IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

These applications seek variation to the Hospitals and Hospital Employees (Public Hospitals) Awards by the inclusion of the following subclause:

"Provided that apart-time employee shall work a minimum period of four hours on each occasion they are required to attend for work; however, where work practices are such that it is inappropriate to apply the conditions stipulated by this provision, such conditions may be varied by mutual agreement between the employees, the relevant employee organisation and the employer."

A similar provision is also sought for casual employees engaged in accordance with the above awards.

As no agreement was reached between the parties during an adjournment in proceedings relating to these claims, the applications were varied by deleting the proviso allowing for agreed departures from the basic minimum period of four hours work.

Mr Holden, in supporting the applications, advised the Commission that part-time and casual employees are currently paid actual time worked on each occasion they are required to attend for work. This situation has led to abuses by the employers where, in the extreme, an employee had been required to work for half of one hour and had received payment for that time only. He submitted that the sole purpose of the application was to include in the awards a current industrial standard; i.e. the payment of a minimum of four hours for each occasion an employee is required to work. The inclusion of such a provision in the awards would protect employees and ensure a reasonable recompense for their time and labour.

Mr Holden instanced situations where employees have substantial travelling time and costs associated with getting to and from

work; he submitted in such circumstances it was quite possible

I employees could be out of pocket if no minimum period of work or payment was prescribed. He also submitted, that it was possible to recruit employees to part-time and casual positions in the health system only because such appointments traditionally led to full-time work.

Mr Holden drew attention to the fact that full-time employees received a minimum of four(4) hours pay whenever they were recalled to work. It was his view that part-time and casual employees had a greater claim to a minimum hours provision than did employees engaged by the week. The granting of the applications, he submitted, would allow for uniformity of treatment on this important aspect, for all employees covered by the awards.

The date of operation of the new provision, it was submitted, should be 12 October 1987, the date the applications were first listed by the Commission.

Mr Holden's merit submissions were supported by Mr Grant and Mr Miller on behalf of their respective organisations.

The applications were strenuously opposed by the Minister for Public Employment, the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries.

It was submitted that the cost of the claim, if granted, would be substantial and this was the major consideration in opposing

the applications. On the basis of its cost the granting of the claim would be contrary to Principle 9 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles and also contrary to the public interest.

Mr Pearce referred the Commission to the Federal Commission's most recent National Wage Case decision(1) and in particular to a number of statements going to restrictive work practices. It was his submission, that the imposition of a four hour minimum payment to part-time and casual employees in the health system would, in fact mean the introduction of a significant restrictive work practice. This would be quite contrary to the clearly stated thrust of the Full Bench decision, which advocates the removal of factors which increase costs or reduce productivity.

There is no doubt in my mind that to grant the claim in full would be contrary to the Wage Fixing Principles and the public interest, as defined in the Industrial Relations Act 1984. However, there is also no doubt that most, if not all, Federal and State awards provide protection to employees where they are recalled to work, or are required to work for less than fulltime hours in any day.

Full-time employees covered by the subject awards are paid a minimum of four hours when recalled to work. In that context I am sympathetic to Mr Holden's submission that part-time and casual employees are more in need of protection than those engaged full-time. There is also some attraction to his submission going to uniformity of treatment for all employees.

However, I readily accept that in some areas of employment, e.g. catering, it would be quite wrong to impose a minimum payment or work period of four hours when employees are only required on a daily basis for two(2) hours. There may be other situations where an employee is engaged to do a regular function involving even less hours.

On the basis that I accept that some protection is necessary for employees, I am prepared to include a minimum work or payment provision of two(2) hours. As there were very limited submissions put to me on actual work situations and no evidence, I am also going to include the proviso allowing for variation to that minimum period.

It is my belief, from the information before me, that the cost of the above will be minimal. In that context I do not believe this decision to be contrary to the Wage Fixing Principles or the public interest.

I also indicate that had it not been for the cost implications associated with these applications I would have given serious consideration to a longer minimum period than that determined.

Orders reflecting this decision are attached.

J.G. King
COMMISSIONER