T726
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation (Tasmanian Branch) [A.B.C.E. & B.L.F.), the applicants in this matter, sought to vary the Building Trades Award by -
"Where, because of wet weather, the employees are prevented from working: (i) for more than an accumulated total of four (4) hours of ordinary time in any one day; or (ii) after the meal break, as provided in Clause 6 - Hours of this award, for more than an accumulated total of 50% of the normal afternoon work time; or (iii) during the final two (2) hours of the normal work day for more than an accumulated total of one hour, the employer shall not be entitled to require the employees to remain on site beyond the expiration of any of the above circumstances. Provided that where, by agreement between the employer and/or his representative and the employees' representative the men remain on site beyond the periods specified above, any such additional wet time shall be paid for but shall not be debited against the employees' hours. Provided further that wet weather time occurring during overtime shall not be taken into account for the purpose of this subclause." I was informed by the parties that this was a consent matter and the application fell within Principle 11 of the Wage Fixation Principles. Mr. J. Bacon, representing the A.B.C.E. & B.L.F., stated that the National Building Trades Construction Award 1975 contained the same provision as that being claimed for inclusion in this award. He said there could be up to a dozen different employers employing members of the same union on any one site, and it was imperative that there be uniformity of conditions of employment when it came to inclement weather. It was the unions' submission that the majority of tradesmen on building sites in Tasmania were covered by the National Building Trades Construction Award and that it would only be builders' labourers' who could be technically required to remain on site as they were covered by the State Award. However, he recognised in practice this did not happen. All parties agreed that there was no significant cost increase, and that the provisions of the proposed subclause had been in practice in the building industry for the last five years. It was also put to me that there was no likelihood of flow-ons because of the unique nature of the building industry and the inclement weather provision which operated in that industry. Mr. Smith, representing the Master Buiilders' Association of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, stated that it had been custom and practice for employers to allow builders' labourers' to leave the site in circumstances where other employees being members of tradesmen's unions and who were employed under the Federal award were able to leave the site under the inclement weather provision clause of that award. He said there were circumstances when it was clearly appropriate for employees to leave the site and there was no differential treatment given to members of the A.B.C.E. & B.L.F. I am prepared to grant the claim in the form agreed to by the parties. I also support the submissions of the parties that employees on any given building site should be treated even handedly when it comes to the question of inclement weather. In granting the claim it means that the superfluous phrase in Part II, Section I, Clause 14, will also be removed. I am satisfied the claim falls within the Wage Fixation Principles and it does not offend the public interest. The attached order giving effect to this decision will be operative from 22 April 1987.
R. J. WATLING |