IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

REASONS FOR DECISION

This consent matter concerns the proposed variation of the Security and Watching Services Award to introduce a 38-hour week.

The parties addressed the Commission at length, detailing cost offsets and consequential award variations that would be required to be made if the application was successful.

Mr O'Brien submitted Exhibit 01 which incorporated the agreed cost offsets into the appropriate award clauses as well as proposing suitable wording to tidy up and clarify some existing award provisions.

The thrust of Mr O'Brien's submissions were that the offsets proposed would result in some cost impact for some establishments whilst in others no cost would be incurred; even a positive gain may be achieved in some instances.

The most important cost offset was said, by Mr O'Brien, to be the ability by employers to roster employees off on various days of the week during a particular work cycle.

In effect that proposed variation would remove the present award obligation to work normal hours in five consecutive days, thus allowing for more flexible working arrangements to be introduced.

A further significant cost offset concerns the proposed variation to `call back' arrangements which, in specified circumstances, would not attract the three hourly minimum payment on every occasion.

Other initiatives proposed to be introduced as cost offsets, and which would contribute to the ability of employers to operate more efficiently, include the capacity to split a shift into 2 periods; a significantly earlier period of notification to the employer when an employee is unable to work because of sickness, and subsequently earlier notification when an employee is available to return to work.

A part-time employment provision has also been incorporated in the suggested variations to be made to the award; subject to an undertaking given by Mr Edwards that this would not prejudice full-time employment.

Mr Edwards supported the submissions made by Mr O'Brien, confirming that the variations sought to be made to the award are by consent.

Mr Edwards also made comprehensive submissions to the Commission, speaking principally to two exhibits, E1 and E2, tendered by him.

These exhibits, one relating to Wormald International Security (E1) and the other to Chubb Australia Ltd (E2), supported the contention of the parties that cost offsets would vary markedly between employer establishments.

I noted with interest that the cost offset regarded to be the most effective, that is, the deletion of the requirement to work 5 consecutive shifts, was not costed in the Wormald exhibit whereas its value was recognised as offsetting in part the total cost of introducing the 38-hour week in the figures submitted for Chubb.

On this point, both Mr Edwards and Mr O'Brien supported the contention that it was not possible to accurately assess the flexibility that employers would be able to capitalise on in the event that I endorsed the introduction of a shorter working week in this area.

Whilst I can appreciate that in some circumstances it may be difficult to measure flexibility, it would appear from the exhibits provided by Mr Edwards that the introduction of a 38-hour week into this award, may, on the information provided, result in some not insubstantial cost increases; and if what I have canvassed thus far were the only matters raised in support of the application, I would have great difficulty agreeing to it.

As it is, I am persuaded to endorse the consent variation because I have been assured that the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries represents the bulk of employers in this industry and   that -

(i) ample opportunity has been given to employers to participate in discussion;

(ii) all cost offsets requested by employers, with the exception of one, have been agreed to by the FMWU;

(iii) no other cost offsets are available and therefore as much as possible has been achieved;

(iv) there will be no adverse effect on employment; and

(v) the employers are `more than happy' with the package of proposed award variations.

I accept the assertion of the parties that in accordance with the Standard Hours Principle a genuine attempt has been made to minimise the cost impact of the shorter week.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Wage Fixing Principles are not violated and the granting of this application does not offend the public interest.

The negotiated variations may also allow for a review of work methods and practices in the industry on an establishment by establishment basis, which may result in further cost savings based on the more flexible award prescriptions negotiated.

The order giving effect to my decision, in the form of a consolidated award operative from 10 August 1987, is attached.

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER