The Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.P.S.A.) made application on 10 March 1987 to vary the Librarians Award in the following terms:

"To provide for a new classification and salary structure and consequential amendments."

The matter was brought on for hearing on 24 March 1987. At that time Mr. Vines, representing the T.P.S.A., was asked to show cause why the application should not be adjourned until such time as the application to establish a Professional Officers Award (which is currently before a Full Bench of this Commission) had been finalized; especially given that the T.P.S.A. was seeking to have librarians covered under the proposed new award.

Mr. Vines responded in some detail and his arguments can be summarised as follows:

(i) the Professional Officers Award was a major case and it would take some time to resolve as it involved extensive negotiations between the T.P.S.A., other unions and the Government.

(ii) the current application could not wait until the Professional Officers Award was fully resolved as he understood it would take approximately 18 months to finalize;

(iii) the claim relating to this application had been the subject of discussions between the parties for some four months;

(iv) the negotiations on the application had been conciliatory and the parties were at the stage of formulating very comprehensive classification standards.

Mr. Vines concluded his submissions by requesting an adjournment for a period of 3 to 4 weeks to enable him to finalize his substantive submissions and to arrange inspections.

Before adjourning, I asked Mr. Stevens, representing the Minister for Public Administration, whether he had any submission to make on the preliminary question that was put to the T.P.S.A.

He advised the Commission that he had no instructions on the matter.

I indicated to Mr. Stevens that when the hearing resumed I would like to hear some response from him on the preliminary matter.

The hearing then adjourned until 11 May 1987.

Upon resumption, Mr. C. Willingham, representing the Minister for Public Administration, stated that he had not position on the preliminary question raised by the Commission.

Having afforded the parties an opportunity to present submissions on this preliminary matter, I advised them of my intention to hear the application and not adjourn it until the application for a Professional Officers Award had been finalized.

At this point Mr. Vines presented a submission asking the Commission to determine this application under the previous Wage Fixation Principles as it was his view the matter was substantially part heard.

Mr. Willingham opposed this view.

In deciding to reject the submission of the T.P.S.A. in relation to this point, it is pertinent to note that -

(a) the application was made on 10 March 1987;

(b) the first hearing date was 24 March 1987, at which time only preliminary matters were discussed and an adjournment was sought by the T.P.S.A.

(c) the State Wage Case decision was handed down on 24 April 1987;

(d) the T.P.S.A. gave a commitment to abide by the new Wage Fixation Principles on 7 May 1987:

(e) upon resumption of this hearing on 11 May 1987, preliminary matters were still being discussed.

To date no submissions have been made by either party on the merit of the application, nor have any inspections been carried out, as foreshadowed by the applicant.

For these reasons I reject the submission that the application is substantially part heard. This application will be dealt with under the new wage fixation principles adopted by the Commission on 24 April 1987.

Having decided that matter, it was Mr. Vines' further submission that even though the application sought increases of more than 4%, and in some cases 14%, it could be dealt with under Principle 4 of the Wage Fixation Principles without having to go via an anomalies conference.

He said that there was nothing in the Principles or the decision or the preamble to the Principles that imposed a ceiling on work value increases.

Mr. Willingham opposed this submission expressing the view that any claim for than 4% should, as an initial step, be processed through the anomalies conference.

I reject the submission of the T.P.S.A. on this matter for the following reasons:

(i) a Full Bench of this Commission handed down its decision in the State Wage Case on 24 April 1987, and rejected applications T.665, T.692 and T.675 of 1987 made by the Tasmanian Public Service Association, the Tasmanian Teachers' Federation and the Association of Professional Engineers, Australia (Tasmanian Branch) respectively, and it had upheld application T.712 of 1987 made by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council (T.T.L.C.) in which Mr. Lennon, representing the T.T.L.C., sought a direct flow-on of the National Wage decision, together with the revised Principles.

The thrust of the T.T.L.C.'s application was not opposed by the Government and the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries.

(ii) the new two tier system adopted by the Commission for adjusting wages and salaries -

(a) grants, in the first tier, an increase of $10 per week operative from the first full pay period commencing on or after 10 March 1987, and consideration of a further increase not exceeding 1.5% in October 1987; and

(b) a second tier, not exceeding a 4% increase in wages and salaries.

(iii) as the Librarians Award will receive the first part of the first tier increase, the only avenue open to the T.P.S.A. to pursue further increases is under the second tier which states inter alia: -

"No improvements in pay or conditions under the second tier principle will result in an increase in costs exceeding 4% of wages and salaries."

Therefore, it is not open to me to grant more than a 4% increase arising out of this application which, as I understand, seeks increases of approximately 2% to 14%.

Having made my position clear on this matter I do recognise that there may be limited and exceptional circumstances that might arise whereby the extent of work value changes for particular classifications or groups might be in excess of the second tier ceiling.

Therefore, I am prepared to consider applications for wage and salary increases in excess of 4% only after an anomalies conference has determined that the application is of an exceptional nature and there is an "arguable case" that may warrant the awarding of an amount in excess of that prescribed in the second tier of Principle 1, and I decide accordingly.

R.J. WATLING
COMMISSIONER.