IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

Although these matters were not joined for hearing purposes they all deal with the same subject matter and will therefore be the subject of one decision.

Each application seeks appropriate variations to the Hospitals Award to enable the implementation of the benefits of a 38-hour week for part-time and casual employees.

On 31 July 1987, I issued a decision granting similar applications affecting the same type of employees in public hospitals. The applications in that instance were opposed by the Government, whereas the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries, on behalf of all employers, consented to the necessary award variations in this case.

The bases of the agreement reached in relation to these applications are: satisfactory cost offsets and a continuation of the nexus with the public hospital awards. It naturally follows that the parties relied on the same cost offset arrangements in this matter as were put forward and endorsed in the public sector case.

Exhibits RANF 1, 2 and 3, in T.871 of 1987, confirms the above by detailing the work practice and other changes proposed and making a comparison of the estimated percentage value of the offsets agreed, with the public sector.

Agreement was also registered in relation to the date of operation of the commencement of the award variations and the implementation of the benefits to the employees, along with the work practice changes.

In light of the developments surrounding the hearing of these applications I announced my decision during the proceedings on 10 September 1987. That decision is that the Hospitals Award will be varied to provide the benefits of a 38-hour week to part-time and casual employees. Those benefits are to apply from the first pay period commencing on or after 10 September 1987.

As in the public sector decision, referred to above, I endorse the view that the real intention of a 38-hour working week is to provide more leisure time for employees, not increased rates of pay. Therefore, where it is possible and reasonable to reduce working hours on a proportionate basis, that should be done, particularly for employees working on five out of seven or twenty out of every twenty-eight days.

As requested by the parties (with the exception of the RANF which produced draft orders) I direct the parties into conference to prepare an agreed draft order varying the Hospitals Award to accord with this decision. On receipt of the draft order from the parties the award will be varied accordingly.

I believe it would be remiss of me if I did not make some comment going to the developments in relation to the hearing of these applications. Without going into detail I simply observe that those developments were unacceptable to the Commission and no doubt unnecessary. If the parties to the Hospitals Award are not prepared to confer, not only in relation to the merit of applications but also on how they will be processed, then in future I will simply adjourn proceedings and direct them into conference.

I am not suggesting that total co-operation or involvement of all parties is necessary every time an application is lodged, however, on a question as important as working hours it should be obvious to all that communication between all parties is necessary.

J.G. King
COMMISSIONER