Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T764

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T. 764 of 1987 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA, TASMANIAN BRANCH TO VARY THE CARRIERS AWARD
   
  RE: MISCELLANEOUS VARIATIONS
   
COMMISSIONER R. J. WATLING 04 June, 1987
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Transport Workers' Union of
     Australia (Tasmanian Branch)
- Mr. J.T. Lynch
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation
     of Industries
- Mr. W.J. FitzGerald
   
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
19 May 1987            Hobart  
   
   

This application, made by the Transport Workers' Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) [T.W.U.], was for the purpose of varying the Carriers Award.

The matters contained in the application broadly fell into five categories:

(i) alteration to the format and presentation of the wage rates appearing in Clause 8;

(ii) clarification of cross referencing in certain clauses;

(iii) variation of specific allowances;

(iv) the inclusion in the award of a site and/or disability allowance;

(v) anew clause related to preference for unionists.

After private discussions between the Commission and the parties, the applicant sought and was granted leave to withdraw the claims falling within categories (iii), (iv) and (v) above.

Mr. Lynch, representing the T.W.U., indicated that a fresh application would be made at some future date to further consider the matters being withdrawn.

That being the case, I am left to determine the claims falling within (i) and (ii) of the previously mentioned categories.

1. Alteration to the format and presentation of the wage rates appearing in Clause 8.

This award contains a series of wage rates and classifications for employees falling within its scope. They are based on the tonnage of the vehicle the employee is required to drive; an example of which is as follows:

    "

    $

    9 tonnes and over, but under 10 tonnes

    .......

    10 tonnes and over, but under 11 tonnes

    .......

    11 tonnes and over, but under 12 tonnes

    .......

    12 tonnes and over, but under 13 tonnes

    .......

    .  
    .  
    .  
    32 tonnes and over, but under 33 tonnes

    .......

    33 tonnes and over, but under 34 tonnes

    .......

    34 tonnes and over, but under 35 tonnes

    .......

    etc."  

The application sought to delete reference to the number of the classifications and have them expressed in the manner exampled below.

    "

    $

    under 9 tonnes

    .......

    9 tonnes and over, but under 10 tonnes

    .......

    For each additional complete tonne over 9 tonnes an extra 'x' cents (as part of the weekly wage rate for all purposes) shall be payable."

The format and quantum were presented as an agreed matter by the parties and they requested the Commission to adopt the proposal thus bringing this award in line with the classifications appearing in the Transport Workers Award 1983, with which this award has a long standing nexus.

The parties also informed me that altering the award in the manner sought would not provide an avenue for employees to gain wage increases and emphasised, in some cases, there may, be a very slight reduction.

The reasons I support the proposition to vary Clause 8 of the award in line with the application are:

(i) the claim does not seek to increase the wage rates applying to the various classifications;

(ii) it rationalizes the number of classifications and provides a consistent formula for the purpose of calculating the rates to be paid to employees who drive vehicles of varying tonnages.

2. Clarification of cross referencing in certain clauses.

The parties highlighted several clauses in the award where the cross references to other clauses were either incorrect or not properly stated.

It was the submission of the parties that some of the errors had existed for a considerable period of time. They sought to rectify them by this application.

These variations are of an administrative nature and receive my support.

OPERATIVE DATE

As nothing hinges on the operative date of this decision and for ease of processing the order, it is my intention to vary the award from the first full pay period commencing on or after 10 March 1987.

This coincides with the decision of the Full Bench in the State Wage Case, which is also reflected in the attached order.

 

R.J. Watling
COMMISSIONER