will be the first pay period commencing on or after 21 September 1987.

This will also allow sufficient time for the parties to prepare draft orders for the supermarkets' segment of the industry as well as for smallgoods.

The introduction of a 38-hour week into the supermarkets section of the industry, is in the strictest compliance with Principle 8 - Standard Hours of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles.

I consider, also, that for employees working in this part of the industry, the granting of the 38-hour week does not impinge adversely on the public interest criteria contained in Section 36 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984.

In my deliberations going to Section 36, I am cognizant that the offsets agreed contain an inherent capacity to produce very flexible working arrangements which have not been taken quantifiable accord of in the exhibits produced on behalf of employers.

In that regard I share the view of Mr Swallow when he submitted these offsets will, over time, and in the light of practical experience, produce higher savings than those currently attributed in the exhibits.

Retail Butcher Shops

In not extending a 38-hour week to employees in this section of the meat industry I was strongly influenced by the submissions and exhibits put forward by Mr Edwards.

Exhibits E4 to E8, supported by compelling submissions, demonstrate that the nature of the offsets, which have real meaning and effect in the supermarket area, would have far lesser impact on retail butcher shops.

One of the principal reasons for this is the inherent inflexibility of operation of retail butcher shops which, because of their generally small size in terms of employee numbers, would not be able to be rearranged in such a way as to gain any meaningful benefits from the offsets relied upon in this case.

Exhibit E5, reproduced hereunder, illustrates that out of 227 retail butcher shops, 207 have 3 employees or less.

EXHIBIT E5

Whilst the exhibit relates to those retail butcher shops which are members of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation, I was advised by Mr Flynn, the Tasmanian Executive Director of that organisation, that the exhibit represents an estimated 857 to 90% of all retail butcher shops in Tasmania.

On that basis I have taken the exhibit as being truly representative of the industry.

When the detail of that exhibit is extrapolated into practical examples of working arrangements in various retail butcher shops, as per Exhibits E4, E7 and E8, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the introduction of a '38-hour week' in this area would most likely result in the other two hours being paid for at overtime rates, with no shorter working hours for the employees concerned.

I therefore refrain from deciding in favour of introducing a 38hour week into this part of the industry.

It will of course be open to the parties to make application at any future time to further pursue this particular matter.

Smallgoods Sector - Addendum

In relation to the smallgoods sector, 'Attachment A' to my interim decision omitted reference to two agreed cost offsets, namely flexible daily working hours up to a maximum of ten hours before overtime is payable and extension to the spread of normal working hours.

These two additional cost offsets are identical to those for the retailing sector set out on page 3 of this decision as items (c) and (d) and will need to be included for both the smallgoods and supermarket areas when draft orders are drawn.

RK Gozzi
COMMISSIONER