Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T664 and T684

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

 Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.664 and T.684 of 1987

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS BY THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND THE TASMANIAN PRISON OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TO VARY THE PRISON OFFICERS AWARD

RE:  SHIFT ALLOWANCE, OVERTIME AND WEEKEND PENALTIES

 

 

COMMISSIONER JG KING

HOBART, 23 march 1987

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

APPEARANCES:

 

For the Tasmanian Public Service Association

- Mr G Vines

 

 

For the Tasmanian Prison Officers Association of Tasmania

- Mrs S. Herbert with
  Mr G Harris and
  Mr H. Smith

 

 

For the Minister for Public Administration

- Mr C. Willingham with
  Mr T. Quilliam

 

 

DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

 

24 February 1987   Hobart

 

 

These applications by the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) and the Tasmanian Prison Officers' Association (TPOA) seek to vary the Prison Officers Award (the Award) by amending the factor for computing shift allowance, overtime and weekend penalties from forty to thirty-eight.

 In addressing the TPOA application Mrs. Herbert submitted that her organisation had lodged an application at the eleventh hour in an endeavour to protect its interest. However, having heard the TPSA submission she sought an adjournment of the TPOA application to allow discussions to take place with the Law Department. 

Mrs. Herbert further submitted that the forty-hour divisor had been deliberately left in the Award as a cost offset when the 38-hour week was introduced in early 1986. It was not the TPOA's intention to go back on an agreement that had been freely entered into at that time. It was however a matter which the TPOA had intended to monitor and if necessary at the appropriate time discuss with the Law Department. 

It is not my intention to canvass the merits of the submissions put by the TPSA, or the response going to the merit from the Minister for Public Administration. I believe this matter should be determined on the basis of whether it is appropriate or proper at this point in time, to vary the conditions of an agreement so recently entered into. 

I would be amongst the first to agree with Mr. Vines appearing for the TPSA, that he has every right to seek to vary an award at any time. However this particular award provision was varied by order No. 2 of 1986 in T.267 and T.301 of 1985 as part of the reduced working hours package. The forty-hour divisor which was left in the Award represented a substantial cost saving, thus becoming an integral part of the agreement of the parties at that time. 

I believe for me to now allow a substantial alteration to that agreement could put at risk any number of similar arrangements. I am not prepared so soon after the settlement of the agreement to alter its conditions as sought. 

I hasten to add that I am aware of at least one other variation to hours packages, that has occurred in the public sector. However, the variation followed negotiations between the parties and involved a quid pro quo. 

I therefore will not dismiss the TPSA application but refer the parties into conference. In doing so, I am conscious of the comments of Mr. Vines where he submitted that efforts to discuss the matter prior to these applications being heard were unsuccessful. However I would not expect similar problems following this decision. 

 

JG King
COMMISSIONER