Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T663

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.663 of 1987

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION TO VARY THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AWARD

   
 

RE: DISABILITY ALLOWANCE FOR EMPLOYEES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, MOONAH DEPOT

   
   

COMMISSIONER R. K. GOZZI

HOBART, 17 August 1987

   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   

APPEARANCES:

   

For the Tasmanian Public Service Association

- Mr G. Vines with
  Mr E. Free and
  Mr J. Geursen (4.5.87)

   

For the Minister for Public Administration

- Mr M. Jarman with
  Mr P. Roach and
  Mr P. Dwyer

   

DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

 

9 March 1987 Hobart
4 May 1987 Hobart
19 May 1987 Hobart
16 July 1987 Hobart

 

Over a number of years attempts have been made by the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) to secure an upgrading of office accommodation for employees located at the Department of Main Roads, Moonah Depot (the depot).

Whilst certain initiatives were taken by the employer since the lodgement of this application the TPSA nevertheless continued to pursue its claim for the payment of a disability allowance to employees working in specified areas at the depot.

I conducted on site inspections and subsequently, in accordance with section 21(2)(i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, I requested a report from the Secretary for Labour on the standard of office accommodation, having regard to the requirements of the Industrial Safety Health and Welfare Act 1977.

The depot was inspected by officers of the Department of Labour and Industry (DLI) and I received the Secretary's report on 12 June 1987.

At the continuation of the proceedings in this matter on 16 July 1987, I indicated to the parties that I had formed the view that an allowance should be paid in the areas identified as deficient in the report; and that the allowance should continue to be paid until the defects categorised are remedied to the satisfaction of the DLI.

It was on that basis that I requested the parties to enter into negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on the quantum of the allowance that should apply.

I indicated that any agreement reached, on quantum would, of course, necessitate Commission endorsement.

I also informed the parties on 16 July 1987 that the operative date for the allowance, whether determined by the Commission or by Commission endorsement of an agreed position of the parties, would be from that date.

On 13 August 1987, I received a copy of a document (reflected in the attached order) detailing the agreed position reached by the parties.

In endorsing that negotiated resolution of this matter I emphasise that the agreement reached by the parties does no violence to the Wage Fixing Principles.

The allowance of $7.50 a week is approximately 2 1/2% of the salary for the lowest classification affected by this decision and as such is well within the ceiling provided by Principle 1.

As the disability allowance awarded is an interim one and will cease to operate as contemplated in the order, I have decided that it shall be incorporated as an appendix to the General Conditions of Service Award.

The order is attached.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER