Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T736

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.736 of 1987 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA, TASMANIA NO 2 BRANCH TO VARY THE HOSPITALS AWARD
   
  RE: INSERTION OF A NEW DIVISION
   
COMMISSIONER J.G. KING HOBART, 20 August 1987
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Hospital Employees
Federation of Australia,
Tasmania No. 2 Branch
- Mr D. Holden
   
For the Royal Australian Nursing
Federation, Tasmanian Branch
- Mr D. Heapy
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation
of Industries
- Mr W Fitzgerald
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
14 May 1987 Launceston  

This matter deals with an application by the Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmania No. 2 Branch (HEF No. 2) to vary the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award and the Hospitals Award. The statement of particulars in the application reads:

    "The applicant seeks to delete all reference in the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award to Division B - Employees of Homes for Handicapped Persons.

    The applicant seeks to insert in the Hospitals Award a new section to be known as Section V - Employees of Homes for Handicapped Persons. The particulars of the proposed section are contained in Attachment 'A' hereto."

As can be seen from the above the application seeks to transfer from the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award all provisions relating to employees of homes for handicapped persons to the Hospitals Award. There is no objection to the general thrust of the application.

Similar applications1 were the subject of proceedings before Commissioner Gozzi during 1986. The Commissioner, in a Report on Proceedings in those matters dated 27 November 1987, said:

    "The difficulty that arises, therefore, is that the transfer of award coverage for certain classifications from one award to another, where disparate conditions of employment apply, cannot be accommodated unless the Commission is satisfied that the variations conform with the requirements of the Wage Fixing Principles."

    (Page 2)

and

    "In the final analysis the parties came to the conclusion that the preferable course would be to seek leave to withdraw these particular applications and again come before the Commission with fresh applications following further discussion between the parties.

    I concur with that course of action and, accordingly, leave to withdraw the applications was granted."

    (Page 3)

In the light of the above I am now in a position of being able to deal with this application without encumbrance.

In any case, as I understand the situation, there is a distinct difference between the approach adopted by the parties before Commissioner Gozzi and the one adopted now in these proceedings. While the earlier applications sought to have existing Hospital Award provisions apply to the transferred employees, this application, with some exceptions, seeks to bring over existing rates and conditions.

I accept the submission of the parties that employees of homes for handicapped persons would be more appropriately covered by the Hospitals Award. I also accept that there is no offence to the Wage Fixing Principles or the public interest if existing wage rates and conditions are those that are included in the Hospitals Award.

Having said that, it leaves two areas of the application for further consideration. The first is where the application seeks (through the amalgamation of two subdivisions) uniform conditions for two previously distinct groups of employees. This has necessitated minor variations to conditions for both groups.

I was advised by the parties that such changes would have little or no cost implication. It was also submitted that uniform conditions would create administrative benefits for the employer.

In light of the above and the fact that the conditions do not digress from industry standards, I am prepared to vary the award in this respect, as agreed by the parties.

The second area involves the inclusion in the application of new provisions which are the subject of a separate application, to vary the Hospitals Award2. A decision is reserved on similar applications to vary the Hospital Employees (Public Hospitals) Award.

I accept the agreement of the parties on this aspect that, whatever is decided by the Commission in T.721 of 1987, will also apply to employees the subject of this application.

It was requested by the parties that should the Commission accept the agreement in principle a draft order should be circulated for confirmation of the detail. Any subsequent changes arising from a decision in T.721 of 1987 could then be included in the draft before finalisation.

I accept that request and accordingly a draft order is attached for the attention of the parties.

The date of operation of the variations to the award will be from the finalisation of the draft order.

 

J.G. King
COMMISSIONER

1 T.422 and T.423 of 1986
2 T.721 of 1987